Though not a Paladin, King Arthur was Charlemagne's chief competitor as a legendary symbol around whose court chivalric tales were told. I mention this because I was over at Camp Slayer today, and in the light of our discussion, I happened to notice their sign:
The flag is a detail from this tapestry of Arthur.
Of course, the Arthurian romances were just that -- "romances," by which Medievals meant, 'stories about adventures and times that were as great as Rome.' One mark of High Medieval civilization was that it self-consciously looked back to Rome, and tried to be like the Romans: you saw it in Charlemagne himself, and the "Holy Roman Empire," and the symbolism of the Church, and in kings like Edward I of England, and the popularity of Vegetius as a guide to how to run an army. In Arthur's case, he was given the Latin title Dux Bellorum very early.
In that sense, even a reference to Arthur is a reference to Rome; and one of the additions to the old Celtic Arthurian tales in the High Middle Ages was an Italian expedition to Rome itself. It's only in the 19th century that you begin to see Medievals as a rejection of Rome. You might say that the thing that made you a Medieval, rather than a barbarian, was the reference to Rome.
Here we see Arthur with pre-14th century Medieval heraldry, although the tapestry is modern.
UPDATE:
In reading the page on Arthurian heraldry, I noticed this picture of Lancelot, whose arms -- argent three bends gules -- "have been stable since the 13th century" in the romances.
Here's the heraldry I see on every wall and every soldier:
I was given one of the "right sleeve" SSI patches recently by a Major here: a purely honorary gift, as I am not in the Army, but he said I'd been here more than long enough, and under (indirect, and poorly-aimed) fire often enough, to merit it in his opinion. I will certainly treasure it, and the sentiment that came with it. The Third Division heraldy is azure three bends sinister chief to dexter base argent.
Now if we could just get some round tables into the DFAC, everything would be in order.
Arthur in Baghdad
Pandora's Box
Let's watch this video:
Did you guess who this ad was for before the end? The New Republic and I, for once, had the same reaction.
The other fellow says he'll never use ads like this to win votes. But that is no sacrifice: he is self-evidently the weakest candidate on this score. Naturally he'd prefer not to discuss the question.
Althouse says she cried a real sob over the video, before "laughing" at herself.
Is this a laughing matter?
Who Love
Foreign Policy asked a few thousand field-grade and general/flag officers, serving and retired, some questions:
When asked how much confidence they have in other U.S. government institutions and departments, the index’s officers report low levels of trust nearly across the board. For instance, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 means the officers have a great deal of confidence in the department or institution and 1 means they have none, the officers put their level of confidence in the presidency at 5.5. Some 16 percent express no confidence at all in the president. The index’s officers gave the CIA an average confidence rating of 4.7 and the Department of State, 4.1. The Department of Veterans Affairs received a confidence rating of just 4.5 and the Department of Defense, 5.6. The officers say their level of confidence in the U.S. Congress is the lowest, at an average of just 2.7.That's not so good. What might fix it?
Sixty-six percent of the officers say they believe America’s elected leaders are either somewhat or very uninformed about the U.S. military. How can the military’s perception of elected leaders be improved? In part, the officers say, by electing people who have served in uniform. Nearly 9 in 10 officers agree that, all other things being equal, the military will respect a president of the United States who has served in the military more than one who has not.Probably wouldn't hurt for Congressfolk, either.
Si, Se Puedo
Victory through mockery; at least, where mockery is deserved. InstaPundit:
INTERESTING NEW POLL: Pew: Majority now believe U.S. effort in Iraq will succeed, 53-39.Best of the Web:
Yes we can!
So let's see if we have this straight. Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't worth fighting because it wouldn't be there if it weren't for Bush and McCain. Obama is going to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq to go fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although he will send them back to Iraq if al Qaeda are there, even though he now wants to withdraw notwithstanding al Qaeda's presence.I suppose we can do a lot of things.
Yes, we can!
Respect / Honor
From a fourteen year old, at that:
When I think of an American soldier, four words come to mind, Honor, Respect, Freedom and Valor.Nor can I. I could name a few that are not less honorable; but none that are more. Read the rest.
Your story is filled with Honor and Respect. Honor for our country and all we hold dear. These brave men and women risk their lives to honor this great nation. All of the service men and women show great respect for our flag and everything it stands for. With everything these wonderful people do, I don't think we show them the respect and honor they deserve in return. I can not think of a more honorable profession than to be a United States Soldier.
Mead
Slate has an article on resurgent meads:
Judging by the prominence of honey these days, you'd think there's a run on sugar. Local, flavored honeys are now in restaurant kitchens.... But even more unexpected is the rise of honey for an ancient use: alcohol, in a drink known as mead. You might know mead from Beowulf[.]In return for the link, I'm going to borrow Slate's graphic:
I expect Sly will be including it in future emails; in the meantime, it's rather cheerful.
Paladin
We recently had a side conversation on Rome v. the Middle Ages, and whether our modern age is more like one or the other. I was reflecting on that through the lens of our 155mm self-propelled howitzer, the Paladin, which provides the deep defense of our bases and, in my case, identifies for my comrades an important piece of my equipment, without which my contribution to the war would be even smaller than it is.
But what is a Paladin, properly speaking? The word has an interesting history, before it became the standard of Dungeons and Dragons.
The term paladin was first used in Ancient Rome for a chamberlain of the Emperor, and also for the imperial palace guard, called the Scholae Palatinae by Constantine. In the early Middle Ages, the meaning changed and the term was used for one of the highest officials of the Catholic Church in the pope's service and also for one of the major noblemen of the Holy Roman Empire, who was then named Count Palatine. Similar titles were also used in 19th century Hungary and in the German Empire and United Kingdom during the early 20th century.One of the Medieval usages is interesting, because it pertains to the swearing of oaths.
In medieval literature, the paladins or Twelve Peers were known in the Matter of France as the retainers of Charlemagne. Based on this usage, the term can also refer to an honorable knight, which has been used in contemporary fantasy literature.
From the Middle Ages on, the term palatine was applied to various different officials across Europe. The most important of these was the comes palatinus, the count palatine, who in Merovingian and Carolingian times (5th through 10th century) was an official of the sovereign's household, in particular of his court of law. The count palatine was the official representative at proceedings of the court such as oath takings or judicial sentences and was in charge of the records of those developments.The other night I attended a re-enlistment ceremony at the Al Faw Palace. Hundreds of soldiers, assembled together under the heraldry of the Third Division, swore an oath of loyalty and common defense. Three Silver Stars and several Purple Hearts were awarded to some of these men, as were Bronze Stars. It was hard not to hear those oaths sworn in that setting, and not reflect on the belting of swords, in a castle carried by conquest.
This is the nature of echoes: you hear the sound, and its echo, and the echo of the echo, each of the latter distorted slightly by whatever surface it struck. We live as if in a canyon, where the sounds of old return again and again until the whole world seems to tremble.
Mr. Buckley
There were two things I admired greatly about William F. Buckley, Jr. The first was that he could cut to the bone of a problem in one swipe. The second was that he wrote Latin into his work without explanation or apology. With a little phrase in italics, he would tie an issue of the day to two thousand years' tradition -- and send many a reader to learn a little bit more about just what that tradition contained.
He did this so frequently that he was asked to write the introduction for a book of useful Latin phrases, Amo, Amas, Amat and More. In it he lamented, as Tolkien did, the abandonment of Latin by common education; and increasingly, even by priests and doctors. The common language is now English, of course, and English is as noble and its history even more interesting -- but there is yet a power to the Latin, which was spoken by Caesars and saints, and sung by soldiers and merry scholars alike.
We may have to use it more here, if only to provide some small mortar to the foundations of the West.
Of course National Review has numerous words, but they are not alone. Reason magazine pays tribute as libertarians, and Cassandra as well.
PACOM
Pacific, in both senses of the term. NPR interviews CDRUSPACOM, Admiral Timothy Keating.
Saudi Harems
God, and the Tourist Board, need you to marry. Lots.
Here’s an official plan submitted to invigorate tourism in Saudi Arabia: Marry four women, domicile them in corners of the kingdom, travel to visit each during the year, and — boom — you’ve stimulated airline business, hotel occupancy, and car rentals. This was submitted by none less than Hassan Alomair, director of self-development in Saudi Arabia, at a Jeddah conference for the development of internal tourism.Saudi Arabia: as always, out on the forefront of social experimentation.
The project combines piety with efficacy by uniting Sharia’s entitlements to multiple wives with economic stimulus, Mr. Alomair argued. Sharing the dais was the female dean of the school of literature at King Faisal University, Dr. Feryal al-Hajeri, who remained silent as he prescribed his harem-induced economic scheming.
Not so with the readers and bloggers on the Saudi daily Al Watan’s website, which lit up on February 12 with commentary. “Why not make it four cows? He can fly around to milk them,” one said. “If that is the mentality of our director of self-development,” another asked, ”how are the others in that department?” There was plenty of accord with Mr. Alomair too. Some saw his idea as a “pillar” for building a true Islamic society, a “refuge” for unmarried Saudi women, and a “cure” for a widening spinster phenomena.
Crowds Iran
In Iran, at least, the people are more decent than the law.
It happens every day on the streets of Tehran: a police squad grabbed a young woman for dressing immodestly. But this time, the young woman fought back: and a crowd defended her and attacked the police.As well they ought.
Emptiness
Obama has a signal advantage, that is also a signal problem: he is empty. He is the first Presidential candidate to attempt, successfully so far, the strategy that is now usual in getting a Supreme Court Justice approved. He is a stealth candidate.
It is fairly clear that his rhetoric, lofty but without specifics, is serving as a vessel. Many are pouring their hopes into that vessel, imagining it to be full of whatever they want it to contain. Other people are pouring in their fears.
Hillary Clinton has started to try and force his hand by pushing several lines of attack; this is the wrong approach. It will not work because (a) voters, as a whole, cannot and will not follow several lines of attack at once; and (b) it will therefore be easy for him to simply step aside of the arguments, not respond to them, and carry on giving speeches about Hope and Brotherhood.
A vicious, but strategically sounder, approach is to pour just one very bad thing into the vessel, to see if he spits it out. If he does not, he owns it and -- it being the one thing people can now know about him -- it can destroy him; if he does, then you have at least forced him onto the record, and can press him to define just what he does believe if it isn't what you suggest. Getting further and further details from him, you can tie the debate down to actual facts, rather than empty rhetoric.
This appears to be the approach his political opponents from the right have settled upon. The attacks against Obama are in one sense absurd to the point of being offensive. Yet, in another sense they seem perfectly fair: if he is to have the good of being unknown and undefined, he must also have the bad. If he does not want to be defined by his opponent, he can tell us for certain who he is.
Is this Obama?
Or is this?
Or is neither? Are both costumes, as seems likely? Then who is he really?
I don't mean to be vicious; I read Richardson's anecdote also.
But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"More than anything, that leads me to believe that Obama is probably a pretty decent guy, deep down. The flag-pin thing is silly. His mother clearly was a Communist; that doesn't make him, as Spengler put it, "a mother's revenge against the America she despised."
His wife has a lot of rage against America; that doesn't mean he does. My wife and I disagree about a few things, even a few fairly basic ethical issues (like the morality of suicide). Obama's wife and mother don't necessarily define him.
But I would like to know what does. If he is going to be President, as is not unlikely -- the field has narrowed quite a bit of late -- we need to know, and now, not next January.
For Cricket
Cricket asked if we'd like her to drop in and share some things from an attorney, who wrote a book called "The Moral Basis of a Free Society." This post is to permit a space for that discussion.
Canterbury Map
Since we were talking about Chaucer a few days ago, and apropos of a discussion at Cass' place, here is an interactive map by a very clever undergraduate student of English lit. It shows where in the journey each of the tales would have been told, provides a short summary of the tale, and the names and backgrounds of the characters involved.
Neat.
Pledge Pin
Mr. Juan Cole finds a few people who seem to think a pledge pin is a uniform. H/t Commie.
Heh - Hill 44
I was reminded of the old joke when I ran across the all-pink site HillaryIs44.org, a webside devoted to her quest for the Presidency. Now, you'll recall that I endorsed her in the Primary, but leaving that aside, it appears she isn't doing too well in the polls just now. What do the folks at Hill44 say about that?
[D]uring the many times Hillary Clinton has been unfairly attacked by Big Media, Democrats supporting Obama have rejoiced. That treachery by Democrats and allies will never be forgotten.This, of course, is a large part of why she is doing so poorly. It's not that Hillary and her staunchest supporters are all hateful, nasty people bent on vengeance; but they sure give that impression sometimes. It's hard not to want to vote for Mr. Sweetness-N-Light by comparison; at least you don't fear he'd have you shot the minute you disagreed about something. The impression that Hillary might is not undone by the fact that one of their categories for posts, along with "Edwards" and "Health Care," is "Scum".
Of course, there's another reason. On the sidebar, they have a link called "Why Hillary?" and another called "Why not Obama?" Here's what that latter page says:
Coming SoonIt better be pretty soon. :)This page is under development and will be uploaded soon.
LT G makes a pit stop and goes. Back. Out. There.
Things aren’t right here, anymore. Or maybe we’re the ones who aren’t right, anymore. I don’t know. Either way, it’s time to go. Time to go back out there. Where the Wild Things Are. Where the paranoia is justified. Where we now know comfort. Where we ride and die and die to ride and ride to die like every scout before us intent on making his way home or making his way to Fiddler’s Green, and no other options exist. Where we fixate on an edge we can’t describe or even prove exists, but feel every time we leave the wire because it sends our senses spinning into a poisonous clarity only the transcendent and reckless drug addicts should ever have to comprehend. We don’t do it for the thrills, though. And we don’t do it for our country, either. Not like we thought we would. We do it because we’re doing it and it seems like we’ve always been doing it so we will continue to do it for the same reason. Only the simplicity of that statement matters. We continue our movement back out there. Where we belong.
Way to channel Paul Baumer. I think I'm beginning to worry about the LT. Well, at least his mom knows what's on his mind. I guess that's something.
Control
Two articles from Arts & Letters Daily today, each in its way on a defense of the heavens.
The first holds against space-based weapons, in the wake of this week's satellite shootdown. They argue at length, but the argument is undone by the very quote from Sun Tzu they themselves provide:
In war, do not launch an ascending attack head-on against the enemy who holds the high ground. Do not engage the enemy when he makes a descending attack from high ground. Lure him to level ground to do battle.It will done because it must be done; war will not end, yet the advantage to be had here is one that could stop a war. It could perhaps stop many, as the US Navy has stopped many by ensuring the freedom of the seas so that smaller nations need not fight each other for their commerce; as the US Army has sat through sixty years of peace in the lands around its bases in Germany. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
—Sun Tzu, Chinese military strategist, The Art of War, circa 500 B.C.
The other article is on the Crusades. I think often of the Crusades here, in the land of minarets and fortifications, sandstorms and military-issue Bibles. In the scant spare time I have, I am rereading Ivanhoe.
Apparently I'm not the only one to think of it. Unfortunately, not everyone sees clearly where the parallels stop. In the interest of seeing the lessons of history properly learned, I will reprint a section of this critique by Roger Sandall at length.
Hitchens however regards the opportunity as too good to pass up, and on page 35 drags the Iraq War into the argument. The gist being that there’s nothing to choose between Christians and jihadis, and that the modern atrocities of the latter could be seen as a delayed but appropriate response to “the bloodstained spectre of the Crusaders”.In fact, even that was not enough. It was the envoys from Constantinople -- the second Rome, the capital of Constantine the Great. In 1095, the Turks had advanced into the lands controlled by Constantinople, and the city sent to its sister Rome for help.
This attitude is widespread. Moreover, as Paul Stenhouse points out in a valuable recent study, “The Crusades in Context”, Hitchens’ “bloodstained spectre” is absurdly seen as the result of unprovoked Christian aggression. It is claimed that “five centuries of peaceful co-existence” between Muslims and Christians were brought to an end by deranged sword-waving Soldiers of the Cross, terrorising, killing, burning and sacking decent, respectable, peace-loving Muslim communities.
More than this, the Crusaders are being presented in schools as the original terrorists. As a Year 8 textbook in the Australian state of Victoria has it: “Those who destroyed the World Trade Centre are regarded as terrorists … Might it be fair to say that the Crusaders who attacked the Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem were also terrorists?”
No it wouldn’t be fair. Nor would it be true. In the story Paul Stenhouse tells, the 463 years between the death of Muhammed in 632 AD, and the First Crusade in 1095, were extremely dangerous for Christian Europe. Instead of peace there were unrelenting Islamic wars and incursions; Muslim invasions of Spain, Italy, Sicily and Sardinia; raids, seizures, looting of treasure, military occupations that lasted until Saracen forces were forcibly dislodged, sackings of Christian cities including Rome, and desecrations of Christian shrines. And be it noted: all this went on for 463 years before any Christian Crusade in response to these murderous provocations took place.
Sixteen years after the death of Muhammed, in 648 AD, Cyprus was overrun. Rhodes fell in 653, and by 698 AD the whole of North Africa was lost. In 711 Muslims from Tangier crossed into Spain, set their sights on France, and by 720 AD Narbonne had fallen. Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt in 732. As Gibbon emphasised, only the resistance at Poitiers of Charles Martel in 732 saved Europe from occupation, and arrested the Muslim tide.
From 800 on, incursions into Italy began. In 846 a Saracen force of 10,000 landed in Ostia, assaulted Rome, and sacked and desecrated the Basilicas of St Peter and St Paul. In 859 they seized the whole of Sicily. After capturing a fortress near Anzio, Muslim forces “plundered the surrounding countryside for forty years”. In southern France at the end of the ninth century they held a base near Toulon from which they ravaged both Provence and Northern Italy, and controlled the passes over the Alps, robbing and murdering pilgrims on their way to Rome. Genoa was attacked in 934 and taken in 935. In 1015 Sardinia was taken, occupied, and held my Muslim forces until 1050.
In 1076 the Seljuk Turkish capture of Jerusalem finally exhausted the patience of Islam’s victims in Christian Europe. Only then were concerted moves begun to drive back the infidel, launch the First Crusade, and retake Jerusalem.
Rome agreed, and asked for men to ride to her defense, and to begin to push back against these incursions. So they left their homes, knights and barons, and went instead to war in distant lands.
Were they right? The folk of their day, like our own, were divided. Even good hearted men of the cloth sometimes could not see the purpose.
"What took the honest knight from home? or what could he expect but to find his mistress agreeably engaged with a rival on his return, and his serenade, as they call it, as little regarded as the caterwauling of a cat in the gutter? Nevertheless, Sir Knight, I drink this cup to thee, to the success of all true lovers."Others saw further; whether they saw clearly is a debate that could fill many books.
UN: Disappear!
You've probably seen the story from InstaPundit. This is a genuinely bad idea that people in power get from time to time. It says more about the UN and Google than it does about the journalist.
Mounting a Camel
I haven't tried this method myself, but I can't see anything wrong with it:
Brain power
FuturePundit had an interesting piece yesterday, which goes back to our theoretical debate about what pills you might take to deal with your spouse having an affair. There may be one, he suggests:
What does the future hold for love? Greater knowledge of a phenomenon very often brings with it the ability to manipulate and control it. I expect the development of drugs and other treatments that cause people to fall in and out of love and to recover more easily from lost love.But why fight for love anyway? Only because you're wired too, the studies suggest -- you're almost doomed to a long, miserable slide:
Some people will choose to immunize themselves from love by using treatments that prevent the love process from developing in the first place. A person with history of heart breaks might decide that the possibility of a new love is just too painful to bear. Or someone who wants to devote their time to career might decide to innoculate themselves from the risk of romantic distractions. Still others of a more cerebral sort will decide that love is just a costly cognition distorting evolutionary vestige that they are best off without.
The ability to manipulate love medically will inevitably lead to misuse via surreptious reprogramming of the love state of others. Someone who wants to ditch their mate will be tempted to surreptitiously deliver medicine that will cause the mate to fall out of love. Or imagine the case where a suitor is rejected because the object of their love is in love with someone else. Inevitably some suitors will look for ways to surreptiously deliver a medical treatment that will cause the object of their love to fall out of love with someone else and thereby open up the possibility of forming a new love bond with them.
For a certain few people, however, love can last:Psychologists studying relationships confirm the steady decline of romantic love. Each year, according to surveys, the average couple loses a little spark. One sociological study of marital satisfaction at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Penn State University kept track of more than 2,000 married people over 17 years. Average marital happiness fell sharply in the first 10 years, then entered a slow decline.Think about all those people becoming steadily less satisfied with each other. The outcomes of natural selection are cruel.
Brain scans show the perpetually in love as different than the masses. Those people in long term relationships who profess to still feel very excited about their partners have more intense brain activity in the ventral tegmental area of the brain just like the newly fallen in love do.Now, what all this means to FuturePundit is that you can save marriage with a pill -- in theory, you can make everyone experience the continuous love that now only a few know.Days after Mrs. Tucker's brain scan, Dr. Brown, the neuroscientist, sat in her book-lined office looking at the results. "Wow, just wow," she recalls thinking. Mrs. Tucker's brain reacted to her husband's photo with a frenzy of activity in the ventral tegmental area. "I was shocked," Dr. Brown says.
The brain scan confirmed what Mrs. Tucker said all along. But when she learned the result, she too was a bit surprised. "It's not something I expected after 11 years," she says. "But having it, it's like a gift."
The scan also showed a strong reaction in Mrs. Tucker's ventral pallidum, an area suspected from vole studies to have links with long-term bonds. Mrs. Tucker apparently enjoyed old love and new. In the months since, Dr. Brown analyzed data from four more people, including Ms. Jordan, who also showed brain activity associated with new love. The study is ongoing, and more volunteers are being sought.
What is interesting to me, though, is how counterintuitive the findings are. I don't mean counterintuitive only to me -- that is, "not what I'd expect." I mean, counterintuitive to everyone.
For me, it seems odd that the vast majority of marriages experience a sharp drop in happiness over the first ten years. For others, love isn't what it is for me. They and I use the same word, but we don't experience the same thing at all. Yet the science bears it out.
For the others, the concept that you could continue to love someone forever was the counterintuitive part -- but again, the science bears it out. What is genuinely unimaginable for most is simple truth for some.
I can honestly say that anyone I've ever loved, I still love. That's apparently extremely unusual, which I would not have expected. By the same token, others whose brains work the normal way find that they couldn't imagine the way I feel at all. To the psychologists and neuroscientists running the study, such things are -- their words -- shocking.
The thing to remember about all this? If you say to someone, "How do you feel?" and they answer, "I am in love," you still don't know how they feel. They use the same word you do; but the word alone won't tell you. You have to see them ride the river a while to know for sure.
District work period
Hope you had a good holiday, or if you prefer, "district work period."
Dogs & Media
Cassandra snarls at poor little Uno, the beagle who has captured all our hearts:
Last year about this time, the media said they didn't report the good news in Iraq because they couldn't find any good news. Now, there is more good news than bad, and yet they seem to have gone largely silent. Why is that?Unlike the puppy-haters at VC and elsewhere, I am glad to see dogs receiving their proper attention. What we need to do is find a way to get the celebrities off TV, so there is time to report on both Iraq and dogs.Unlike the Wednesday CBS and NBC evening newscasts, ABC's World News highlighted a favorable development in Iraqi political progress as anchor Charles Gibson gave 20 seconds to: "Overseas, in Iraq, a breakthrough for the country's government that has been so often criticized. Iraq's parliament approved three contentious, but crucial, new laws long sought by Washington. The laws set a budget for 2008, grant amnesty to thousands of detainees and define the relationship between the central government and the provinces."As Oh Bloody Hell, who sent the Editorial Staff this item, so aptly put it:
A month ago, on January 14, Gibson was also the only broadcast network evening newscast anchor to cite how "Iraqi lawmakers have put their differences aside and agreed to allow some members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to take government jobs. It's a key benchmark sought by the United States."
The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News on Wednesday night both found time to report on how Secretary of Defense Robert Gates broke his arm in a fall on ice and how, for the first time, a Beagle (named "Uno") won "Best in Show" at the Westminster Dog Show. Gibson, who broadcast from Philadelphia, the site of the dog show, managed to note the development in Iraq as well as Uno's win."News about *a Beagle* vs. Important *positive' news on Iraq. Which one gets air time? Need you ask?"
Of course, some news agencies find efficiencies:
When Maj. Brian Dennis first spotted a scruffy German Shepard-Border collie mix at a fort in Iraq, the dog wasn't interested in making friends. The dog, who lived in the wild with a pack of canine companions, had already been through a lifetime's worth of pain and neglect. His ears had been cut off as a puppy, and he had been trained as a fighting dog. Now that he was finally free of his tormentors, the dog just wanted to be left alone.Click through for a picture of the Marine Major and the happy hound.
But Dennis saw something special in the dog, which he nicknamed "Nubs," because of his missing ears. It took some time, but eventually Dennis had the dog eating out of his hand. One day, when Nubs showed up one day with a deep wound in his side, Dennis nursed him back to health. Soon, Dennis and Nubs were inseparable.
Sadly, Dennis learned that his unit would be forced to relocate to a new base, and he wasn't allowed to bring Nubs along. As he watched Nubs race alongside his Hummer as his unit drove away from the fort for the last time, he was sure that he would never see the dog again.
But two days later, a familiar face turned up at Dennis' new base: Somehow, Nubs had managed to follow the Marine unit through the Iraqi desert on foot, all the way to their new base – 70 miles away.
"I won't even address the gauntlet he had to run of dog packs, wolves, and God knows what else to get here," Dennis wrote. "When he arrived he looked like he'd just been through a war zone."
"Uh, wait a minute, he had."
Even though it was against military protocol, Dennis' unit felt compelled to give the determined dog a home. They built a doghouse for Nubs, but were soon informed by the military police that Nubs would have to live elsewhere. So, Dennis decided to take Nubs home with him.
This, of course, proves my point. Dogs and Iraq, yes -- Brittney Spears, no.
Rules for Vets
What should the governing principles be in cases like this one?
(This is from State Representative and Afghanistan veteran Rick Noriega, who is currently challenging chickenhawk Senator John Cornyn in Texas. It appears as though the Republican Party of Texas is moving in to "swiftboat" Lt. Col. Noriega - promoted by Brandon Friedman)The fellow goes on to say that he was planning to do it anyway; but while he's at it, he takes several swipes at "cronies" planning a "smear campaign" and "dishonest attacks on veterans."We know where this is going.
The Republican Party of Texas, and by extension, Senator John Cornyn, has requested that I release my military records to them.
The Republican letter is more flowery than a garden:
There are few nobler callings than the call to run for elected office. [*coughcoughcough* Excuse me. --Grim] We applaud your answering that call and wish you the best of luck in your primary against Misters Kelly, McMurrey and Smith.They then provided him with a letter (on Republican Party stationery, even) to sign that would authorize the release of all his records.You have indicated that you intend to make military experience, integrity and transparency the cornerstones of your campaign. We are grateful for your service to this great country and we agree that those that seek higher office should support transparency and openness regarding all of their public service records....
The letter strikes me as an audacious document, and though it is kindly worded, the underlying concept seems unsavory. I don't mean to say that an opponent should never be able to ask after the nature of your service. Especially if you are running "on military service," an opponent might reasonably ask, "Well, what sort of service did you provide?"
On the other hand, the main choice you get in terms of how you serve is if you do. You can buck for certain assignments and so on, but that doesn't mean you'll get them. The military is ultimately in the driver's seat. Your record may not be all that impressive, without it being your fault in the slightest. (By the same token, some candidates could look great on paper, but...)
Making release of your personal records a mandatory condition for running for public office might discourage a good officer with an indistinguished career; or a man with a highly distinguished career who nevertheless did not wish to discuss certain aspects of it. Citations for bravery and valor, in particular, can be the sort of thing you'd rather not talk about. We understand there are a host of reasons for that, some highly honorable and sympathetic.
I'd like to say, then, that it's legitimate to mention that you chose to serve, without necessarily being obligated to sign away all your privacy to every military-generated document about your service. The political process is nasty enough as it is, already far too much about the politicians themselves and too little about the concepts and ideas they want to enact; and even the best of men, perhaps especially them, may not wish to discuss certain things about their past.
There probably is some threshold beyond which it is legitimate for an opponent to ask for at least some records to be released. This particular fellow seems only too ready to sling mud to claim that he's running a pristine campaign that ought to be immune from dirty campaigning; but it should be possible to run one. If we can make it possible, perhaps someone will.
Surge celebrants
Gateway Pundit has some reports and photos, including a press release from our own 6-8 Cav.
Heheh
Of course anyone is welcome to patronize our store, but...
I know I really shouldn't be feeling this evil pleasure at reading the report. It's a mark of how flawed I am as a human being.The device causes discomfort to younger ears by exploiting their ability to hear very high frequencies -- a power which declines once they reach their 20s.Apparently, the devices are popular with everyone from shop keepers to police.
I think there's an emoticon for this: }:>
Heh
Since Eric wants to do FARK stories today, I feel absolutely obligated to post this one.
Two men obviously thought James Pickett, 80, was an easy target when they showed up at his home on Saturday with a knife.Poor... muggers.
"He just came through that door, stabbing and beating," said Pickett.
Captain Clint Pullin said it looked as though the men wanted to kill him.
He's a WWII veteran, former firefighter and lifelong John Wayne devotee.... What the men didn't know is Picket had taken a pistol and put it in his pocket before opening the door.That's a shame. You should always have plenty of bullets.
"He jumped and turned and I shot him," Picket said.
The two brothers, Paul and Holden Perry, ran but didn't get far before calling an ambulance.
A bullet just missed Paul Perry's spine.
"The only problem was I run out of bullets," Picket said.
Not as a soldier, but as a photo journalist. If nothing else, taken together with people like Michael Yon and Michael Totten, this war is going to improve journalism somewhat.
Take a look. Wish him well.
THE MORALITY OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
Brad Lips & Carrie Lukas have written a very serious article about the morality of government aid. You can read it here. This is an issue that our country needs to discuss seriously. Increasingly, the popular attitude concerning government aid is an unquestioning assumption that, as President Bush said, “When people hurt, government must move.” Our country needs a serious discussion about this assumption and conservatives must lead that discussion before the law of unintended consequences lead us down The Road to Serfdom.
Canterbury Tales
Chaucer would be thrilled.
35 The Bishop sipped upon hys teaYeah, Chaucer would have liked that a lot.
36 And sayed, "an open mind must we
37 Keep, for know thee well the Mussel-man
38 Has hys own laws for hys own clan
39 So question not hys Muslim reason
40 And presaerve ye well social cohesion."
41 Sayth the libertine, "'tis well and goode
42 But sharia goes now where nae it should;
43 I liketh bigge buttes and I cannot lye,
44 You othere faelows can't denye[.]"
Lies My Parents Told Me
That's right. A fighting man can be an honest man; but an agreeable man is a liar.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
GRodeo
BloodSpite is reflecting on eight-second rides.
Many years ago I made it to the Las Vegas National Finals Rodeo. Not as a watcher.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.
As a Rider.
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)
LT G and his troops conduct a presence patrol somewhere in Iraq.
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.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.
The book, Mr. Makiya says, records the Baath Party's destruction of 399 Kurdish villages in the Eastern sector of Northern Iraq in 1987.
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.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.
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.
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.
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
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.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.
(via memeorandum)
Gawja
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.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. :)"
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.
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
The Corner holds that Southerners put an end to the Romney campaign in a sort of spiteful way:
John O'Sullivan: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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Fairy Tale
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):
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.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.
Girl Scout Cookie money
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
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
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.
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
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."What do you think they'll say about the hail?
"It's a sign of hope. We hope Iraqis will purify their hearts and politicians will work for the prosperity of all Iraqis."
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.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?
“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.”
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
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.”"Jokingly," eh? Sure. :)
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.”
Great
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.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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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
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.