InstaPundit today links back to something he wrote that I missed before, on 'the Flounder principle.' It's a remarkably useful concept where politicians are concerned.
This is a good time of year to think about it, too. Right now is the time when politicians are making deals and endorsements, and then getting out and promising us stuff -- either campaign promises of their own, or promises about the other politicians they're endorsing.
As always, the question to ask yourself is, "Why should I believe a word of this?" If there's not some very good reason why, it's probably not going to happen after election day.
Just remember: when you find yourself on the same side as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, it's probably time to check your six and your compass.
I mean, it's going to happen once in a while, because like all politicians they adopt any position that is useful to him for a moment. Just recognize it as a warning sign, and take a second to be sure you're really where you want to be -- and check whether anyone is slipping something up on you.
Not that endorsements are a great way to make up your mind about a candidate anyway. Otherwise, we'd all be voting Huckabee.
After all, Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink. Once, Chuck Norris visited the Virgin Islands: now, they're just "the Islands."
At least, so I've heard.
Flounder
The Flounder Principle:
Nathan Zachary
Crimson Skies:
Popular Science has been running a series on zeppelins of the future. Sky pirates can only be around the corner.
Horses / BP
Horses on the Border:
An article tracks the mounted Border Patrol. Photo 2 in the slideshow is beautiful.
Down with the General!
Down with the General!
I haven't been drinking out of any plastic bottles (except the water bottles we get distributed here); and in fact, it's gone so far that I've developed something akin to a taste for this, in spite of its 0.5 overall rating. Still the best beer on VBC.
Order #1, that is. Best of the Web reports:
Our item yesterday on a homeless-vets story brought numerous responses along the lines of this one, from a reader who asks not to be identified:Hear, hear.I love the column, and I agree about the tiresome "homeless vet" stereotype. I must disagree, however, with your conclusion that the soldier who received vodka disguised as Scope must have had other problems to begin with.OK, we're convinced.
A college friend of mine is an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. His latest tour in Iraq was a staff position, meaning long days in a command office. When a group of us got together to send him care packages, he enjoyed the movies and candy bars, and loved the cigars. But he particularly appreciated the Maker's Mark and the port we sent. He and some fellow Marine officers spent last New Year's Eve smoking a cigar and sipping a cocktail from the roof of their building as Marine 155's fired artillery over their heads at insurgent positions in Fallujah. It must have been some spectacle, and I am happy for the small role we played in giving them a moment to relax.
The reason it worked out is that we disguised the spirits, much as Mike Lally's mother did. In order not to "offend our Arab hosts," alcoholic beverages are not allowed. As we were transferring the spirits into plastic bottles (port looks a lot like Ocean Spray Cranberry, while whiskey looks passably like Cran-Apple), my wife and I felt a bit silly, but we agreed that is was preposterous that a 37-year-old officer, a helicopter pilot entrusted with great responsibility, a husband and father of three with a B.S. and an M.B.A., fighting for freedom in a foreign country, couldn't have a glass of wine or whiskey while away from his wife and kids for Christmas and New Year's. No, he doesn't have a drinking problem, but as a grown man he certainly is entitled to a drink on New Year's Eve, and it was worth our feeling "silly" to give him that chance.
So, although the AP story deserves your criticism, please don't assume that Mr. Lally or his mother do as well, nor the thousands of others who just want to sit back off-duty after a long day and have a drink while they unwind. The notion that they are drunks is as invidious a cliché as that which the AP repeats. Spare the criticism for the policy that makes grown, responsible people employ such adolescent tactics just to give a man a chance to a pleasure that we at home enjoy and take for granted.
I haven't been drinking out of any plastic bottles (except the water bottles we get distributed here); and in fact, it's gone so far that I've developed something akin to a taste for this, in spite of its 0.5 overall rating. Still the best beer on VBC.
Hitch on Paine
Hitchens on Thomas Paine:
An interesting review of what is probably an interesting book.
Journos II
Since Janne Liked It So Well:
The NYT has decided to make a series out of their blunders; and therefore so has Iowahawk.
Click through the Iowahawk link for a few more, just as good.
"If they get out of line, just slag 'em."
That's the message I got from this article in the Guardian this morning:
However, I don't think the US or any of the other nuke-capable NATO members are going to be the first to light off a nuke on somebody's ass. Someone else is going to have to cross that particular line.
That's the message I got from this article in the Guardian this morning:
"The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists."Now, I actually worked with one of the guys that authored this thing: Gen. Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after Powell. My impression of him was that he was a pretty conventional general officer, not given to hyperbole, or overstatement. That he put his name to this impresses me some.
However, I don't think the US or any of the other nuke-capable NATO members are going to be the first to light off a nuke on somebody's ass. Someone else is going to have to cross that particular line.
Wham
Democrats Beat Each Other With Sticks:
Actually, I'm learning quite a bit from the fistfight. The reporter says:
It's not like you have to do a lot of research here -- Rose Law Firm? Billing Records? Cattle Futures? What's so bad about Wal-Mart?
Cage match primaries are always fun:
Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."It's also not a good sign for John Edwards that when he asks, "Are there three people in this debate, not two?", everyone thinks of Bill Clinton.
Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."
Actually, I'm learning quite a bit from the fistfight. The reporter says:
A blind trust held by Clinton and her husband, the former president, included stock holdings in Wal-Mart. They liquidated the contents of the blind trust in 2007 because of investments that could pose conflicts of interest or prove embarrassing as she ran for president.Are these really equivalent charges? Obama used his law degree to further the interest of a slumlord charged with extortion and money laundering... but Clinton used to own Wal-Mart stock? What?
Chicago real estate developer and fast food magnate Antoin "Tony" Rezko was a longtime fundraiser for Obama. Prosecutors have charged him with fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering in what they allege was a scheme to get campaign money and payoffs from firms seeking to do business before two state boards.
It's not like you have to do a lot of research here -- Rose Law Firm? Billing Records? Cattle Futures? What's so bad about Wal-Mart?
Embracing the Suck.
I've now followed a number of soldiers' blogs as they write about their experiences 'over there'.
The most recent I've started follow is LT G.
Read his words at "Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal".
The LT has a way with words. And, unlike most, he's introduced his fellow soldiers.
(via Acute Politics)
I've now followed a number of soldiers' blogs as they write about their experiences 'over there'.
The most recent I've started follow is LT G.
Read his words at "Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal".
The LT has a way with words. And, unlike most, he's introduced his fellow soldiers.
(via Acute Politics)
Evil Black Gun meets Hello Kitty.
Ain't that the cutest lil' thing? I truly think the magazine is just the right touch.
(via American Digest)
Ain't that the cutest lil' thing? I truly think the magazine is just the right touch.
(via American Digest)
Bowie @ Alamo
Jim Bowie at the Alamo:"He left a corsair’s name to other times,
Linked with one virtue, and a thousand crimes."
We celebrate the virtue, and forgive the crimes; may others remember us as kindly, in spite of ourselves.
UPDATE: On a related note, a question from a Fred Thompson rally:
We can certainly understand that. :)
This day 1836, Jim Bowie arrived at the Alamo with thirty volunteers. I've occasionally thought of the Alamo over here, on those occasions we've had mortars or rockets. Of course we are not surrounded by an enemy army, nor in danger of being wiped out; the experience here is suggestive, more than similar. You do see "the rocket's red glare; the bombs bursting in air," quite literally in both cases, even though the insurgent's rocket of 2008 is probably somewhat less accurate than the British rocket of 1812.
That said, it does provide me the chance to reflect on the bravery of better men who have gone before. The Alamo is regularly celebrated here at Grim's Hall, and the model of gentlemen that defended her. Americans have long celebrated Crockett and Bowie -- see this collection of 'Bowie style' knives, made from the 1830s through the 1970s; others are still made today.
Bowie was a friend to the pirate Jean Lafitte, as was Andrew Jackson. As Byron wrote of Lafitte:
Linked with one virtue, and a thousand crimes."
We celebrate the virtue, and forgive the crimes; may others remember us as kindly, in spite of ourselves.
UPDATE: On a related note, a question from a Fred Thompson rally:
Man: Fred, I drove over 500 miles to see you.The reporter finishes the report by sighing, "I hate being a Yankee."
Thompson: Bless your heart. Let's give this man a hand. (Applause, cheers)
Man: I came over Finch Mountain in a snowstorm. (Pause) May I call you Fred?
Thompson: Absolutely.
Man: That's okay until January and I can call you Mr. President. (Laughter, more applause). Now, I've got a question.
Thompson: Yes sir.
Man: (Pause) I'm looking for a tall man who will stand tall for America. (Pause.) Who will cut the ears off of earmarks! (Pause.) Stop dead illegal immigration! (Pause.) And pull the teeth of activist judges...
Thompson: Yep.
Man: ... who take your house to build 7-Eleven! (Pause, then louder) And I want to know if you've got a Jim Bowie knife and a good strong pair (pause) of Channellock pliers! (Laughter, even more applause, calls of "That's right!" and "Hear, hear!")
We can certainly understand that. :)
No Business in the White House, But:
Huckabee's not someone I'd endorse. On the other hand:
"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," Huckabee said at a Myrtle Beach campaign event. "In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole."That was a great line.
Good reading
Readings for Today:
Separately, Cassandra falls in love with a guy who learned from his daughter.
Anyway, I note the story to ask: if American Dad has to learn that he has to participate in a society that treats girls as ladies, in order to protect his daughters... what does American Mom have to learn about her sons?
I have my own ideas about that, and I expect most readers can guess what they are. But I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Iowahawk notes the media menace:
A Denver newspaper columnist is arrested for stalking a story subject. In Cincinnati, a television reporter is arrested on charges of child molestation. A North Carolina newspaper reporter is arrested for harassing a local woman. A drunken Chicago Sun-Times columnist and editorial board member is arrested for wife beating. A Baltimore newspaper editor is arrested for threatening neighbors with a shotgun. In Florida, one TV reporter is arrested for DUI, while another is charged with carrying a gun into a high school. A Philadelphia news anchorwoman goes on a violent drunken rampage, assaulting a police officer. In England, a newspaper columnist is arrested for killing her elderly aunt.With statistics like these, I think we know the answer.
Unrelated incidents, or mounting evidence of that America's newsrooms have become a breeding ground for murderous, drunk, gun-wielding child molesters?
Separately, Cassandra falls in love with a guy who learned from his daughter.
What I’ve come to realize is that there are really two people inside me: the Dude Self and the Dad Self. The Dude Self has an evolutionary mandate. Namely, to get his DNA into all available fertile females. This is how I explain the compulsion toward media sluts, who, after all, sow the fantasy that women exist only for the carnal pleasure of men.I'm not quite sure why those concepts are supposed to be opposed -- I'd always thought the idea was to manage both at the same time.
But then there’s the Dad Self. The Dad Self has to worry about the survival of his wife and offspring. It might be said that his genetic material is heavily mortgaged. He regards women differently, especially if he has a daughter. Now he must think about the kind of world in which he’d like her to grow up, and especially how he’d like other males to treat her, which is to say not as a sexual chew toy, but with kindness and respect.
Anyway, I note the story to ask: if American Dad has to learn that he has to participate in a society that treats girls as ladies, in order to protect his daughters... what does American Mom have to learn about her sons?
I have my own ideas about that, and I expect most readers can guess what they are. But I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Baiting
Danton Loves Her, Too:
Hillary, that is.
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Sunday that Barack Obama's campaign had injected racial tension into the presidential contest....L'audace!
"This is an unfortunate story line the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully," the former first lady said in a spirited appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press.""I don't think this campaign is about gender, and I sure hope it's not about race."
Iraqi Heroes
Iraqi Heroes:
Michael Totten writes:
Iraqi Army soldiers have a terrible reputation for cowardice and corruption – especially in Baghdad – but it’s unfair to write them all off after reading the news out of Iraq’s capital Sunday. Three Iraqi Army soldiers tackled a suicide bomber at an Army Day parade and were killed when he exploded his vest....
These Iraqis deserve recognition, and they deserved to be recognized by their names. Yet I could not find their names cited in any media articles. All three of their names generate zero hits using Google at the time of this writing. I had to contact Baghdad myself to find out who they were. Lieutenant Colonel James Hutton was kind enough to pass their names on....
Here are the names of the three brave Iraqis who hurled themselves on an exploding suicide bomber.
Malik Abdul Ghanem
Asa’ad Hussein Ali
Abdul-Hamza Abdul-Hassan Rissan
They were friends the Americans and Iraqis did not know we had until they were gone.
Boredom
The New Fight:
Things can carry on like this just as long as they want.
The Marines are bored:
After preparing to confront one of the most deadly insurgencies America has ever faced, and steeped in the legend of Marine aggressiveness in the counterterrorist fight, the leathernecks of Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines are fighting a pitched battle against boredom.It's not so boring here -- we have some pretty aggressive operations ongoing. Yet it's also true that we haven't lost anybody lately. The combination of improved tactics and Iraqi cooperation with the COIN has vastly limited casualties versus last year.
With violence across the province dropping precipitously over most of the past year, Marines who were girding for a brawl on this latest rotation have had to dial back their warrior ways for a softer approach.
Though their thoughts are tinged with disappointment, many are nevertheless practical about the new reality.
"There's not much going on this time around," said Cpl. Ken Dickerson, 1st squad leader with Lima Company, 3/3's 3rd Platoon. "But at least we're not losing anybody."
Things can carry on like this just as long as they want.
Moral Instincts
Moral Instincts:
The Zero-Sum Game system for judging morality is a basis I hadn't considered. It suffers from one obvious limitation: by its nature, it limits moral judgments to utilitarian grounds. You can use these games to measure whether our sense of ethics is in accord with practical benefits: more food, say.
A key question of ethics, however, is establishing what the good is. Aristotle asserts, I believe correctly, that the rational part of the soul is not useful here: it is the emotive part that determines what is to be desired, and the rational part is limited to means-to-the-end. The Zero-Sum Game method is thus only good as a test for whether the means-to-the-end method is effective or not. As a result, its use as a test for ethics is quite limited.
UPDATE: The long section on what the author calls "trolleyology" demonstrates something important about the dilemma mentioned above.
We may also find ourselves with the power to change the emotion that rules in these cases, so that emotion still wins, but not in the way it currently does. Should we? Why? What defensible answer is there to the question, "Why?"
Perilous matters, these.
Steven Pinker's latest is in the New York Times; and while I'm sure several of you will scoff at the idea of looking toward that source for hints on morality, it's an interesting read, when taken together with Joe's piece below. It treats the moral dimension in similar terms to those we have employed in debating genetic engineering.
One of the important areas comes when looking at whether there is a rational basis for morality. He cites two:
One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things.One of the things we discussed in detail below was the peril to the Golden Rule as a limiting rule of ethics that could arise from tampering with inherited human nature. As we are, the Golden Rule limits us: but it could as easily, and just as rationally, become a license rather than a limitation if we are allowed to edit each other.
The other external support for morality is a feature of rationality itself: that it cannot depend on the egocentric vantage point of the reasoner. If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me — to get off my foot, or tell me the time or not run me over with your car — then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my interests over yours (say, retaining my right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously. Unless I am Galactic Overlord, I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it.
Not coincidentally, the core of this idea — the interchangeability of perspectives — keeps reappearing in history’s best-thought-through moral philosophies, including the Golden Rule (itself discovered many times); Spinoza’s Viewpoint of Eternity; the Social Contract of Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke; Kant’s Categorical Imperative; and Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance. It also underlies Peter Singer’s theory of the Expanding Circle — the optimistic proposal that our moral sense, though shaped by evolution to overvalue self, kin and clan, can propel us on a path of moral progress, as our reasoning forces us to generalize it to larger and larger circles of sentient beings.
The Zero-Sum Game system for judging morality is a basis I hadn't considered. It suffers from one obvious limitation: by its nature, it limits moral judgments to utilitarian grounds. You can use these games to measure whether our sense of ethics is in accord with practical benefits: more food, say.
A key question of ethics, however, is establishing what the good is. Aristotle asserts, I believe correctly, that the rational part of the soul is not useful here: it is the emotive part that determines what is to be desired, and the rational part is limited to means-to-the-end. The Zero-Sum Game method is thus only good as a test for whether the means-to-the-end method is effective or not. As a result, its use as a test for ethics is quite limited.
UPDATE: The long section on what the author calls "trolleyology" demonstrates something important about the dilemma mentioned above.
The gap between people’s convictions and their justifications is also on display in the favorite new sandbox for moral psychologists, a thought experiment devised by the philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson called the Trolley Problem. On your morning walk, you see a trolley car hurtling down the track, the conductor slumped over the controls. In the path of the trolley are five men working on the track, oblivious to the danger. You are standing at a fork in the track and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley onto a spur, saving the five men. Unfortunately, the trolley would then run over a single worker who is laboring on the spur. Is it permissible to throw the switch, killing one man to save five? Almost everyone says “yes.”That's fine, and useful. But the important questions are these: is it bad that we have nonutilitarian ethical calculations arising from irrational emotions? We may find ourselves with the power to change the conditions in which the emotions rule. Should we? Is that an improvement?
Consider now a different scene. You are on a bridge overlooking the tracks and have spotted the runaway trolley bearing down on the five workers. Now the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a heavy object in its path. And the only heavy object within reach is a fat man standing next to you. Should you throw the man off the bridge?
...
When people pondered the dilemmas that required killing someone with their bare hands, several networks in their brains lighted up. One, which included the medial (inward-facing) parts of the frontal lobes, has been implicated in emotions about other people. A second, the dorsolateral (upper and outer-facing) surface of the frontal lobes, has been implicated in ongoing mental computation (including nonmoral reasoning, like deciding whether to get somewhere by plane or train). And a third region, the anterior cingulate cortex (an evolutionarily ancient strip lying at the base of the inner surface of each cerebral hemisphere), registers a conflict between an urge coming from one part of the brain and an advisory coming from another.
But when the people were pondering a hands-off dilemma, like switching the trolley onto the spur with the single worker, the brain reacted differently: only the area involved in rational calculation stood out. Other studies have shown that neurological patients who have blunted emotions because of damage to the frontal lobes become utilitarians: they think it makes perfect sense to throw the fat man off the bridge. Together, the findings corroborate Greene’s theory that our nonutilitarian intuitions come from the victory of an emotional impulse over a cost-benefit analysis.
We may also find ourselves with the power to change the emotion that rules in these cases, so that emotion still wins, but not in the way it currently does. Should we? Why? What defensible answer is there to the question, "Why?"
Perilous matters, these.
Snow in Baghdad
Snow in Baghdad:
When I flew in last year, we got rain even though it almost never rains in the summer. People remarked that Iraq must love me, and want to show herself off in her finest and rarest raiments.
So today, on my return, Baghdad had her first snowstorm in a hundred years.
"It is the first time we've seen snow in Baghdad," said 60-year-old Hassan Zahar. "We've seen sleet before, but never snow. I looked at the faces of all the people, they were astonished," he said.That all sounds good to me.
"A few minutes ago, I was covered with snowflakes. In my hair, on my shoulders. I invite all the people to enjoy peace, because the snow means peace," he said.
Traffic policeman Murtadha Fadhil, huddling under a balcony to keep dry, declared the snow "a new sign of the new Iraq."
"It's a sign of hope. We hope Iraqis will purify their hearts and politicians will work for the prosperity of all Iraqis."
Greedy Geezers.
These sorts of shenanigans are what I'm talking about:
Like Lo-Pan said: "This just pisses me off." Not only is the old bag misrepresenting her situation, she and her hubby are collecting tax rebates in two states. This sort of behavior just cannot be tolerated. Because its only going to get worse.
(via Instapundit)
These sorts of shenanigans are what I'm talking about:
On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.
Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year
resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.
Like Lo-Pan said: "This just pisses me off." Not only is the old bag misrepresenting her situation, she and her hubby are collecting tax rebates in two states. This sort of behavior just cannot be tolerated. Because its only going to get worse.
(via Instapundit)
Dawson Co
Dawson County, GA:
Today was my last day home; bright and early tomorrow I return to the fray. I spent the last two days here doing some important chores: fixing the truck, adjusting the water heater, taking down the Christmas tree, etc. Through these various chores I built up a store of trash to take to the dump, so the wee wife and I went over there.
Now, Dawson County Georgia employs convicts -- in the old-fashioned striped pants, even -- to unload the garbage from people's trucks and put it in the dump. The current one has been there a while, which suggests he is a repeat offender. In any event, he's come to know my wife through her weekly visits.
He was excited to see me, but she explained that I was leaving for Iraq the very next day. He nodded sadly, and said to me, "Sir, I really want to thank you for all you folks are doing over there."
Noam Chomsky would have eaten his own liver in despair.
But here in Dawson County we just say: "He's a good lad, really -- just likes to get a bit wild on the weekend."
Writing your own epitaph. Or something like that.
Blogger Andrew Olmstead was killed in Iraq, and left something behind to be published in case of his death.
Read it here.
May the earth lie lightly upon him.
(via Instapundit)
Blogger Andrew Olmstead was killed in Iraq, and left something behind to be published in case of his death.
Read it here.
May the earth lie lightly upon him.
(via Instapundit)
Friday Lyrics - The Idiot
Friday Lyrics:
Sometimes the right song can cheer me up just by thinking about it. During my first tour overseas, at the worst times, when the work wasn't going well and my mistakes were piling up, and the people I wanted to impress were thinking I was a fool and I was inclining to agree, so that southern Iraq was seeming less like a grand opportunity and more like a flat, muddy, buggy piece of ground...this song brought my spirits up again:
I often take these night-shift walks when the foreman's not around.
I turn my back on the cooling stacks and make for open ground.
For out beyond the tank-farm vents, where the gas-flare makes no sound,
I forget the stink and I always think back to that eastern town.
I remember back six years ago this western life I chose,
And every day the news would say, "Some factory's going to close."
Well, I could've stayed to take the dole, but I'm not one of those.
I get nothing free and that makes me -- an idiot, I suppose.
So I bid farewell to that eastern town I nevermore will see.
But work I must, so I eat this dust and breathe refinery.
Oh, I miss the green and the woods and streams, and I don't like cowboy clothes,
But I like being free and that makes me -- an idiot, I suppose.
In the notes to the album, the songwriter is careful to explain that he doesn't necessarily agree with the sentiments expressed in all his songs, but that they're the real voices of people he met in western Canada. An artist who can go beyond himself, to feel and write something like this, is someone I can admire. His lyrics aren't especially clever or innovative (as you can see from the rest of the album), but he has got imagination in the best sense of the word, and that counts for much.
Sometimes the right song can cheer me up just by thinking about it. During my first tour overseas, at the worst times, when the work wasn't going well and my mistakes were piling up, and the people I wanted to impress were thinking I was a fool and I was inclining to agree, so that southern Iraq was seeming less like a grand opportunity and more like a flat, muddy, buggy piece of ground...this song brought my spirits up again:
I often take these night-shift walks when the foreman's not around.
I turn my back on the cooling stacks and make for open ground.
For out beyond the tank-farm vents, where the gas-flare makes no sound,
I forget the stink and I always think back to that eastern town.
I remember back six years ago this western life I chose,
And every day the news would say, "Some factory's going to close."
Well, I could've stayed to take the dole, but I'm not one of those.
I get nothing free and that makes me -- an idiot, I suppose.
So I bid farewell to that eastern town I nevermore will see.
But work I must, so I eat this dust and breathe refinery.
Oh, I miss the green and the woods and streams, and I don't like cowboy clothes,
But I like being free and that makes me -- an idiot, I suppose.
In the notes to the album, the songwriter is careful to explain that he doesn't necessarily agree with the sentiments expressed in all his songs, but that they're the real voices of people he met in western Canada. An artist who can go beyond himself, to feel and write something like this, is someone I can admire. His lyrics aren't especially clever or innovative (as you can see from the rest of the album), but he has got imagination in the best sense of the word, and that counts for much.
Sam Harris - Mother Nature
A Splendid Answer:
At Gene Expression, I found a link to Edge, where many scientific and other figures were asked the simple question: What have you changed your mind about, and why?
Some writers we know well are there - Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker - and others I hadn't thought about in ages[1], such the chemist Robert Shapiro (he wrote an excellent popular book on origin-of-life theory back in the eighties). Right next to his entry, I found this one by Sam Harris, worth quoting:
But there is a beautiful, hopeful side to this. Our coevals are learning, rapidly, more and ever more about how our minds and bodies are put together - and the technology to improve them will come, if not in our lifetimes, perhaps not long after. We've been able to change the form and abilities of our domestic animals through breeding - something much faster, with greater potential, is on the way.
I come from a civilization far better than my ancestors a few centuries back could imagine - and I think I will die happy, even without descendants, if I expect it will be in better hands, and more vastly improved a century hence than I can hope to imagine.
[1] The author of this opinion might interest some people here, who discuss the merits of wood and plastic in gun butts...the old ways were the way they were for a purpose; and as I argued, roughly, in one of my first comments here, I would rather cultivate the practical spirit of the man who fought with a sword of bronze (because that was the best weapon available) than to try to fight with his actual weapons. But we have talked this over before.
At Gene Expression, I found a link to Edge, where many scientific and other figures were asked the simple question: What have you changed your mind about, and why?
Some writers we know well are there - Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker - and others I hadn't thought about in ages[1], such the chemist Robert Shapiro (he wrote an excellent popular book on origin-of-life theory back in the eighties). Right next to his entry, I found this one by Sam Harris, worth quoting:
Extremely well put. A religious friend of mine once suggested that Man and his works ought, instead, to be considered a part of nature, as much as termite mounds or coral reefs, and while I didn't adopt most of his ideas, that one struck me as very convincing. I remember growing up with this contrary idea that Nature was something fundamentally different from Artifice - that this Nature was in some kind of static, harmonious "balance," that would continue more or less forever if wicked Man did not destroy it. As Harris says:Like many people, I once trusted in the wisdom of Nature. I imagined that there were real boundaries between the natural and the artificial, between one species and another, and thought that, with the advent of genetic engineering, we would be tinkering with life at our peril. I now believe that this romantic view of Nature is a stultifying and dangerous mythology.
Every 100 million years or so, an asteroid or comet the size of a mountain smashes into the earth, killing nearly everything that lives. If ever we needed proof of Nature's indifference to the welfare of complex organisms such as ourselves, there it is. The history of life on this planet has been one of merciless destruction and blind, lurching renewal.Perhaps the opposite view has a strong aesthetic appeal - I have always been emotionally attracted to the idea that our problems are the same as the ancients', and the basic human comedy and tragedy will go on as long as the species does - and if Grim tells me true, many thinkers who spend a lot of time experiencing the outdoors directly incline to spiritual ideas, to the idea that thoughts, and feelings, and perhaps some greater Mind than theirs, are eternal and unchanging. Yet in reading the science I do (in popular versions these days; graduate school is long behind), I can't find room for these eternal entities, or an ordering Power in Nature that thinks and feels, and that wanted humans to be as they are, and fixed them.
But there is a beautiful, hopeful side to this. Our coevals are learning, rapidly, more and ever more about how our minds and bodies are put together - and the technology to improve them will come, if not in our lifetimes, perhaps not long after. We've been able to change the form and abilities of our domestic animals through breeding - something much faster, with greater potential, is on the way.
Nothing in the natural order demands that our descendants resemble us in any particular way. Very likely, they will not resemble us. We will almost certainly transform ourselves, likely beyond recognition, in the generations to come.Exactly. Suppose that a team of genetic engineers funded and equipped by a large corporation proceeded to create 10,000 superhuman specimens, supremely intelligent, healthy, naturally hardworking and honest - what would be your response? I would be rejoicing at the thought of all these newcomers might create or discover. Some others, who believe in a Creator, might be troubled at the implications of improving upon His handiwork (though the date suggesting that religiosity itself is heritable should be likewise troubling - if we are judged, in the end, by our beliefs. But theology is flexible, the more thoughtful believers accept a God who can tolerate things they scarce imagined before). (A few small-minded creatures wouldn't get past the naked fear - "They'll outdo me - they'll take my job!") If there's no overarching Order to sustain us "World Without End," there's no overarching Rule to stop us building better lives, better kinds of lives, than have ever existed before.
Will this be a good thing? The question presupposes that we have a viable alternative. But what is the alternative to our taking charge of our biological destiny? Might we be better off just leaving things to the wisdom of Nature? I once believed this. But we know that Nature has no concern for individuals or for species.
I come from a civilization far better than my ancestors a few centuries back could imagine - and I think I will die happy, even without descendants, if I expect it will be in better hands, and more vastly improved a century hence than I can hope to imagine.
[1] The author of this opinion might interest some people here, who discuss the merits of wood and plastic in gun butts...the old ways were the way they were for a purpose; and as I argued, roughly, in one of my first comments here, I would rather cultivate the practical spirit of the man who fought with a sword of bronze (because that was the best weapon available) than to try to fight with his actual weapons. But we have talked this over before.
The Land Without A King
The Land Without A King:
THEN stood the realm in great jeopardy long while, for every lord that was mighty of men made him strong, and many weened to have been king. Then Merlin went to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and counselled him for to send for all the lords of the realm, and all the gentlemen of arms, that they should to London come by Christmas, upon pain of cursing; and for this cause, that Jesus, that was born on that night, that he would of his great mercy show some miracle, as he was come to be king of mankind, for to show some miracle who should be rightwise king of this realm.
What better men than me have done, I know. I know the reasons and could recite them better than most; and I believe in them. But there is the price, laid plain.
I have been gone too long.
I left behind a son I thought invincible; fearless. All his life, five years long, he feared 'neither fire nor iron,' as the heroes of Hrolf Kraki's hall swore they would not. He did not fear heights, nor strangers, nor thunder, nor anything at all. He never had.
Now he is terrified of everything. He clings to every leg, kisses and hugs everyone, as if to plead for kindness. He is given to illness and panic. I never knew how much of his courage was from me; but without me, his mother reminds me, he is only a little boy.
It has been a hard year. His grandmother's ashes will be buried tomorrow. His mother has been gone to care for her. His father has been gone long months, and will be gone long months yet. All the things he knew and trusted were swept away, and he was alone.
This is the message of Le Morte D'Arthur. It is the message of the Beowulf also: that the king is the land, and without his strength the people are broken apart, at the mercy of a merciless world. It is the message of the Odyssey:
There she found the lordly suitors seated on hides of the oxen which they had killed and eaten, and playing draughts in front of the house. Men-servants and pages were bustling about to wait upon them, some mixing wine with water in the mixing-bowls, some cleaning down the tables with wet sponges and laying them out again, and some cutting up great quantities of meat.What have I done to this little boy?
Telemachus saw her long before any one else did. He was sitting moodily among the suitors thinking about his brave father, and how he would send them flying out of the house, if he were to come to his own again and be honoured as in days gone by.
What better men than me have done, I know. I know the reasons and could recite them better than most; and I believe in them. But there is the price, laid plain.
The Great Fall of China.
Via Instapundit, this article from the LA Times, in which the World Bank reports that China's economy is smaller than recently thought. About 40% smaller.
"...China, it turns out, isn't a $10-trillion economy on the brink of catching up with the United States. It is a $6-trillion economy, less than half our size. For the foreseeable future, China will have far less money to spend on its military and will face much deeper social and economic problems at home than experts previously believed."
Wow. 4 trillion dollars just went poof. Just wow.
Via Instapundit, this article from the LA Times, in which the World Bank reports that China's economy is smaller than recently thought. About 40% smaller.
"...China, it turns out, isn't a $10-trillion economy on the brink of catching up with the United States. It is a $6-trillion economy, less than half our size. For the foreseeable future, China will have far less money to spend on its military and will face much deeper social and economic problems at home than experts previously believed."
Wow. 4 trillion dollars just went poof. Just wow.
Christmas Cheer
Christmas Cheer:
Via our old friend Dad29, a pointer to another of the great stories from LawDog:
Tactical advice for those intending to rob the Santa-Claus-outfit-wearing Salvation Army volunteers at shopping malls.And a happy new year.
1. In this part of the country, those Santa's are rednecks. Large rednecks. With an attitude to match.
2. When you and your homie stick a gun in Santa's face and demand, "Gimme the bucket!" he might take you precisely and exactly at your word. Literally.
3. As you watch your homie lying on the ground, bucket over his head and Santa stomping it flat onto his (unlovely) features, it's not a good idea to forget that you're within grabbing range of Santa - or to let your gun hand sag to your side.
4. Failure to observe #3 above will result in an infuriated Santa holding your head in an armlock under his left arm while, with his right hand, he beats you heavily over the bonce with his festive Christmas bell. This musical accompaniment, whilst no carol, is nevertheless pleasing to the bystanders' ears. The same might be said about your screams.
5. When passing shoppers stop, gather around and start applauding Santa's actions, it's not a good idea to yell at them that they're mother[deleted] [deleted] and beg them to make this [deleted] stop hitting you. This may - nay, gentle reader, this WILL - encourage some of them to offer to help Santa with the hitting . . . and encourage him to accept their offer.
6. When responding cops arrive, rush up to the scene with guns drawn, and promptly sag to the ground in hysterics while ignoring your pleas for help, it's not a good idea to swear at them in words of distinctly non-festive hue. This will result in their handling the rest of your interaction in a less than sympathetic manner (drawing further cheers from the by now numerous onlookers).
7. As you languish (with your battered homie) in the back of an ambulance, both of you being treated by the medics for bleeding from the head, it's particularly galling to see Santa's now somewhat battered bucket being filled to overflowing by cheering shoppers and the responding police officers, all of whom seem rather in a rather more more festive and cheerful mood now than they did before you made your move.
8. And a merry Redneck Christmas to both of you, idiots. Ho-ho-ho.
Arvel Yule
The Arvel at Yuletide:
Last spring, we held the arvel for my father-in-law. Unsurprisingly, his wife of fifty years did not long survive him. I wrote of her here, and can think of no better memorial. She died Wednesday.
As a consequence of her death, I am home from Iraq on two weeks' emergency leave. My wife, who loved her mother dearly but is relieved to see an end to her suffering, says that the timing was like a last gift from her mother. Knowing the strength of the lady's spirit, I would not be surprised.
EVANGELICALS AGAINST HUCKABEE
EVANGELICALS AGAINST HUCKABEE
To my knowledge, no organization with the above name exists. That is a pity because it should. If, as many pundits claim, evangelical Christian conservatives are responsible for Huckabee’s surging poll numbers then some of us need to stand athwart his campaign momentum and yell “HALT!”
I will concede that some of the criticisms of Huckabee smack of regional and religious bias. That is both unfortunate and unnecessary because there are SOOOOO many other reasons to criticize him. Additionally, criticisms intended to make Huckabee appear like some uneducated Southern hick fundamentalist will only have the effect of causing many evangelicals, especially in the South, to become defensively sympathetic to his candidacy.
For those who don’t know me, I am a proud Southerner from a South Mississippi family. I was born, bred, and remain a devout Southern Baptist. As a fellow Southern, Southern Baptist Mr. Huckabee would appear to be my ideal candidate. Unfortunately, I am also something else that Mr. Huckabee is not; a small government conservative that believes in reduced taxation. Consequently, I will not support Huckabee.
As I pointed out earlier, many pundits claim that evangelical conservatives are flocking to Huckabee’s campaign, ostensibly because they see him as their candidate. However, if you use the term “conservative” in any way to describe your political philosophy then Huckabee should most certainly not be your candidate. First of all, as David Harsanyi points out in Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children, Huckabee is not averse to using the power of political office to enforce his personal lifestyle preferences. As Governor of Arkansas he established a statewide smoking ban. He also required schools to adopt stricter rules on snacks and issued government stickers and approval to restaurants offering healthy alternatives and nutrition information. It should come as no surprise that he has proposed a national smoking ban. I don’t like smoking either but at least I recognize that a nationwide ban would be a gross overstepping of federal power.
If Huckabee’s nanny-stateism isn’t enough to convince you he is no conservative then how about his propensity to grow government and raise taxes. According to the Cato Institute, Huckabee raised the Arkansas tax burden 47%. The Cato Institute points out that, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, this included increases in the state's gas, sales, income, and cigarette taxes. “He raised taxes on everything from groceries to nursing home beds.” The Cato Institute gave Huckabee an F on fiscal policy and an overall D for his two terms. To put all this in even more perspective, he raised taxes more than Bill Clinton did.
If the above information still doesn’t convince you that Huckabee is a liberal in Republican clothing then take a look at his soft-on-crime approach to pardons. According to this USA Today story, Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations in his 10 1/2 years as governor of Arkansas, twice as many as his three predecessors combined, including Bill Clinton. As a Christian I believe in forgiveness and second chances. However, I also believe that criminals, especially violent criminals, need to pay for their crimes. A governor that hands out pardons to criminals like they were candy raises serious questions regarding his judgment and sympathy towards victims. I would also recommend this American Spectator article for people interested in this issue.
Our country is currently involved in a two front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Consequently, we need a commander in chief that appreciates the complexity of the current international situation. However, Huckabee’s Article in Foreign Affairs demonstrates that he is not up to the job. This article is so full of contradictions and empty platitudes that it would require a separate post to adequately set them all out. I do find it interesting that he thinks that the current administration has not done enough to convince the American public that jihadists are bad guys. Give me a break.
Huckabee might be a fine preacher. Nevertheless, this conservative evangelical Christian will not be supporting him on any level. If he wins the Republican nomination I will vote for the Libertarian candidate. I would rather see any other Democrat become president then have a hand in helping Huckabee enact the same policies they would while fracturing the conservative movement at the same time.
To my knowledge, no organization with the above name exists. That is a pity because it should. If, as many pundits claim, evangelical Christian conservatives are responsible for Huckabee’s surging poll numbers then some of us need to stand athwart his campaign momentum and yell “HALT!”
I will concede that some of the criticisms of Huckabee smack of regional and religious bias. That is both unfortunate and unnecessary because there are SOOOOO many other reasons to criticize him. Additionally, criticisms intended to make Huckabee appear like some uneducated Southern hick fundamentalist will only have the effect of causing many evangelicals, especially in the South, to become defensively sympathetic to his candidacy.
For those who don’t know me, I am a proud Southerner from a South Mississippi family. I was born, bred, and remain a devout Southern Baptist. As a fellow Southern, Southern Baptist Mr. Huckabee would appear to be my ideal candidate. Unfortunately, I am also something else that Mr. Huckabee is not; a small government conservative that believes in reduced taxation. Consequently, I will not support Huckabee.
As I pointed out earlier, many pundits claim that evangelical conservatives are flocking to Huckabee’s campaign, ostensibly because they see him as their candidate. However, if you use the term “conservative” in any way to describe your political philosophy then Huckabee should most certainly not be your candidate. First of all, as David Harsanyi points out in Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children, Huckabee is not averse to using the power of political office to enforce his personal lifestyle preferences. As Governor of Arkansas he established a statewide smoking ban. He also required schools to adopt stricter rules on snacks and issued government stickers and approval to restaurants offering healthy alternatives and nutrition information. It should come as no surprise that he has proposed a national smoking ban. I don’t like smoking either but at least I recognize that a nationwide ban would be a gross overstepping of federal power.
If Huckabee’s nanny-stateism isn’t enough to convince you he is no conservative then how about his propensity to grow government and raise taxes. According to the Cato Institute, Huckabee raised the Arkansas tax burden 47%. The Cato Institute points out that, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, this included increases in the state's gas, sales, income, and cigarette taxes. “He raised taxes on everything from groceries to nursing home beds.” The Cato Institute gave Huckabee an F on fiscal policy and an overall D for his two terms. To put all this in even more perspective, he raised taxes more than Bill Clinton did.
If the above information still doesn’t convince you that Huckabee is a liberal in Republican clothing then take a look at his soft-on-crime approach to pardons. According to this USA Today story, Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations in his 10 1/2 years as governor of Arkansas, twice as many as his three predecessors combined, including Bill Clinton. As a Christian I believe in forgiveness and second chances. However, I also believe that criminals, especially violent criminals, need to pay for their crimes. A governor that hands out pardons to criminals like they were candy raises serious questions regarding his judgment and sympathy towards victims. I would also recommend this American Spectator article for people interested in this issue.
Our country is currently involved in a two front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Consequently, we need a commander in chief that appreciates the complexity of the current international situation. However, Huckabee’s Article in Foreign Affairs demonstrates that he is not up to the job. This article is so full of contradictions and empty platitudes that it would require a separate post to adequately set them all out. I do find it interesting that he thinks that the current administration has not done enough to convince the American public that jihadists are bad guys. Give me a break.
Huckabee might be a fine preacher. Nevertheless, this conservative evangelical Christian will not be supporting him on any level. If he wins the Republican nomination I will vote for the Libertarian candidate. I would rather see any other Democrat become president then have a hand in helping Huckabee enact the same policies they would while fracturing the conservative movement at the same time.
Did the botox wear off or something? (warning: view at your own risk)
The drudge report posted an unflattering photo of Hillary Clinton this morning, and the person who blogs at immodest proposal thinks her campaign is over: (pic at his site)
Over at her blog, Ann Althouse has a different take:
Now, I happen to think that the professor has a point about older women--but still, even Althouse has a picture of the Senator looking apple-cheeked earlier this year, not like a dried apple. There's more here than meets the eye.
The drudge report posted an unflattering photo of Hillary Clinton this morning, and the person who blogs at immodest proposal thinks her campaign is over: (pic at his site)
Right here, that's it, this is the most significant photo taken in the year 2007. Think it will win a Pullitzer? Whichever photog snapped this photo effectively ended Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Over at her blog, Ann Althouse has a different take:
But here's my second reaction, on reflection: We make high demands on women. A picture like this of a male candidate would barely register. Fred Thompson always looks this bad, and people seem to think he's handsome. We need to get used to older women and get over the feeling that when women look old they are properly marginalized as "old ladies." If women are to exercise great power, they will come into that power in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. We must — if we care about the advancement of women — accommodate our vision and see a face like this as mature, experienced, serious — the way we naturally and normally see men's faces.
Now, I happen to think that the professor has a point about older women--but still, even Althouse has a picture of the Senator looking apple-cheeked earlier this year, not like a dried apple. There's more here than meets the eye.
A Marine's family and his dog.
bthun noticed this story:
Obviously, the dog isn't the Marine, but its good to see such a gesture made all the same.
bthun noticed this story:
The family of an Albany Marine killed earlier this year in Iraq will become the first in the history of the armed forces to adopt a military working dog, Marine officials said Wednesday....Lt. Caleb Eames said Wednesday that the U.S. military has agreed to begin the adoption process that will eventually allow Lee’s family to be reunited with their son’s unshakable partner.
Obviously, the dog isn't the Marine, but its good to see such a gesture made all the same.
GREAT WESTERNS
GREAT WESTERNS
Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I LOVE Westerns, be they movies or books. Consequently, I am always on the lookout for great Western stories. Two of my favorite are True Grit by Charles Portis and Josey Wales: Two Westerns : Gone to Texas/The Vengeance Trail of Josey Wales by Forrest Carter.
As a fan of the movie, True Grit, I absolutely had to buy the book when I saw it on the bookstore shelf. That proved to be a good choice. As much as I loved the movie, the book was better. To begin with you get more character development, which I guess is true of most books that were later made into movies. But the characters in this book are characters you realy want to know more about, especially Rooster Cogburn. Besides telling an entertaining story the book was simply a pleasure to read. Charles Portis employs an elegantly simple, some would say a uniquely American/Southern, style of writing that is very enjoyable to read. In fact the language does a great job creating just the right atmosphere.
If you liked the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales then run, don’t walk, to buy this book. First of all you get two books for the price of one. Second, you will be treated to some great stories. In the character of Josey Wales Mr. Carter has created what amounts to the definitive Western hero as warrior character. Josey Wales is not the traditional laconic cowboy who simply uses horse sense and homespun wisdom to get him through. He is the natural born warrior visiting death, destruction, and vengeance on his enemies. Nevertheless, don’t let the above description lead you to believe that these books are just mindless action stories. These stories deal with very real issues such as loss, love, duty, honor, redemption, and choosing a meaningful life over a nihilistic existence.
I am not a professional book critic so I am sure the above reviews lack much. As a wise man once said, “Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.” Nevertheless, don’t be put off by my pedestrian efforts to describe these great books. Check them out for yourself.
Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I LOVE Westerns, be they movies or books. Consequently, I am always on the lookout for great Western stories. Two of my favorite are True Grit by Charles Portis and Josey Wales: Two Westerns : Gone to Texas/The Vengeance Trail of Josey Wales by Forrest Carter.
As a fan of the movie, True Grit, I absolutely had to buy the book when I saw it on the bookstore shelf. That proved to be a good choice. As much as I loved the movie, the book was better. To begin with you get more character development, which I guess is true of most books that were later made into movies. But the characters in this book are characters you realy want to know more about, especially Rooster Cogburn. Besides telling an entertaining story the book was simply a pleasure to read. Charles Portis employs an elegantly simple, some would say a uniquely American/Southern, style of writing that is very enjoyable to read. In fact the language does a great job creating just the right atmosphere.
If you liked the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales then run, don’t walk, to buy this book. First of all you get two books for the price of one. Second, you will be treated to some great stories. In the character of Josey Wales Mr. Carter has created what amounts to the definitive Western hero as warrior character. Josey Wales is not the traditional laconic cowboy who simply uses horse sense and homespun wisdom to get him through. He is the natural born warrior visiting death, destruction, and vengeance on his enemies. Nevertheless, don’t let the above description lead you to believe that these books are just mindless action stories. These stories deal with very real issues such as loss, love, duty, honor, redemption, and choosing a meaningful life over a nihilistic existence.
I am not a professional book critic so I am sure the above reviews lack much. As a wise man once said, “Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.” Nevertheless, don’t be put off by my pedestrian efforts to describe these great books. Check them out for yourself.
School
School is In:
A quick Iraq story, to lay over the following email from our old friend JarHeadDad. Last week, LTCOL (Ret.) Oliver North was here. He was telling me how -- as a boy in Virginia -- he and all the other boys brought their deer rifles to school on the bus on the first day of the hunting season. Then, at the end of the day, they'd walk home and go out in the woods and hunt.
Colonel North would have been a boy in about the time mentioned here.
SCHOOL 1957 vs. 2007
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school
parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his
car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail
and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for
traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up
buddies.
2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge
them both with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the
Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class
again.
2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for
ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a
disability.
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives
him a whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to
college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster
care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that
she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison.
Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car
searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July,
puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2007 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic
terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home,
computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is
never allowed to fly again.
Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee.
He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She
faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
Watership Down
A True Classic of Heroic Leadership Fiction:
Okay, my mind is on fiction tonight and it's all Joel's fault. On my way home last time, and on my way out this time, I found and reread one of the true classics of heroism and leadership in the English language. I am referring, of course, to Watership Down.
The writing is excellent, the story is engaging, the characters are well-drawn, the literary and historical references are tastefully used (Adams loves a good quote from Wellington), and the author makes excellent use of real dialects and invented language (Lapine) - just enough to give the book charm and flavor, not enough to distract. But what really makes the story for me is the picture of heroism and leadership it gives. Hazel-Rah isn't the one who always has the answer, always guesses right, always knows what to do, and always gets his way from his subordinates by means of a personal magic. He isn't the smartest warrior in the band, he makes mistakes, and he is struck with self-doubt at exactly the times you or I would be, but he knows his weaknesses and compensates for them. He's got a good staff, some with better experience, to help him plan; but he shows enough bravery (and knows he needs to show it) to inspire them to follow him. He may be struck with doubt, but he makes himself go on thinking - and he keeps his resolve when the temptation to surrender is strongest. His archenemy, Woundwort, in many ways is the more remarkable leader and effective field commander; but he lacks Hazel's strategic vision - and while he can inspire his own troops with his strength, courage, and ruthlessness, he lacks Hazel's moral qualities that make others want to follow him. Hazel also has a good second - Thlayli, a braver and more eager warrior, with a gruffer style of leadership (this, I have seen, can be an effective combination; a nice guy as top leader and an "enforcer" as deputy or top enlisted man - Woundwort, by contrast, is ruthless and encourages all his officers to be the same; and whichever way you go it is fear or material rewards, not the joy of serving).
Because of his flaws and the way he meets them, Hazel is in some ways a more convincing character than Dick Winters in Band of Brothers - despite the fact that Winters was a real person, and Hazel is, well, a talking rabbit.
P.S. - Skip the movie; it's not badly made but the things that make the book remarkable don't make it in. This is a good story for young people but I appreciated it more later in life.
Okay, my mind is on fiction tonight and it's all Joel's fault. On my way home last time, and on my way out this time, I found and reread one of the true classics of heroism and leadership in the English language. I am referring, of course, to Watership Down.
The writing is excellent, the story is engaging, the characters are well-drawn, the literary and historical references are tastefully used (Adams loves a good quote from Wellington), and the author makes excellent use of real dialects and invented language (Lapine) - just enough to give the book charm and flavor, not enough to distract. But what really makes the story for me is the picture of heroism and leadership it gives. Hazel-Rah isn't the one who always has the answer, always guesses right, always knows what to do, and always gets his way from his subordinates by means of a personal magic. He isn't the smartest warrior in the band, he makes mistakes, and he is struck with self-doubt at exactly the times you or I would be, but he knows his weaknesses and compensates for them. He's got a good staff, some with better experience, to help him plan; but he shows enough bravery (and knows he needs to show it) to inspire them to follow him. He may be struck with doubt, but he makes himself go on thinking - and he keeps his resolve when the temptation to surrender is strongest. His archenemy, Woundwort, in many ways is the more remarkable leader and effective field commander; but he lacks Hazel's strategic vision - and while he can inspire his own troops with his strength, courage, and ruthlessness, he lacks Hazel's moral qualities that make others want to follow him. Hazel also has a good second - Thlayli, a braver and more eager warrior, with a gruffer style of leadership (this, I have seen, can be an effective combination; a nice guy as top leader and an "enforcer" as deputy or top enlisted man - Woundwort, by contrast, is ruthless and encourages all his officers to be the same; and whichever way you go it is fear or material rewards, not the joy of serving).
Because of his flaws and the way he meets them, Hazel is in some ways a more convincing character than Dick Winters in Band of Brothers - despite the fact that Winters was a real person, and Hazel is, well, a talking rabbit.
P.S. - Skip the movie; it's not badly made but the things that make the book remarkable don't make it in. This is a good story for young people but I appreciated it more later in life.
Short Ramble about Fantasy
A Short Ramble on His Dark Materials:
Joel's recent post on The Golden Compass and the general webwide chatter about it got me to thinking. I read the His Dark Materials trilogy (this is the first part of it) back in the 1990's (I don't read much fantasy these days - but it was different then). What struck me about it is how stale the stories felt.
The basic idea - the Revolt of the Angels wasn't quite the good-versus-evil struggle we've been taught - was already done, much better, over ten years earlier by Steven Brust in To Reign in Hell (Heinlein did a much cruder and duller job in Job, which for some reason remains a staple of airpport booksellers - I haven't read Anatole France's Revolt of the Angels and can't comment on it). A historical or semi-historical or alternate-world fantasy where the main villain is based on intolerant Catholics of the medieval kind - well, Robert Shea did that, and Michael Moorcock before him, and (so I'm told) Sir Walter Scott even earlier.
For the rest, he had some beautiful visions to share, but they had a tired feel. Heroic fantasy has been showing us beautiful visions since the genre began, and there was nothing to compare with The Worm Ouroboros or The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath - both over 70 years old. Among Pullman's visions, my personal favorite was the Armored Bears, with their spiritual link to their armor, and the fight for the kingship - but even that felt like something Tarzan, or the Grey Mouser, or one of Moorcock's Eternal Champions would've met 2-3 generations ago (in what would surely have been a much better story). The parallel worlds thing has been done a thousand times over, and while some of the themes are eternal (basic heroism in the face of danger, the call of love versus the call of duty), Pullman's books didn't do anything for me that other and older tales hadn't done better a great many times. I felt cheated of my time when I finished the trilogy.
Grim recently linked to a Commentary article on artistic Modernism and brought back to mind something Derbyshire once said - after admitting he didn't enjoy modern poetry much, he asked, but what else were modern poets to do? They couldn't go on turning out Pippa Passes or A Shropshire Lad for another hundred years - if they were going to write it at all, they had to do something else, but what they ended up doing didn't seem to have much staying power. I don't want to say this has happened with heroic fantasy - some of the last fantasies I read were by authors who were creating fascinating worlds that had never been seen before, and were at least making an effort at adding a believable political or economic dimension. But Pullman's stories, however much attention they get due to the movies, aren't the ones that have moved on.
Joel's recent post on The Golden Compass and the general webwide chatter about it got me to thinking. I read the His Dark Materials trilogy (this is the first part of it) back in the 1990's (I don't read much fantasy these days - but it was different then). What struck me about it is how stale the stories felt.
The basic idea - the Revolt of the Angels wasn't quite the good-versus-evil struggle we've been taught - was already done, much better, over ten years earlier by Steven Brust in To Reign in Hell (Heinlein did a much cruder and duller job in Job, which for some reason remains a staple of airpport booksellers - I haven't read Anatole France's Revolt of the Angels and can't comment on it). A historical or semi-historical or alternate-world fantasy where the main villain is based on intolerant Catholics of the medieval kind - well, Robert Shea did that, and Michael Moorcock before him, and (so I'm told) Sir Walter Scott even earlier.
For the rest, he had some beautiful visions to share, but they had a tired feel. Heroic fantasy has been showing us beautiful visions since the genre began, and there was nothing to compare with The Worm Ouroboros or The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath - both over 70 years old. Among Pullman's visions, my personal favorite was the Armored Bears, with their spiritual link to their armor, and the fight for the kingship - but even that felt like something Tarzan, or the Grey Mouser, or one of Moorcock's Eternal Champions would've met 2-3 generations ago (in what would surely have been a much better story). The parallel worlds thing has been done a thousand times over, and while some of the themes are eternal (basic heroism in the face of danger, the call of love versus the call of duty), Pullman's books didn't do anything for me that other and older tales hadn't done better a great many times. I felt cheated of my time when I finished the trilogy.
Grim recently linked to a Commentary article on artistic Modernism and brought back to mind something Derbyshire once said - after admitting he didn't enjoy modern poetry much, he asked, but what else were modern poets to do? They couldn't go on turning out Pippa Passes or A Shropshire Lad for another hundred years - if they were going to write it at all, they had to do something else, but what they ended up doing didn't seem to have much staying power. I don't want to say this has happened with heroic fantasy - some of the last fantasies I read were by authors who were creating fascinating worlds that had never been seen before, and were at least making an effort at adding a believable political or economic dimension. But Pullman's stories, however much attention they get due to the movies, aren't the ones that have moved on.
Hunting Hyenas
Hunting Hyenas:
They're cute. I saw the pups last night, who are even cuter.
I decided to go see if I could track them. The dust in Iraq is perfect for tracking.
Turns out they were denned up in among some construction materials out in an empty quarter by Route Irish. There were also some abandoned trailers out there, which the hyenas enjoyed.
I did find the den and the female, but the others were out hunting. I had to climb into the T-walls to get to the den, and she spotted me as I got within a few feet of her. She was better at wiggling around than I was, so by the time I got clean and got my camera on her, she was fifty yards away and moving.
Ah, well. Sorry about the picture, but it was fun. Most fun I've had since I got here, in fact.
About a week or so ago, I actually got a few hours off during the daylight. I'd seen some hyenas wandering around at night. A Navy LT who was here last spring caught one.
They're cute. I saw the pups last night, who are even cuter.
I decided to go see if I could track them. The dust in Iraq is perfect for tracking.
Turns out they were denned up in among some construction materials out in an empty quarter by Route Irish. There were also some abandoned trailers out there, which the hyenas enjoyed.
I did find the den and the female, but the others were out hunting. I had to climb into the T-walls to get to the den, and she spotted me as I got within a few feet of her. She was better at wiggling around than I was, so by the time I got clean and got my camera on her, she was fifty yards away and moving.
Ah, well. Sorry about the picture, but it was fun. Most fun I've had since I got here, in fact.
RELIGION AND THE CULTURE
RELIGION AND THE CULTURE
The subject of religion has once again taken center stage in the national discourse. One could say that this is unsurprising since we are approaching the holiday season. However, I think the real reason is two fold; Mitt Romney’s speech on religion yesterday and the release of the atheism promoting movie The Golden Compass.
Regarding the first subject, I guess it was to be expected that Romney would give a speech concerning his views on faith and citizenship given the questions and concerns many people have about his Mormon faith. The number of Mormons in America is very small and their faith deviates significantly from traditional Christian Doctrine, so much so that one Mormon I talked to did not consider himself a Christian. In fact, Many Christians, myself included, view Mormonism as a cult. Consequently, Romney appears to have felt it necessary to dispel fears, especially among Evangelical Christians, that he would use the office of the President as a platform to advance his faith.
I am glad he did this and I hope that the rest of America, especially my fellow Evangelical Christians, stop worrying about his faith and move on to other more pressing concerns. The vast majority of Evangelical Christians that are concerned about Romney’s faith appear to be motivated out of a fear that a Mormon president will encourage other people to explore Mormonism and, therefore, lead to increased Mormon conversions. My response to this is, so what?!?!? When it comes to political candidates my only concern is whether the candidate is competent to hold the office and whether his governing philosophy concerning the role of government is broadly in line with mine. The question of a candidate’s faith is irrelevant. As Thomas Jefferson said on the same topic, “It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.” I also happen to think that Martin Luther was absolutely correct when he said “I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk (Muslim) than a foolish Christian.”
I hold the above view not just because of the irrelevancy of the candidate’s faith to the question of his competence, but also because I have nothing to fear from different faiths. As a Born-Again Christian I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. To me, this is a truth that is simply inalterable. You either accept or deny that truth to your own benefit or peril. Consequently, I am not worried that somehow the existence of others that believe differently from me, or don’t believe, will in any way affect the truth of God. So what if someone from a different faith, or no faith, assumes a position of power? So what if people become curious about that person’s faith or lack thereof. That does not change the truth of God one bit. If anything, it provides me an opportunity to discuss my faith.
The aforementioned discussion also reflects why I am not concerned about the movie The Golden Compass. The movie is based on a children’s book written by an avowed atheist for the purpose of promoting atheism by means of a fantasy story. Many fellow Christians are angry about the thinly veiled attack on the Christian Church, specifically the Catholic Church, contained in the series of books of which The Golden Compass is the first installment. They point out, correctly I think, that no publisher or studio would publish or produce such a story if it attacked the Jewish or Muslim faith to the same degree it attacks Christianity. Consequently many Christians are talking about boycotting the film and demanding that theaters not show it.
I think a boycott is unnecessary. I am not going to see this movie nor will I buy the book, not because I am participating in some formal boycott, but simply because I don’t want to provide any financial support to the promotion of the movie/book’s message. I am not bothered that the book was written or that the movie was made. Atheism has been around for a long time and will continue until the second coming of Christ. Furthermore, I no more fear atheism than any other idea that challenges the truth of God. As I have said before, I believe that God’s truth is THE truth and is not threatened by competitors. I am aware that this movie/book may influence some to become atheists and I think that is unfortunate. I will pray for them and hope they see the errors of their way. Furthermore, I am more than willing to explain my faith to anyone that wishes to talk about it. What I won’t do is insist that contrary beliefs be excluded from the public square. While I may not contribute to their dissemination, I will refuse to insist on their elimination.
The subject of religion has once again taken center stage in the national discourse. One could say that this is unsurprising since we are approaching the holiday season. However, I think the real reason is two fold; Mitt Romney’s speech on religion yesterday and the release of the atheism promoting movie The Golden Compass.
Regarding the first subject, I guess it was to be expected that Romney would give a speech concerning his views on faith and citizenship given the questions and concerns many people have about his Mormon faith. The number of Mormons in America is very small and their faith deviates significantly from traditional Christian Doctrine, so much so that one Mormon I talked to did not consider himself a Christian. In fact, Many Christians, myself included, view Mormonism as a cult. Consequently, Romney appears to have felt it necessary to dispel fears, especially among Evangelical Christians, that he would use the office of the President as a platform to advance his faith.
I am glad he did this and I hope that the rest of America, especially my fellow Evangelical Christians, stop worrying about his faith and move on to other more pressing concerns. The vast majority of Evangelical Christians that are concerned about Romney’s faith appear to be motivated out of a fear that a Mormon president will encourage other people to explore Mormonism and, therefore, lead to increased Mormon conversions. My response to this is, so what?!?!? When it comes to political candidates my only concern is whether the candidate is competent to hold the office and whether his governing philosophy concerning the role of government is broadly in line with mine. The question of a candidate’s faith is irrelevant. As Thomas Jefferson said on the same topic, “It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.” I also happen to think that Martin Luther was absolutely correct when he said “I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk (Muslim) than a foolish Christian.”
I hold the above view not just because of the irrelevancy of the candidate’s faith to the question of his competence, but also because I have nothing to fear from different faiths. As a Born-Again Christian I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. To me, this is a truth that is simply inalterable. You either accept or deny that truth to your own benefit or peril. Consequently, I am not worried that somehow the existence of others that believe differently from me, or don’t believe, will in any way affect the truth of God. So what if someone from a different faith, or no faith, assumes a position of power? So what if people become curious about that person’s faith or lack thereof. That does not change the truth of God one bit. If anything, it provides me an opportunity to discuss my faith.
The aforementioned discussion also reflects why I am not concerned about the movie The Golden Compass. The movie is based on a children’s book written by an avowed atheist for the purpose of promoting atheism by means of a fantasy story. Many fellow Christians are angry about the thinly veiled attack on the Christian Church, specifically the Catholic Church, contained in the series of books of which The Golden Compass is the first installment. They point out, correctly I think, that no publisher or studio would publish or produce such a story if it attacked the Jewish or Muslim faith to the same degree it attacks Christianity. Consequently many Christians are talking about boycotting the film and demanding that theaters not show it.
I think a boycott is unnecessary. I am not going to see this movie nor will I buy the book, not because I am participating in some formal boycott, but simply because I don’t want to provide any financial support to the promotion of the movie/book’s message. I am not bothered that the book was written or that the movie was made. Atheism has been around for a long time and will continue until the second coming of Christ. Furthermore, I no more fear atheism than any other idea that challenges the truth of God. As I have said before, I believe that God’s truth is THE truth and is not threatened by competitors. I am aware that this movie/book may influence some to become atheists and I think that is unfortunate. I will pray for them and hope they see the errors of their way. Furthermore, I am more than willing to explain my faith to anyone that wishes to talk about it. What I won’t do is insist that contrary beliefs be excluded from the public square. While I may not contribute to their dissemination, I will refuse to insist on their elimination.
Iowahawk & TNR:
I believe our Eric Blair is also from Iowa:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 ..... 875 NextDuly noted.
By the weekend, the Standard's editor, William Kristol, published an editorial that, without evidence, pronounced the Diarist an open-and-shut case, calling it "farrago of dubious tales." The gloating by rightwing bloggers that the evidence now exists is really beside the point, and a smokescreen to obscure an important fact: when Kristol and Goldfarb and company first hurled their then-baseless charges in July, there was no way that they could have known that the evidence would eventually turn up!
Old Days
The Old and the Young:
I have had relatively little time lately, and I apologize for that. My old favorite, Arts & Letters Daily, provides me with the meat for today's short post.
Commentary has an article on how American society is getting better:
Just when it seemed as if the storm clouds were about to burst, they began to part. As if at once, things began to turn around. And now, a decade-and-a-half after these well-founded and unrelievedly dire warnings, improvements are visible in the vast majority of social indicators; in some areas, like crime and welfare, the progress has the dimensions of a sea-change. That this has happened should be a source of great encouragement; why it happened, and what we can learn from it, is a subject of no less importance....There is also an allied article on what would, at first glance, appear to be a different subject: art.Despite persistent anomalies and backslidings, some species of cultural re-norming certainly seems to have been occurring in this country over the past decade-and-a-half, and it is fascinating to observe in whose hearts its effects have registered most strongly. In attitudes toward education, drugs, abortion, religion, marriage, and divorce, the current generation of teenagers and young adults appears in many respects to be more culturally conservative than its immediate predecessors. To any who may have written off American society as incorrigibly corrupt and adrift, these young people offer a powerful reminder of the boundless inner resources still at our disposal, and of our constantly surprising national resilience.
Why did experimental novels like James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake fail to exert the same enduring appeal as the paintings of the abstract expressionists—or, for that matter, the distinctively modern jazz and popular music about which Gay has nothing at all to say in Modernism? Could it be that, as I have previously argued, there were “in fact two modernisms, one deeply conservative and tradition-based, the other profoundly radical and antinomian,” and that the first of these modernisms, not the second, is the one that has prevailed?Confer, as they say, and discuss.
Def. vict
Defining Victory:
I think it's helpful to be able to articulate a vision for victory. That said, it is possible to be wrong about this sort of thing:
Troops still in Japan? We lost World War II.It's likely we'll have troops in Iraq for many, many years. If Iraq someday looks like South Korea or Germany, though... well, or even the Philippines.
Troops still in Germany? We lost World War I.
Troops still in the Philippines? We lost the Spanish-American War.
Troops still in the South? We lost the Civil War.
And I just learned that we have 10,500 troops in Britain. That means we lost the Revolutionary War. No wonder we speak English.
Iraq List
Another "Been in Iraq Too Long" List:
You've probably seen the famous one, but this list is even better.
"You kick aside the M-16 on the floor, without a second thought, when you sit down to eat in the Dining Facility."
"Your carry-on luggage includes body armour and a helmet."
"You can recognize 12 different camouflage patterns."
Heh...
Yule shopping
Yule Gifts:
As always, I'll repost a link to Sgt. Rob's 'Gifts for Deployed Soldiers.' The Gerber Applegate-Fairbairn remains the best folding combat dagger I've ever encountered. That said, I picked up The Cold Steel 'AK-47' and have been pleased with it. Enough so, in fact, that I might suggest Cold Steel knives... though you'll want to get them from a dealer you know, who will charge you below their MSRP; or else from Ebay or something. They're overpriced, though high quality.
I think this one looks good for combat soldiers, for example. Although I'd want this one, which looks like it meets the tests for a proper Bowie: long enough to use as a sword, heavy enough to use as a hatchet, wide enough to use as a paddle.
That kind of knife requires special training to use effectively, though, and is not for everyone. Mclemore's introduction is a good one, if you have the time and interest. I wouldn't mind getting his new book, to see what it might have. Maybe I'll order one to review.
I usually mention STEK knives, which are my favorite custom knives. Here is their current selection.
For the non-deployed, this bedroll looks very comfortable to me. It's in about the same price range as a good knife. For the man in your life who loves to camp by an open fire, it could be just the thing.
Make sure he's got beans, coffee, and a good coffeepot. It wouldn't hurt if he had a rifle, in case he might want some venison to roast.
That and a good hat, and he should be all set. And he'll love you forever. :)
Bet nobody involved had a clean pair of pants after this. (Watch it all the way through).
Anti-tank Missile Accident
Anti-tank Missile Accident
Friday
Friday Links:
More on the surfer who solved the world. There's a useful analogy to an earlier point in physics. As the article notes, the coolest thing is that the theory is testable. That's science.
Did "thousands of people [die] because of Kissinger's activities"? Some discussion. The things for which he really seems to be condemned are things he didn't try to stop: Cambodia, Laos, West Pakistan. To what degree is it fairly the fault of the United States of America if people kill each other in Cambodia? We had the power to stop it, perhaps, had we backed South Vietnam past 1972. (An alternative argument: being a democracy, we did not have the power to stop it, as the people were flat out tired of war in southeast Asia; in which case, the government may not have had the strength to stop the war in any case.) Even granting, for the sake of argument, that we had the power, does the failure to use that power make it Kissinger's fault that Man X murdered Man Y?
If so, that's an idea with consequences. If I see my neighbor about to shoot his wife and don't stop him, I'm a murderer. I guess we'd better start building new prisons.
What seems more likely to me is that Kissinger's power is greatly overestimated by historians and journalists alike; and that they are not able to see the opportunity costs attending every choice he made, whether to do or to not do. Those costs aren't always apparent from the outside even at the time. They're likely to become less and less obvious as the decades roll away.
That's not to absolve him of guilt, but neither is it to blame him. A historian has enough work just trying to sort out what really happened.
Grim's Thanks
Thanksgiving:
I wish one and all a Happy Thanksgiving.
I am most thankful for a warm and friendly home, where my mother is baking pumpkin gingerbread. My father, the best of men, will be there watching football and his grandson. My wife is there, and my beloved boy. The kitchen table will be covered with food, turkey and stuffing and brown gravy, casserole and mashed potatoes.
I'm not there, but I'm glad to know it exists. Everyone have a fine day, today.
Feel Free to ... err...Pile On®
Pile On® offers some appropriate post-prandial exercise for Turkey Day over at The Institute:
*snort*
Pile On® offers some appropriate post-prandial exercise for Turkey Day over at The Institute:
This is a football.
Please note the lack of handles.
Small wonder that each weekend countless receivers "can't find the handle on that one".
Feel free to share the comments of sports commentators you find annoying and over used in the comments.
*snort*
Molto bene!
Molto bene!
| Your Inner European is Italian! |
 You show the world what culture really is. |
Wed links
Wednesday Links:
Today's debate topic: We are better off allowing the free distribution of information, including topics of this sort. Defend or refute, as you prefer. I'm a defender, by sentiment; but a proper debate club requires you to do both, regardless of sentiment.
Cap'n Smith is talking about N. Iraq. I don't get out that way, so if you're interested, see what he has to say.
If you're interested in Western Iraq, Michael Totten is out there. Greyhawk and I put him on a bird just a few days ago. Nothing yet, but keep an eye on his site.
Slate magazine: helping you conceal murder since 2007.
Knox and Sollecito were on the right track: Bleach contains sodium hypochlorite, an extremely corrosive chemical that can break the hydrogen bonds between DNA base pairs and thus degrade or "denature" a DNA sample. In fact, bleach is so effective that crime labs use a 10 percent solution (one part commercial bleach to nine parts water) to clean workspaces so that old samples don't contaminate fresh evidence. Likewise, when examining ancient skeletal remains, researchers first douse the remains in diluted bleach to eliminate modern DNA from the surface of bones or teeth.I'll frame this with the China query of a few days ago. Free inquiry has its benefits and its hazards; you can be sure China wouldn't let a website post a get-out-of-jail-free kit like this one.
So, why did Knox and Sollecito's bleaching gambit fail? It's difficult to swab a knife thoroughly. Dried blood can stick to the nooks and crannies in a wood handle, to the serrated edge of a blade, or become lodged in the slit between the blade and the hilt. With help from a Q-tip, it's possible to eliminate most stains, but what's not visible to the naked eye might still be visible to a microscope, and sophisticated crime labs need only about 10 cells to build a DNA profile.
Bleach is perhaps the most effective DNA-remover (though evidently no methodology is failsafe), but it's not the only option. Deoxyribonuclease enzymes, available at biological supply houses, and certain harsh chemicals, like hydrochloric acid, also degrade DNA strands. It's even possible to wipe a knife clean of DNA-laden hair follicles, saliva, and white blood cells with generic soap and warm water. The drawback to this last method is that the tell-tale cells don't just disappear once off the knife. They linger on sponges, in drains, and even in sink traps, where wily investigators search for trace evidence.
Today's debate topic: We are better off allowing the free distribution of information, including topics of this sort. Defend or refute, as you prefer. I'm a defender, by sentiment; but a proper debate club requires you to do both, regardless of sentiment.
Love is:
...forever strange. A remarkable article from the New York Times tells us about 'love in the time of dementia.'
Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s husband, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, has a romance with another woman, and the former justice is thrilled — even visits with the new couple while they hold hands on the porch swing — because it is a relief to see her husband of 55 years so content.This actually makes perfect sense to me.
Next It'll Be Text Diplomacy:
State Dept. Tries Blog Diplomacy, reports the Washington Post:
By Walter PincusSoon, every cell phone in Baghdad will start receiving: US <3 U!
The State Department, departing from traditional public diplomacy techniques, has what it calls a three-person, "digital outreach team" posting entries in Arabic on "influential" Arabic blogs to challenge misrepresentations of the United States and promote moderate views among Islamic youths in the hopes of steering them from terrorism.
The department's bloggers "speak the language and idiom of the region, know the culture reference points and are often able to converse informally and frankly, rather than adopt the usually more formal persona of a U.S. government spokesperson," Duncan MacInnes, of State's Bureau of International Information Programs, told the House Armed Services subcommittee on terrorism and unconventional threats on Thursday.
"Because blogging tends to be a very informal, chatty way of working," MacInnes said, "it is actually very dangerous to blog." So State has a senior experienced officer, who served in Iraq, acting as supervisor and discussing each posting before it goes up. "We do not make policy," MacInnes added.
The State Department team's approach is to join a blog's conversation, often when it turns to the motivation for U.S. policy toward Iraq, and when others are claiming that the U.S. occupation is meant to help Israel or to secure oil. "Our job is to address that motivation issue and show them that that's not the motivation," MacInnes said.
"You can't just say, 'Well, here's our policy,' and drop it into the blog. You have to have what I call a bridge," MacInnes said. He then described using a sporting or current event or even poetry that would "allow one to get to be in a conversational mode with people."
Even though the State Department employees were not going into hard-core terrorist sites, the worry, MacInnes said, was that after identifying themselves and using their own names, "we would be, in the parlance of the Internet, 'flamed' when we come on" -- meaning their entries would be subjected to intense attacks.
They were not, and there were such posts as, "We don't like your policies but we're sure glad you're here talking to us about it," MacInnes said. As a result, State is expanding the team to six speakers of Arabic, two of Persian and one of Urdu.
To prove that it, too, can plug into the modern media world, the Pentagon's Central Command has a blogging operation at its headquarters. Its Joint Forces Command also has the capability and has even written a brochure on how to do it. "It's an area we're moving into," Navy Capt. Hal Pittman, acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for joint communications, told the House panel. He added that Central Command may not be using its own Arabic or Farsi speakers, but rather contract personnel. "We're sharing with State and trying to, you know, better our knowledge on how to do it."
The State-Defense communications approach is also turning to a more sophisticated message, one that moves away from trying to change perceptions of the United States, focusing instead on the self-perceptions of its target audiences. "Our core message must outline an alternative future that is more attractive than the bleak future offered by the terrorists," said Michael Doran, deputy assistant secretary of defense for support of public diplomacy.
Another step they described to the House panel, in what they called "counterterrorism communications," is having a greater awareness of the impact of what U.S. speakers are saying. "When we say 'Islamo-fascism,' whether the term has a meaning or not, what they hear is 'war on Islam,' okay -- 'attacking my religion,' " MacInnes said.
He described the phrase as "a verbal equivalent of poking a stick in somebody's eye . . . and [Osama] bin Laden has been very good at taking our words and turning them around to his advantage by saying, 'See, they're actually at war with Islam.' "
President Bush has not used the phrase recently.
National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines -- but should.
Milmatters
Military Matters:
EagleSpeak has a great post:
The last warship from World War II came home Tuesday to the United States.Of more contemporary interest, a piece on security engagement with potential partner nations.
When it comes to security cooperation, however, there will always be a tension between balancing military readiness with security cooperation. Most argue that readiness is the most important priority. But, if adequately funded and properly executed, security cooperation activities may build partners and prevent conflicts. Investing early in shaping activities may avoid exponentially larger expenditures later.Sub-regional partnerships are a wise idea, in my reading: we can get a lot out of them. They came in for a brief mention in a fairly harsh critique of our government's functioning that I penned.
CF
Cf.
Today's question: does this make for a stronger or a weaker society? We have a few national heroes left: Martin Luther King, Jr., being a clear example. We haven't got any national traitors that we are all willing to agree to scorn. Is that a strength or a weakness for our culture, compared to China's? Why do you say so?
From The American business magazine, on 'the China model,' this week:
The CPC is replacing old-style communist values with nationalism and a form of Confucianism, in a manner that echoes the "Asian values" espoused by the leaders who brought Southeast Asian countries through their rapid modernization process in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and elsewhere. But at the same time, in its public rhetoric, the party is stressing continuity and is assiduously ensuring that its own version of history remains correct. Historian Xia Chun-tao, 43, vice director of the Deng Xiaoping Thought Research Center, one of China’s core ideological think tanks, says, "It’s very natural for historians to have different views on events. But there is only one correct and accurate interpretation, and only one explanation that is closest to the truth." The key issues, he says, are “quite clearly defined” and not susceptible to debate. "There is a pool of clear water and there’s no need to stir up this water. Doing so can only cause disturbance in people’s minds."From John Derbyshire's tour of Hangzhou, 2001:
Some political scientist — I forget who — has coined the phrase "pre-critical society" for those cultures that have not attained the ability to look objectively at themselves and their history. Fifty years of Party-line government and "thought control" have left China stuck firmly in the pre-critical stage of intellectual development.My wife and I lived in Hangzhou for a while. I can confirm the truth of the story about the statues.
This unhappy little fact was brought home to me at the mausoleum of Yue Fei in Hangzhou. Yue Fei is a national hero. He lived in the early twelfth century, a time of great crisis for the Chinese nation. The Song dynasty (960-1279: it was, by the way, arguably the most progressive and creative of China's 24 imperial dynasties) was under assault by the savage Jin barbarians of the far north. Yue Fei was commander of the Chinese armies fighting against the Jin. He won many brilliant victories against them, and was hugely popular with his troops and with the common people. At the court of the Song emperor, however, there was a faction that wanted to make peace with the Jin, and cede to them the large area of North China they had conquered. This faction was led by a senior official named Qin Hui. Yue Fei, of course, wanted to fight on, to regain the lost territories. Qin Hui, however, had the emperor's ear. He arranged a frame-up of Yue Fei, who was recalled to the capital and executed. North China was ceded to the Jin (and the dynasty is thereafter known as the Southern Song, with its capital at Hangzhou).
This incident is regarded as an outrage by all patriotic Chinese, and seems even to have aroused strong feelings at the time. The following emperor had Yue Fei posthumously rehabilitated. The great warrior was re-buried in a grand mausoleum, which is now a popular tourist spot. Statues of Qin Hui, of his wife (who was involved in some way I have forgotten), and two of Yue Fei's subordinates who had co-operated in the frame-up were set in front of the tomb, all in a kneeling position — kneeling humbly before the patriot they had wronged. It used to be the custom for visitors to the mausolem to spit on the statue of Qin Hui. This has now been forbidden, however, and when I saw it, the statue was spittle-free. (The only surface area of its size anywhere in China of which this could be said.)
Strolling around the pleasant grounds of the mausoleum, I wondered aloud to Rosie — who can be taken here as a sort of lay figure, a representative well-educated thirty-something mainland Chinese — whether any bold historian had tried to make a name for himself by arguing a revisionist view of the Yue Fei incident, showing that Qin Hui was right and Yue Fei really a dangerous plotter.
Rosie was scandalized by this notion. "If anyone wrote such a thing, his statue would be put next to Qin Hui's for people to spit on." I persisted, with all the usual arguments about the difficulty of getting to the bottom of historical matters. President Kennedy was shot less than forty years ago. We have film footage of the event, and independent judicial inquiries have been carried out at vast expense, yet people are still arguing about what happened. Are we quite sure we have all the facts about a palace intrigue of nine hundred years ago?
Rosie wouldn't hear of it. Yue Fei was a great national hero, she sniffed. Qin Hui was a contemptible traitor, who sold himself and his country for cash. "Everybody knows." No use to point out (though I did anyway, from sheer force of habit) that until quite recently, "everybody knew" that the sun revolved around the earth, but that careful inquiry had showed this not to be the case. No use: I had hit the Wall.
This failure to develop a properly critical attitude to one's culture and history is a natural consequence of despotic government, with all its grisly apparatus of propaganda and intimidation. At any give time there is only one correct "line" in a despotism. To present any alternative version of things is at least anti-social, and may be seen as treasonous.
Yet Qin Hui must have been a man of great intelligence and ability. He had risen to the highest rank in government via stiff competitive examinations, and no doubt had survived many savage and complex court intrigues. Are we really to suppose that he would have no arguments to bring to his defense? After all, in any conflict there is a peace faction and a war faction, and the peace faction is sometimes right. King Alfred made peace with the Danes and ceded half of England to them: he is revered as the savior of his nation. And powerful, popular generals sometimes do have designs on the throne — most disastrously, in Chinese history, An Lu-shan, whose rebellion in the middle of the eighth century wrecked the Tang dynasty.
Today's question: does this make for a stronger or a weaker society? We have a few national heroes left: Martin Luther King, Jr., being a clear example. We haven't got any national traitors that we are all willing to agree to scorn. Is that a strength or a weakness for our culture, compared to China's? Why do you say so?
Theory of Everything
Every Surfer Thinks He Knows the Secret of Everything:
This one, though, actually might have a read on it. I don't know enough mathematics to evaluate the claim that E8 construction could explain reality; perhaps one of you would like a try at it?
I will say, however, that "Holy Crap! That's it!" is a pretty good Modern English translation of Archimedes' "Eureka!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)