Lies My Parents Told Me

Well, not my parents, at least not that I can recall. But children learn to lie from their parents:

Encouraged to tell so many white lies and hearing so many others, children gradually get comfortable with being disingenuous. Insincerity becomes, literally, a daily occurrence. They learn that honesty only creates conflict, and dishonesty is an easy way to avoid conflict....

In the thesaurus, the antonym of honesty is lying, and the opposite of arguing is agreeing. But in the minds of teenagers, that’s not how it works. Really, to an adolescent, arguing is the opposite of lying.

That's right. A fighting man can be an honest man; but an agreeable man is a liar.

A society that desires agreement and concession is a dishonest society, a civilization of liars. More, it is a society of people who don't respect each other:

Certain types of fighting, despite the acrimony, were ultimately signs of respect—not of disrespect.

But most parents don’t make this distinction in how they perceive arguments with their children. Dr. Tabitha Holmes of SUNY–New Paltz conducted extensive interviews asking mothers and adolescents, separately, to describe their arguments and how they felt about them. And there was a big difference.

Forty-six percent of the mothers rated their arguments as being destructive to their relationships with their teens. Being challenged was stressful, chaotic, and (in their perception) disrespectful. The more frequently they fought, and the more intense the fights were, the more the mother rated the fighting as harmful. But only 23 percent of the adolescents felt that their arguments were destructive. Far more believed that fighting strengthened their relationship with their mothers.

One of the key insights into the duel as a social institution was that its chief function was a display of mutual respect. Kenneth S. Greenberg explained, in Honor and Slavery, the way in which the duel allowed existing disrespect and tension to be resolved. When two men stood up and tried to kill each other, they were each also allowing the other to try and kill them. Allowing a man a fair shot at you, and taking your fair shot at him, showed that you existed on an even plane. The fight was intended to heal a rift in society, precisely because it was a show of respect between the parties. Indeed, that was often its effect.

Fighting is a form of negotiation, they say. An honest form. So what matters more: honesty, or peace? There are civilizations -- China, I can say having lived there, is one of them -- where the greater good is harmony, before which truth must yield. Arabian society is also that way; we say that, if all but one sheikh agrees, no sheikhs agree. You have to achieve complete harmony or you have no bond that will be recognized.

These are difficulties for Americans, who prefer honesty.

We are consequently very, very good at fighting.

All Humanity

Humani Generis:

In which Cassidy looks at some Apache guntape.

GRodeo

Georgia Rodeo:

BloodSpite is reflecting on eight-second rides.

Many years ago I made it to the Las Vegas National Finals Rodeo. Not as a watcher.

As a Rider.

I've ridden a horse or two that belonged in a Rodeo, but I haven't ridden in the show. Nor will I -- I'm already too old to think that's a good idea. :) Blackhawks over Iraq are far less dangerous than any bad-tempered horse, in any corral in the safest state back home.

Bold, new fresh face for change.

I work with some women who have a passing resemblance to Ms. Williams. And believe me, you do not want to be on the receiving end of that look.

Oh, and while we're at it, Penn, (of Penn and Teller; the magicians) says Hillary is toast.

(via American Digest)

“A man that tall must be able to see the whole world.”

LT G and his troops conduct a presence patrol somewhere in Iraq.

Breaking out of the Warehouse

Breaking out of the Warehouse:

At the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the magical weapon-to-end-all-weapons, a "radio to God," is sealed away in a government warehouse, marked "Secret." This seems to be the reflexive reaction of governments to powerful, dangerous things. Having held a security clearance and read secret documents on a regular basis, I have often felt that the government vastly overclassifies -- and that it should find a way to get the information out, so that the citizenry can know what is going on. That is one reason this page is a longtime friend of Secrecy News, which always keeps pressure on the government to declassify robustly, and fights against new restrictions designed to keep unclassified information from the public.

America can benefit from increased openness, because it would make clear how little our operations and secrets are like those of genuinely vicious nations. Consider this childlike book found in the secret files of Iraq:

It looks like a schoolgirl's lesson book. The cover bears a repeating flower motif in hot pink and white. A few words handwritten in Arabic fill a small title field on its face. "Register of Eliminated Villages," Mr. Makiya translates aloud, running his fingers over the words.

The book, Mr. Makiya says, records the Baath Party's destruction of 399 Kurdish villages in the Eastern sector of Northern Iraq in 1987.

There's an interesting debate on the best way to secure and publicize the remnaing several million pages of the regime's secret files. Brave Iraqis trying to build something here want them: academics, who are afraid to send these resources back to a place where they may be destroyed if a hostile faction gets ahold of them, are resisting.

Another project is trying to resurrect the destroyed Stasi files:

There's no way to know what bombshells those files hide. For a country still trying to come to terms with its role in World War II and its life under a totalitarian regime, that half-destroyed paperwork is a tantalizing secret.

The machine-shredded stuff is confetti, largely unrecoverable. But in May 2007, a team of German computer scientists in Berlin announced that after four years of work, they had completed a system to digitally tape together the torn fragments.

That project isn't a pipe dream: the reason China has an atomic weapon today is that they were able to reconstitute shredded Soviet documents.

American secrecy is of a different type, not intended to conceal tyrannical acts, but to protect operational security and give planners a moment to think. The problem doesn't arise from a desire to conceal vicious deeds, but from a lack of interest: once a thing is stuck in the warehouse, it is forgotten.

That said, in a Republic the flow of information to the citizens should be as unimpeded as reasonable. We have a role as citizens in giving assent to the government, and advice through both elections and peaceful assembly and petition; we have also, therefore, a genuine need to know and to understand.

A robust, lawful and orderly declassification process is the way to match the needs of the Republic and the citizen, with the operational security requirements that protect our servicemembers, agents and officers. The impulse is to lock things in the warehouse, and never think of it again. We need to have someone whose job it is to always be reviewing those boxes, and thinking about which ones can be brought out into the sun.

I don't have words for this.

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law
in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

I had come to the conclusion that Rowan is basically an old fool, but whoa, what a fool. His stupidity knows no bounds, it seems.

(via memeorandum)

Gawja

A Fun Year:

What an odd time. Republicans at National Review are griping about Southern prejudice against Mormons, of which prejudice I'd never heard (used to know a Mormon back home, in fact, a guy named Jimmy Fish. He was there to convert us, and while I don't recall him enjoying any success, I recall him being well liked by everyone).

Meanwhile, over at the blog of Obama's biggest fan:

What do the talking heads and those reporting “identity politics” expect? That every single demographic split within a 45-55 band? That’s ridiculous.

Read my lips. A black guy just carried forty percent of the white vote in a Georgia primary. We’ve over-used the word “transcend,” but that’s what happening here.... An African-American candidate for president winning forty percent of white voters in a primary in the Deep South. Whatever one makes of Obama’s policies, that is a tremendous statement, that is a tribute to the people of Georgia.

Stephen went so far as to email me personally to express his regard for Georgians. "Y'all are all right," he said, "and you can fly whatever goddam flag you like. :)"

You want to win votes, that's the way you win 'em -- more flies with honey, as my mama used to say. She said it just like that, too, adding "as my mama used to say" at the end; so when you hear yourself say it, you hear her say it, and you imagine your grandmother saying it to her, and for a moment you can see the shadow of a long line behind her, whispering.

Of course it's easier to be happy when you win than when you lose; some disappointment is natural. Still, a whisper passed along so far down a long line probably has some truth behind it.

More honey, less vinegar. I've just been given something I didn't expect to get -- an actual reason to vote for Obama, a vision of finally breaking old prejudices about my home and her people. I'm tired of hearing about how, when people vote this way or that way, it's because of prejudice -- are Asians and Latinos racists for voting against Obama, or white women racists for voting for Clinton; or is white men who have the problem, for preferring a black man to a white woman? Does their sexism outweigh their racism? Is it religion? Why do they hate us?

Enough of that, for heaven's sake. Don't tell me Obama's the only one who can do it.

Forward after Tuesday

Thoughts on Tuesday:

The Corner holds that Southerners put an end to the Romney campaign in a sort of spiteful way:

John O'Sullivan:

Tonight is not yet over, but I fear that one element in the voting may be a positive rejection of Romney. That seems to be a factor quite as much as an embrace of McCain. Hence the revival of Huckabee in the South. My southern belle wife always warned that many evangelicals would vote for anyone but a Mormon.

Mark Steyn:

I think John O'Sullivan is right. There was an explicit anti-Romney vote in the south. A mere month ago, in the wake of Iowa and New Hampshire, I received a ton of emails from southern readers saying these pansy northern states weren't the "real" conservative heartland, and things would look different once the contest moved to the south. Well, the heartland spoke last night and about the only message it sent was that, no matter what the talk radio guys say, they're not voting for a Mormon no way no how.

I don't know what kind of email Steyn gets, but I don't doubt the South rejected Romney. I do doubt that the reason was his Mormonism. I never took him seriously as a candidate, because he was plainly a northeastern businessman. That is a faction of the Republican party that has never run strong in the South; the only exception being Bush senior, who was running on Reagan's coattails.

Apparently he was a serious candidate, but I imagine his real problem was that most Southerners -- as I did -- ignored him from the beginning. There's normally a candidate from that faction in the race; they never win. I never paid him any mind, any more than I did for Ron Paul (who, to judge from his fundraising, has a real base of support somewhere).

It's fairly easy to see that, in the little I've had time to write about the election, Romney's name has simply never come up. I haven't talked about Paul before either. Neither, that I recall, have co-bloggers here. We did talk quite a bit about Fred Thompson, who was our candidate; and Duncan Hunter, who was my other favorite. Those guys were better than any of the candidates who did well on Super Tuesday, at least on the issues; but it isn't issues on which you win elections, it's your machines.

So no, I don't think there was an 'explicit anti-Romney vote' in the South. I think there was an implicit anti-Romney vote: we never considered him at all.

Not that the folks at National Review have any right to complain, if the South doesn't take their candidate as seriously as they'd prefer. Jonah Goldberg writes, on the same page: "Hope to see some of you at Oglethorpe (which isn't what Salami did in the locker room on the "White Shadow")."

The memory of Sir James Edward Oglethorpe deserves better than to be used as a cheap joke. You might say he was the Sam Houston of Georgia: a soldier who defended the early colony from the Spanish raiders in the south; a kind man, who devised a plan to found the state to provide a refuge for the imprisoned debtors of England and repentant Jacobites from Scotland, chiefly the MacIntosh; and a wise man, who banned both lawyers and slaves from the colony. Without intending any offense to my two JAG co-bloggers, I cannot help but feel that we would have benefitted from more closely obeying his original design.

It is that kind of history that Southerners live and breathe, and if you want our attention, so must you. I realize that makes it hard for a Romney, perhaps harder than is fair; but these are good traditions, powerful to hold men to what the best in their heritage.

If we didn't take Romney seriously, apparently New Hampshire didn't take Thompson seriously, and they at least had a chance to vote for him. I still think they should have gotten behind him up North; apparently I was supposed to get behind Romney, of whom I've barely heard, along with the South.

So we're left with McCain, and whoever finally wins the Democratic nomination. I assume that will be Obama, on the strength of yesterday's performance; he did not need to win, being the underdog, but only to show that he could win. There is really no reason for a liberal to vote for Hillary when they could have Obama; for, as discussed yesterday, she will betray their principles, whereas it appears he will hold fast. Those principles are wrong, I feel certain, but there is little doubt that he believes in them.

So... on from here. *Sigh.* I imagine there must be a few good things about McCain; and perhaps Clinton will still pull it out. That would seem to be the best we can hope for, these next four years.

On the Primary

On the Primary:

I am at two disadvantages in commenting on the primary election, one practical and one conceptual. The practical problem is that I have very little time or opportunity to read or write about US politics right now, being otherwise occupied. The conceptual problem is that the primary has already drifted so far to the Left that I really have given minimal thought to the programs now on the table.

Take health care, for example. Ezra Klein and MyDD have quite a lot to say about these issues, which they have considered at length. My response to the question, "What do you think the best way to achieve universal health care is?" would be, "Let's not."

Unfortunately, as in the 1990s, the debate is tracking that way anyway. "But do you think that universal insurance premiums is better (with an enforcement mechanism, of course, to attack the 'free rider' problem), or a single-payer system?" I must reply, "I really meant what I said at first: I'm totally opposed to any such plan, period."

This has made it difficult to follow the debate.

I have come to the conclusion, however, that Obama really appears to be a decent fellow; and we all know what Clinton is. They are tracking each other closely (as far as I can tell, given the conceptual problem mentioned above) in their rhetoric on every topic, which shows Obama's leadership -- he is putting forward principles he really believes in; whereas if Clinton is saying the same things, it's because that is what her pollsters tell her triangulation requires.

Oddly, sadly, this puts me in the position of having to oppose Obama as the first principle in the election. He does truly believe these things he's saying -- and I think he's wrong about everything. He is certainly wrong about Iraq, and seems not to have thought very deeply about the consequences of leaving it behind: even if you are not interested in the humanitarian consequences for the people of Iraq, the practical consequences to the world of leaving a power vacuum in Iraq, that will pull into conflict Iran and Saudi Arabia, the three main oil producing states in the main oil producing region.

He is wrong about Pakistan. He is wrong about health care, I believe; and indeed, on the entire domestic program.

He is wrong about the need for America to redeem itself: America is morally the finest nation in human history, and the light of future days. I have witnessed her efforts and effects from China to Iraq, and taken part in them; and so, if I am not a disinterested observer, I am an experienced one. No other has done more, inside and out, to hold itself accountable for its mistakes, and incline to its best nature in the brutal sphere of international politics.

This nation is the hope of the world: right now, as she is.

I oppose reflexively the concept that we should try to better each other against our wills. Bluenoses who want to fight obesity or alcoholism or "dangerous" things like guns and sexism whatnot represent the worst impulse regularly given license in American society: there are worse ones, but we normally restrain ourselves from them. There always seems to be someone ready to pass another law to put a leash and collar on their fellow Americans.

So we are told a good people must provide for each other's health care; and therefore that no one should be fat, or smoke, or drink too much; and all of us must pay, so there will be no 'free riders.' Ah, well, where then is freedom? Freedom includes the right to make mistakes, and more: the right to decide for yourself if what you are doing is a mistake in the first place. It includes the right to order your own values. Perhaps you value cigarettes in the morning more than life past 65: so be it.

Obama seems sincere and genuinely devoted to his principles: and as those principles are wrong, backwards and unAmerican, I have to oppose his nomination. Clinton, at least, will betray those principles if they prove momentarily difficult, and we can make them difficult. I say this with a real respect for Obama: good for him that he is honest and decent. It is only that he is honestly wrong, about every policy he has actually proposed to enact.

I would not, then, vote in the Republican primary if I were you, and if you are in a state where you have a choice. The most serious question is being resolved in the Democratic race: whether it shall be led by a candidate who is deeply devoted to bad principles, or one who is not.

If you are interested in the Republican race, Tigerhawk has thought deeply about it; but the only Republicans that were interesting to me have already quit the race. Neither of the remaining candidates appeals to me even slightly, though if required, I will vote for either in the general election to prevent an Obama presidency.

For now, vote Clinton! It's important.

REPUBLICANS, THEY THIRST FOR DEATH.

Gerard van der Leun, over at American Digest, scolds 'ideological purists' and sets his comments on fire. Have a look. See what you think.

For my part, I think Gerard overdid it a bit.

Men against fire.

LT G gets shot at for the first time.

Fairy Tale

Fairy Tales:

One can understand how this might happen:

Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real. The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth. And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up.

Both Churchill and Richard the Lionheart share the qualities that Chesterton attributed to Alfred the Great (who, for British readers, was also real):

And this of Alfred and the Danes
Seems like the tales a whole tribe feigns
Too English to be true.

Of a good king on an island
That ruled once on a time;
And as he walked by an apple tree
There came green devils out of the sea
With sea-plants trailing heavily
And tracks of opal slime.

Yet Alfred is no fairy tale;
His days as our days ran,
He also looked forth for an hour
On peopled plains and skies that lower,
From those few windows in the tower
That is the head of a man.

How, in the current age, does one believe in George Washington? But Sherlock Holmes, with his cocaine habit and psychiatric obsessive disorders and inability to have a successful marriage -- why, he fits right in.

Girl Scout Cookie money

"All that effort... and we had to give the money back. I'm kinda pissed."

Laura at Ace's place has a video that I've watched twice now, and still can't really believe. Obviously not all young women are hyper-achieving in jobs and education.

UPDATE: I'm still shaking my head in wonder, two hours later. I have no trouble understanding evil. This, though, I just can't grasp. I can't imagine what it would be like to be this way.

Youth culture

Youth Culture:

City Journal, having previously pondered young women who won't get married, now looks at young men who won't. The two articles posit a view of women who've decided they can go to college, "hyper-achieve" at jobs, and put off families until much later; and men who've decided to put off growing up until they're 30-something.

The problems they posit for this new arrangement are, for society, fewer children to grow up into the next generation; and for women, fewer men who are suitable mates. For young men, the only problem is that they're jerks, but they seem happy that way.

Before we engage in a thorough examination of the specifics of these articles, let me offer this analysis: what you see here is how post-feminist society has achieved a new equilibrium.

We read that women are getting the majority of college diplomas, 'hyper-achieving' (meaning achieving early), and then still wanting children -- but fewer, later. We read that men are taking on slower paths to the job market and obtaining fewer college degrees as a percentage. What does that mean?

What it appears to me to mean is this:

1) Young women have decided they want both a family and a career; so they "do" a career seriously-and-in-a-hurry, so they'll have time for the family too.

2) Young men recognize that the women are going to compete hard for promotions and such early, and rather than 'fight the girl,' which they've always been taught not to do, they let the girl win. Fewer go to college, so there will be more room for women in women-friendly careers (i.e., careers built around offices); more work in jobs most women didn't want anyway (such as construction or policing).

Then, around the 30s, the women start opting-out of the fast track, letting the men who did get degrees move up and marry them; and they start families at this point.

I think this indicates a sort of stability, in which most of these folks are getting what they really want: for post-feminist women, the chance at both a career and a family; for men, a longer period of freedom and play, and a softer landing into family and career. Young men now often only have to support wife and progeny for a few years until the wife will want to return to her (now more-balanced) career; so there will be two incomes, even if hers is no longer what it once was.

This two-income strategy also allows the children to be supported through college themselves, which is increasingly likely to be the case; and, in an economy that often requires workers to switch not only jobs but careers on occasion, allows for some measure of protection for a married couple, as each of the partners can support the family for a short transition period.

So, in other words, things are what they really ought to be.

As for the 'frathouse culture,' I prefer men of the old John Wayne stamp myself; but you won't get them by fretting over Maxim magazine. You'll get them only by setting an example. Young men of this type are vulnerable in that one respect: they recognize that they aren't really acting like men, and long for the respect and honor shown to true men. Show them the way, and some of them will follow.

Some won't, but being free, that's really up to them. In a Republic, they can be drunk or sober, just as they please.

UPDATE: More on this topic from K-Lo in a movie review; and she received a remarkable response from a reader, which she published. The two make good thought pieces to go along with the two from City Journal.

Strangemaps

One of the Cooler Things I've Seen Lately:

StrangeMaps is neat. While this entry is for Daniel, everyone who hasn't seen it before should look at the Minard map.

Finally, some of you will appreciate this map of Hannover.

War is war is war.

LT G needs some sleep.

SANS CONSERVATISM!

SANS CONSERVATISM!

The last Republican candidate’s debate took place at the Reagan Library last night. For those of you with better things to do than follow these things let me summarize last night’s performance by the candidates: PATHETIC!

I have lost any shred of patience that I may have had with these ridiculous so called “debates.” To begin with I am sick and tired of these candidates carrying on about who is the most conservative or most like Reagan. Allow me to resolve this issue. NEITHER MCCAIN NOR ROMNEY IS CONSERVATIVE AND THEY BEAR NO RESEMBLANCE TO REAGAN!!!!!!!!!

Let me be very clear, American conservatism has historically been defined by its commitment to preserving the limited role of the federal government established in the Constitution. Part and parcel of this commitment to limited government has been an insistence on both a proper balance between state and federal power as well as a respect for the separation of powers between the different government branches. Limited government has been the first principal of American conservative thought from the beginning. Consequently, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Ronald Reagan constantly emphasized his commitment to limited government and state’s rights throughout his political career. However, neither McCain nor Romney ever mentions limited government and you can find no reference to this first principle of conservatism on either of their web pages.

To be sure, these two candidates will go on an on about lower taxes and reduced spending. While lower taxes and debt reduction are a good start they represent nothing more than temporary relief from the symptoms endemic to the metastasizing cancer of bloated government. Taxes and debt can, and almost certainly will, be raised by subsequent administrations as the size and scope of government increases. Look not to promises of lower taxes and debt reduction to provide a lasting defense to government intrusion. Those so called champions will ultimately fail.

Between Romney and McCain it is probably McCain that is most clueless on the issue of limited government. I say clueless because if he truly understands the implications of his campaign finance reform crusade to get money and influence out of politics he is intentionally flirting with fascism. Does that sound a little strong? Look at it this way: a cursory glance at the encyclopedic size of our tax code, let alone the ever-growing volumes of other federal regulations, provides a startling look at the way the federal government touches almost every aspect of our daily lives. This should come as no surprise since the government uses tax policy for social engineering purposes to affect desired outcomes. Consequently, groups of citizens from every walk of life regularly come together to petition government in order to protect themselves or benefit from this growing government intrusion. These groups of citizens are what McCain derisively refers to as “special interests” and whose voice he wants to muffle. However, these “special interests” include everyone from artists to zoologists.

Everyone has an interest that needs protection or influence from government that is special to them. There are no “special interests,” there are just interests. Since the government created this situation by extending its tentacles into every nook and cranny of our national life you can’t blame these groups or their lobbyists for trying to influence the outcome to their benefit. Nevertheless, this me-first power scramble and the influence peddling that results is hardly a positive development. However, the way to deal with this problem is not to clamp down on the citizen’s right to make his voice heard but rather to restrain the government intrusions that make such lobbying necessary in the first place. If the federal government did less then fewer people would waste time and money lobbying it. What McCain’s campaign finance law seeks to do is restrict the citizen’s ability to make his/her voice heard on these matters while doing nothing to restrain government reach and power. Consequently, power is dramatically shifted to the government (and incumbent politicians) at the expense of the citizenry. Political Schemes that strengthen the power of the government and weaken the 1st Amendment rights of citizens is anything but conservative.

I want to like McCain. I admire his heroic service as well as the courageous position he took in supporting the surge when so many weak-kneed Republicans were more interested in seeking political cover. However, I can’t help but be turned off when he advocates restricting speech without saying one word about shrinking government power and influence. The remarkably deaf ear that he turned to the public outcry against his illegal immigrant amnesty plan only deepens my concern regarding his demeaning attitude towards citizen speech.

I miss Fred Thompson!!!

Hail

A Winter Question:

They were so excited about the snow:

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."

What do you think they'll say about the hail?

Bail

Posting Bail:

Is it bad that the US uses bail bondsmen?

Other countries almost universally reject and condemn Mr. Spath’s trade, in which defendants who are presumed innocent but cannot make bail on their own pay an outsider a nonrefundable fee for their freedom.

“It’s a very American invention,” John Goldkamp, a professor of criminal justice at Temple University, said of the commercial bail bond system. “It’s really the only place in the criminal justice system where a liberty decision is governed by a profit-making businessman who will or will not take your business.”

While I'm always willing to hear good ideas, whether from Europe or anywhere else, I don't think we have an obligation to do something just because it's common in Europe. That said, just what do you do in Europe if you can't post bail?

Some [countries] simply keep defendants in jail until trial.

Oh, yes, that's a much better system. :P

Others ask defendants to promise to turn up for trial.

Um... what?

Some make failure to appear a separate crime.

OK, that makes sense -- but if they were going to run from the murder charge, how much is the extra 30 days really going to deter them?

Some impose strict conditions on release, like reporting to the police frequently.

Again, right -- "Sure, officer, I'll be right by your office." ("Swissair, thank you for holding.")

Some make defendants liable for a given sum should they fail to appear but do not collect it up front. Others require a deposit in cash from the defendant, family members or friends, which is returned when the defendant appears.

Which is fine; but that assumes the defendent or his family has the money to start with. Since poverty and crime are very often observed together, that system (unlike the evil profit-motive American system) denies the poor a chance at freedom while they await the trial that will decide if they are in fact guilty.

So why does the American system work like it does?

If Mr. Spath considers a potential client a good risk, he will post bail in exchange for a nonrefundable 10 percent fee.... Forty percent of people released on bail are eventually acquitted or have the charges against them dropped.

Which is to say that sixty percent don't. So, here's the business proposition: you put up 100% of the money, and your client pays you 10% of that sum in return. If he shows up, you get your money back; if not, you lose everything you put up. So, you're betting 10% against 100%.

Oh, and 60% of your clients are criminals.

Normally, when you take a serious risk with a large sum of money, you expect a pretty good potential return on your investment. In return for the risk that you'll lose everything, you expect a reasonable profit.

The fellow in the article says it costs $50,000 a month to run his business; that apparently does not include the actual money he has to come up with, as he invests around $13 million a year in bonds. If he's paying $600,000 a year in costs, but is clearing 1.3 million, that leaves him with $700,000 profit on a $13 million investment: not 10%, but around 5%.

That's not really running away with the bank. And it sounds like, compared to other systems cited by the NYT, you've got a system that works better for the government ("Promise you'll come back for trial") and the poor ("Sure, you can go -- if you can prove you've got the money to pay the fee for nonappearance").

Meanwhile, it's not that hard to find a much safer investment that'll give you a 5% return.

I don't know -- it sounds reasonable to me. I'm just not seeing the villiany.

Totten

Totten: "The Final Mission"

Michael Totten has a piece up on Marines training the Fallujah police. We (that is, not me and Totten, but just those of us here at the HQ) were talking about how much Fallujah has changed just last night. They're doing 5k races out there, PTing in the streets with no armor, etc. (Apparently the third place winner ran with his pistol; which is pretty good, for coming in third.) That said, I didn't realize that we'd reduced force presence by 90%, however.

It's a good thing that Totten is so famous for his accuracy and fairness. Otherwise, I wouldn't believe his characterization of this:

The Marine Corps runs the American mission in Fallujah, but some of the Police Transition Team members are Military Police officers culled from the Texas National Guard. “We're like the red-headed stepchild of units,” one MP told me. “We're from different units from all over Texas, as well as from the Marine Corps.”

One Texas MP used to be a Marine. “I decided I would rather defend my state than my country,” he said jokingly. “But here I am, back in Iraq.”

"Jokingly," eh? Sure. :)

Great

Thanks, UGA:

A tragically non-ironic article from Red and Black, by the fittingly named Ms. Queen:

Before this semester, I had overlooked the most fundamental political issue: myself. I, as a woman, have been historically oppressed since the beginning of time and yet this issue has been completely overlooked, not just by myself, but by society as a whole.

However, thanks to my women's studies course I have been given a new set of eyes, a feminist lens through which I now see the world.

UGA charges about fiven thousand dollars a year for this service; and thanks to the HOPE scholarship, that means that I myself am likely a contributor.

You won't find any surprises in the article itself; it's just depressing to discover that the schools are still plugging this same line into people. You'd have thought that Women's Studies would have moved on past "That jerk, Pat Robertson said..." and "Men don't have to worry about their hair!" Oh, and "You can't divorce your abuser because you'll end up on welfare!", in a society in which divorce rates run about 50% and women earn the majority of college degrees.

Maybe we can get a bill through the Georgia Legislature to restrict the HOPE Scholarship to traditional arts and sciences.

Pills, pills

Pills, Pills:

Reason magazine is ready for them. Quite ready:

Owens posits this case: You have developed some nagging doubts about your partner's fidelity. Although you sometimes think your doubts are irrational, you remember certain lingering looks at parties, and your happiness is spoiled. You're not the sort to hire a private detective, but you have heard of a new pharmaceutical, the anti-doubt pill, Credon. Credon lulls your suspicious nature, but doesn't make you gullible to car sales people. It works only in the context of intimate relationships. The manufacturer does warn that Credon has sometimes generated excessive trust between lovers. So off you go to "The Pharmacy of the Future" for Credon.

Once there, the conscientious pharmacist confirms that Credon does usually work, but asks if you've considered alternative treatments. For example, why not take the new anti-possessiveness pill Libermine? Patients using Libermine don't care if their partners have an occasional fling. Or why be a couple at all? Solox, the emotional independence pill, enables patients to have a wide and emotionally satisfying circle of friends but liberates them from the tedium of having only one intimate partner. Owens then posits that the price of Credon is about as much as for a candy bar, while Libermine and Solox costs as much as good bottle of wine. So on what grounds do you choose among these options?

Owens suggests that one response might be that it's "normal" to want to be in relationship. The pharmacist reminds you that people born with extra Solox in their brains are just as "natural" as people without it. Surely you would agree that such free spirits should not be regarded as somehow inadequate. Another response is that taking Libermine would so change you that you wouldn't be you anymore. Of course, the whole point of taking Credon is to change you so that you, in some respects, aren't you anymore.

So why not flip a coin? Would that mean that the choice doesn't matter any more to you than choosing between two brands of coffee? Surely one's emotional state and the state of one's most intimate relationship should matter more than choosing between Bustelo and Starbucks.

Reason's summation is that "trial and error" will determine the best choice -- not for you, obviously, but for society as a whole, eventually. So really, a random choice may be the best way to go.

Or let the market decide, and just pick the cheap one.

Anyway, you'll be happier regardless, right? Whether you just believe your spouse is not cheating, or you are happy for him or her to cheat, or you just walk away and never care about them again... as long as you feel better, that's what matters.

Is it not?

Hell on Earth

Hell on Earth:

I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the unfortunate subjects of China just now.

The snow struck as tens of millions of Chinese head home to celebrate the Lunar New Year, starting on February 7 this year, straining trains and planes even in normal times.

At the main rail station in Guangzhou in the relatively warm commercial far south, 170,000 people crammed together waiting for trains that cannot leave because of electric trains stranded downline, Xinhua news agency reported.

By the end of Monday, a backlog of 600,000 waiting for trains from the city was expected. Television showed green-uniformed anti-riot troops ready to keep order around the station.

I've traveled by train in China during the runup to the Lunar New Year. It's astonishing. Somewhat more than half of China's billion-plus population just... gets up and moves. And then they move back in a few days. If you've ever flown at Christmas, imagine that pain times ten.

And that's in a good year, without the snowstorms.

This has pretty much got to suck.

The government has not announced deaths due to freezing in homes. But homes south of the Yangtze River generally do not receive central heating and are not built for such icy weather.

That's true too. We sealed up our little hovel with layers of plastic bubblewrap over the windows and doors, laid down rugs over the cracks in the floor, and made candles out of fish oil and strips of cotton cut from the wife's underwear. Fortunately, the place was so small that you could actually generate enough heat out of some homemade candles to keep from freezing to death.

Yeah, good times. Take a moment to think warm thoughts for those poor folks.

Intel cells

Rifle-company Intel Cells:

Once again, the Marine Corps leads the way. The databasing/sharing concept is the most important one. Companies, like any other military unit, have seams with other units -- they control a given area, but the enemy moves in and out of that area. What happens here matters across the way, and vice versa. Better sharing is critical.

Too, analysis tends to get better with experience, but added responsibility and distance degrades the benefit. The G2 section normally is better at recognizing patterns and important details than the S2, because its members have more experience with it. They have a problem in being responsible for a lot more areas, so they can't focus down on any given area except periodically. They have an additional problem in being distant: instead of dealing with the area eyes-on, day in and out, they're often learning by reading reports. Even the best report leaves out a lot of information that you get by being there, and looking things over -- information that may not seem important now, but that might be later.

Adding extra eyes to your data can compensate for that to a certain degree. If you have two guys with less experience looking at the data, they may still both miss the pattern; but it's better than just one guy. And the closer you get to the grunts on the ground, the more you'll be drawing on patterns they've seen playing out. They've got all that 'extra' information that isn't captured in their reports, the stuff they saw or heard that didn't seem important or relevant at the time -- but that can come out when they get together and compare notes with the company across the way.

Better sharing across companies, as well as up-and-down between organizational levels, has the potential to substantially improve predictive analysis on the ground. The Corps is doing something smart here; but that's what we expect from the Marines.

Flounder

The Flounder Principle:

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.

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!

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:

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.

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.

OK, we're convinced.

Hear, hear.

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:

"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:

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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)

Bowie @ Alamo

Jim Bowie at the Alamo:

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:

"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:

Man: Fred, I drove over 500 miles to see you.

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!")

The reporter finishes the report by sighing, "I hate being a Yankee."

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:

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.

Unrelated incidents, or mounting evidence of that America's newsrooms have become a breeding ground for murderous, drunk, gun-wielding child molesters?

With statistics like these, I think we know the answer.



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.

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.

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.

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.

Our Friend the Half-Wit

Our Friend the Half-Wit:

We like you anyway, BloodSpite.

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....

"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."

L'audace!

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:

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.

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."

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.

Things can carry on like this just as long as they want.

Moral Instincts

Moral Instincts:

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.

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.

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 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.”

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.

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?

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.

"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."

That all sounds good to me.

Greedy Geezers.

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."

Lose weight for $500

Lose All The Weight You Want for $500:

Plus, you get to keep the $500.

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)

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 have I done to this little boy?

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.

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.

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.

And a happy new year.

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.

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)

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:

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.