Medieval Philosophy and Categories

Medieval Philosophy and Categories:

Dad29 has a fine post tying together three apparently disparate topics: gay marriage, the use of the pipe organ in church, and the Scottish philosopher Alisadaire McIntyre. Dad notes:

"What is missing in [so much of modern philosophy]....is any sense that BEAUTY has any objective quality whatsoever."

The other day, while discussing music, we had a musician point to what such an "objective quality" might look like.

Not long after Wagner, those who wrote 12-tone and other serial music, unfortunately wrenching Western music away from its tonal roots, were trying to make "new" art, defining themselves and their work as "not what has gone before." Now this is a frequent tactic employed by anyone searching for new things, but in this case they were abandoning the fundamental mathematical relationships that produce tonality itself, and the new structure created was insufficiently based in reality to resonate more than academically with human beings.

It is entirely possible, given the horror of WWI, that they were actively fleeing from the emotional leverages exerted by tonal music, perhaps looking to escape the ravages of passion althgether.

Emphasis added.

Dad goes on to talk about whether Truth has any objective reality. Aristotle and Aquinas certainly believed it did:

Aristotle taught that the ability to make correct judgments was about more than simply amassing the necessary data. It involves the training and formation of the person in virtue, so that he has the kind of mind and soul that can apprehend the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.

Such 'proper formation' is necessarily based on objective reality, or that which is True. Aristotle and Aquinas taught that knowledge of the Truth is simply conforming one's mind to reality.

The music gives us a concrete example of what is meant. Certain mathematical relationships produce tonality; and it is possible to learn these, and thereby to compose great, soaring music of the sort Wagner used.

It is also possible to abandon them; and you can still compose music. It will not be as beautiful, however, because it is further from the reality of what beauty is.

This is true even though one person or another may actually like it better. You, personally, may find rap music to be more stirring than Wagner. Some of this may be because of how you have been trained, and other parts of it may arise from ways in which you, personally, are different from what is usual. There's nothing inherently wrong with liking rap music better than Wagner. Personal preferences are fine, and a free society will make room for them.

The mathematics continue to exist, however, in spite of your preferences. Reality is still there, regardless of what your mind perceives.

I bring this up because of Mr. Sheldon's assertion:

I guess I'm not going to understand the need for a one-size-fits-all name if there is a dangerous possibility that it won't fit somebody.

Personal preferences can't swallow our ability to discuss things in common. I'm glad to make room -- gracious plenty of room -- for the individual Pursuit of Happiness. By all means, do what you think is right.

The fact that there are individual differences and personal preferences, however, shouldn't forbid us from looking for greater truths. Some things are bigger than we are. That was part of my point, below: because we know reality chiefly through what our brain reports to us, sometimes we need to listen to someone whose brain works differently than ours does. They may have had a wholly different experience of reality than we have had.

We should be able to try to sort out what is right between us, rather than say, "We can assert no lessons, because there is a dangerous possibility that someone else may not fit." Well, fine: let them bring their own lessons to the table, and we can add them to our debate about what the truth really is.

They should not preclude the debate. We should not refuse to try to understand, because we might leave out someone whose experience is different. I welcome them to the discussion, but we must have the discussion. It is their duty, as it is ours, to stand up and fight for what we believe.

A Word Missing from the Language

A Word Missing from the Language:

So there's this video.



I want to talk about it in a moment, but first, there is something more important.

I looked up the definition for "sexism" today, and I find that it is defined as "the sense that one sex is inferior to, or more valuable than, the other." We have a number of ways of expressing the same concept: "male chauvanism" or "female chauvanism," "misogyny," and so forth.

What we don't appear to have is a way of expressing a concept that recognizes the real differences between the sexes in a way that honors them. As far as I know, there is no word in the language for a "a sense that though the sexes are genuinely different, both are necessary and valuable." That is to say, we have a lot of ways of describing a problem, but we have no way of talking about the solution.

I've tried to use the term "chivalry" in this context -- that men should regard women, though different, as wonderful and valuable, and should take care to listen to their concerns and help make a world in which they feel welcome.

Two things happened when I did that, which point up the severity of the problem. The first is that it was pointed out to me, by a well-meaning and kind-hearted woman, that I was offering good advice to men, but nothing for women. If "chivalry" is right for men, what is the female version of recognizing the differences between themselves and men, honoring men, and trying to make a world in which we also feel welcome and valued? I have no answer to that question: there is no word I know of that applies.

The other thing that happened was that certain feminists received my use of "chivalry" as a sort of code-word for male chauvanism. I'm afraid the word has been tarnished by a combination of genuine bad acting by some men, by feminist unisexuals who want to pretend there are no differences, and by miscommunication between men and women who mean well, but talk past each other.

Cassandra and I have had far too many examples of this: I don't think you could easily find a more honest, or more kindly-intentioned, discussion of sex differences in America than the debates we have had over the years. They have often been hot, but never motivated by what the terms "sexism" or "misogyny" or "chauvanism" intend to imply -- nor their female equivalents.

It is not merely personal high regard that keeps the bad sentiments out, though she and I are good friends, and I think the world of her. Cassandra loves men in general, just as we are, though she finds us -- and indeed, me -- incredibly frustrating at times. I love women, and want them involved in my life and to be happy, but sometimes I just can't seem to convey what I mean to them -- though men reading the discussion immediately relate to what I'm saying. Cassandra and I, and some of you who have joined us, have tried as hard as anyone has to clarify the problems, and not wholly without success. It's difficult work, though I think it is also noble work.

Still, the very difficulty of the discussions underlines for me the importance of defining a concept of the sort I described above. It is clear that men and women have vastly different brains, and experience the world in such remarkably different ways that only through lengthy discussion can we even recognize that a difference exists. Over and over, we come down to, "I can't understand why you keep saying that," which is the literal truth. It is a starting point, for tying to understand, but it is also clear evidence of a real and deep division.

We need a word for people who recognize that the differences are real, but assert them only as a starting point for understanding and honoring the other sex. We need to divide this behavior, which is good and noble behavior, from "sexism" or "chauvanism."

I intend to revive the term "chivalry" for this purpose, at least as it applies to men. I don't know what the right term for women would be, and others may prefer a different word from "chivalry" even for men.

Such a term is necessary, though, in order to have an honest and respectful discussion about the role sex plays in our conceptions.

Now -- a less important matter -- the video.

One of the interesting features of the video is that then First Lady Clinton's speech to the Beijing Women's Conference is the underlay. If you listen to what she is saying, you can get a clear sense of why at least some people oppose her candidacy.

When she points to how "the market doesn't value" the choices of millions of women worldwide, she is pointing to something that is true: the market doesn't. For Senator Clinton, today, that is a problem to be solved through government intervention. The market should be tampered with to ensure it places value on the things we wish it would value.

For others, the market's values are without moral content. The market values what it does because those things produce wealth. For women who choose to do things that the market doesn't value in order to pursue things that they personally value, that is part of their choice.

Government meddling in the marketplace, because it restricts the market's natural choices, reduces the creation of wealth for the whole society. Any society is tied together -- a point Clinton is glad to raise when it suits her, but which remains true even when it does not. The rich do not prey on the poor; they are their customers.

If that is so, reducing the generation of wealth across society hurts us all, in order to favor the few that the policy is meant to aid -- so that certain women, in this case, who make unmarketable choices should also be able to be rich.

I've made some unmarketable choices in my own life. I spent a year cowboying. It was great, but there's no money in it.

I imagine that a great many men would love to have society restructured so that we can do things we find personally fulfilling -- like training horses -- without suffering financially. Probably all men would like that. I imagine all women would love to be able to do something they enjoy and find fulfilling, and also get rich.

The problem is that the world doesn't work that way. An attempt to make the world work that way for a certain class of women will hurt everyone else, to benefit the special class.

Again and again, the Left's solutions point that way: to benefit a class of people, at a cost to the whole society.

In defending the interests of those classes, though, she dishonestly adopts universal language: "Womens' rights are human rights," as if she were merely advocating that all people be treated equally, instead of some people receiving special consideration. She uses this basic dishonesty about her position to appear to be operating from a morally perfect place, and to tarnish those who disagree with her suggested policies. They don't deserve that, as it is certainly not less moral to believe that the wealth of the whole society is more important than the comfort of a special class.

That's really the core problem I have with Hillary Clinton. I think I was able to express it without unfairness, either to her or to her fellow women.

The images that play over the speech contrast very poorly.

What we're seeing from the Obama campaign is in fact sexism -- the use of negative female stereotypes, either in place of or to augment actual arguments. Had Sen. Clinton succeeded to the Democratic nomination, I don't doubt we would have seen it increasingly from Republicans as well.

A gentleman should not speak ill of ladies, even if he must sometimes criticize a lady. We may be different, even very deeply and subtly different, but that need not make us enemies.

Chivalry is not dead. Indeed, I belive it is time for it to reconquer.

Man's Best Friend.

LT G & company find a dog.

Open Minds

Open Minds:

I am sure glad to hear that the New Leaders will be men and women of Open Minds.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, “and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

“I think he’s trapped in that,” Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

Harkin said that “it’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up."

Man, that's an indictment of almost our entire existing military. You're welcome for everything, Tom. And hey, thanks for voting to send our dangerous, close-minded volunteers to fight in Iraq for you.

WTF, over.

"Hitler's demands were not unreasonable."

I don't even have words for this sort of thinking.

(via Ace of Spades)

P. J. O'Rourke on Politicians:

After all my time covering politics, I know a lot of politicians. They’re intelligent. They’re diligent. They’re talented. I like them. I count them as friends.

But when these friends of mine take their intelligence, their diligence, and their talent and they put these into the service of politics, ladies and gentlemen, when they do that, they turn into leeches upon the commonwealth. They are dogs chasing the cat of freedom. They are cats tormenting the mouse of responsibility. They are mice gnawing on the insulated wiring of individualism. They are going to hell in a hand basket, and they stole that basket from you.

From the CATO newsletter linked here.

A Sacred Oath on our behalf

A Sacred Oath on Our Behalf:

The President's remarks were far more than that one small matter mentioned below. What he has sworn, in his capacity as the President of the United States of America, is nothing less than... well, read for yourself.

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, founded on the “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.” What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael....

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: “Masada shall never fall again.” Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.

But Masada fell to Rome.

Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel’s independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar — the key to the Zion Gate — and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, “Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day.” Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: “I accept this key in the name of my people."

The President of the United States has taken an oath, before the parliament of Israel, that America will help them make real the promises they believe God Himself made to their nation. It is the same oath they require of their soldiers.

The Belmont Club says that this is the New Rome repaying the sins of the Old Rome:

Nothing can disguise the fact that six million Jews died, not in the Middle East, but in ovens which burned in the very heart of Europe. In countries that prided themselves in culture; that listened to Mozart; read books and vaunted their universities. When Golda Meir said with relief, on the occasion of the foundation of Israel that "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words" she was speaking of escape from a darkness within the very center of Western civilization.

Yet nothing great or wonderful is safe forever, and that darkness, that love for savagery, that admiration for the brutal, that was believed to have died beneath the ground in 1945 is on the march again. It is crawling out of books, lofty towers, places of culture in precisely the manner Camus warned us against. He said that the evil may be beaten, but it is rarely beaten forever; "that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen-chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city."

But we may not speak of it. And therefore it begins.

The focus on politics is misplaced. This is a question of religion, and sacred oaths. It is fearsome.

What a day

What A Day:

I was occupied a good portion of the day with family business, so imagine my surprise this evening to sit down and read the news:

A) President Bush, speaking before the Israeli legislature, gave a foreign policy speech that 'aides privately admitted was an attack on Obama.'



"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland, an American senator said..." Heh, yeah, that's pretty clear.

It's a fair attack, delivered in a speech in Washington, DC, in the President's role as the head of his party. An attack on a political opponent delivered before a foreign government, where a President speaks as the head of state for all Americans? That's the sort of thing we didn't used to do.

B) This Israeli parliament burst into applause.

C) Joe Lieberman said Bush was exactly right. (That link is to Think Progress -- if you read the comments, it may be helpful to note that the "Nazi" they are referring to is Lieberman, not the actual Nazis mentioned by the President.)

D) Obama was outraged at the suggestion that he might try to appease foreign enemies. He also said that his promise to meet personally with Iran and others "without precondition" was not to be read as appeasement, as there would be "preparation" for such talks.

E) John McCain asked just what Obama wanted to talk to Iran about, if it wasn't appeasement.

Allahpundit is right to ask two serious question. First:

A serious definitional question: What separates “appeasement” from negotiation generally? The right, I take it, would characterize negotiations with any aggressor as appeasement since it creates a perverse incentive by rewarding a malefactor for misbehavior. Want to talk to President Obama? Simple: Start your own nuclear program, build a proxy army in a neighboring state (or better yet, two neighboring states) and wait for him to beat a path to your door. The left, I’m guessing, would define the term more narrowly, as negotiation with an aggressor without a demand that he concede anything already gained. Signing a peace deal with Hitler in exchange for his promise that he won’t do anything bad from now on would be appeasement; signing a peace deal with him in exchange for his withdrawal from Czechoslovakia wouldn’t.

And second:

The question McCain should be asking is what Obama intends to do if that deal is struck and then we discover that Iran’s cheating, just like it was cheating in concealing its nuclear program in the first place prior to 2002 and just like it’s guaranteed to try to cheat post-bargain given how effectively nuclear facilities can be concealed these days. And instead of whining about “hypocrisy,” Obama should hit him with the counterfactual: What exactly is Maverick’s plan for dealing with them? We’re on the clock here; they’ll have a bomb circa 2015 at the latest. Is he going to fold his arms and wait for Israel to deal with it or is he prepared for airstrikes, an admission Obama doubtless would love to wring out of him? To which McCain’s reply, of course, will be to ask if Obama’s ruled out airstrikes no matter how dire the situation is.

The real policy on Iran appears to be "hope they fall into internal revolution," which is certainly possible. If they do, the investment in building Iraq's military as an regional ally will more than pay for itself.

Hope is not a plan, though; and tyrannical governments have proven very resilient at crushing internal revolts. So yes, what is left if not appeasement? Are airstrikes on the table? An offensive similar to the one that took down the Taliban, where we don't just hope for an internal revolt but openly aid one? Negotiation with preconditions? What preconditions?

Iraq is what everyone has been talking about, but Iran is going to be the big question that the next President faces. It's valuable, then, to see the general election campaign starting off with a chance to see what the candidates have to say about it.

Ghost Pandas.

LT G recounts the wierdness that is Iraq, at night.

Clever lads.

If this isn't proof that the UK is overrun with surveillance cameras, I don't know what is.

One of the most difficult things for a DIY label to do is to create an engaging music video on a shoestring budget. The Get Out Clause has found a novel way around this problem using a combination of Manchester’s state of the art CCTV system and a little knowledge of the Freedom of Information & Data Protection Act. The Get Out Clause set up at various locations around Manchester city centre where they knew there would be CCTV coverage and performed their new single Paper. The footage was then requested under the Freedom of Information & Data Protection Acts and a video was cut together in their home studio.

What's also telling is that all those cameras don't seem to be doing anything to reduce the crime rate, either. At least somebody has found a use for the things.

(via Art of the Prank)

An Oddity

An Oddity:

Bthun posted this link in the comments to an earlier post. It's to an article about how many Americans are now taking prescription drugs every single day.

The article says that 2/3rds of adult women and 52% of men are taking such drugs on a daily basis. I'm curious as to why there is a disparity, when I've always heard that women lived longer and were less subject to various diseases than men.

Is it that chronic medication increases as you grow older, and women live longer? Or is it that women are more likely to go to the doctor, and thus have the opportunity to be prescribed something? Or some other factor?

Essential Library for Men

Essential Reading for Men:

Since we're all reading Protein Wisdom now, let's talk about this book list. One Hundred "must read" books for men is quite an undertaking. It's an impressive list, mostly, but I think it's too biased in favor of literature-class books: those 20th century texts, and a few 19th century ones, that we are told are Great Novels. (Henry Miller in a list of books for men? Edward Abbey once called him, "Our finest lady novelist.") I would suggest you can dispense with those if you wish.

I would also dispute a few of the choices: Aristotle's Politics, for example. Not that you shouldn't read the Politics, but Arisotle's political ideals are an extension of his ideas on personal morality to the state. Until you've got the concept from his Nicomachean Ethics, then, you won't really grasp what he's trying to say in the Politics.

By the same token, The Republic is not what I'd suggest you read from Plato if you were only going to read one book. I'd suggest one of the earlier works that deal with Socrates more as a man and less as a literary device: perhaps the Crito, or the Laches.

With quibbles like that aside, most of the list is excellent. The non-fiction works are the best. The inclusion of the old Boy Scout Handbook is a wise stroke, and something we've talked about here before. I can think of several more nonfiction works that would better the list by replacing some of the novels, in my opinion; but the ones they suggest are very good.

Did I miss Louis L'amour in that list? It's hard to pick a book of his to include -- one would like to say, "Any three books by him," or just "every book by him." He's an odd character in that none of his books are indispensable, and they often repeat plots; but because of the "man v. nature" element of his books, all of them are worth reading in order to gain a deeper appreciation of the nature that surrounds you. If you don't want to read all of them, though, you can read pretty much any of them to get his underlying moral principles, which are the other lesson of his works.

GHMC Angel

Grim's Hall Movie Club: Angel and the Badman

Here's a movie that's been mentioned time and again in this hall. I'd like to propose that we watch it, this weekend.

It's one of those movies in the clear now, so you can find it for sale on any number of cowboy movie compilations. If you can't find it, though, the whole thing is availabe online (in multiple parts) here.

Who's with me for this one?

UPDATE: Cassidy, you are specially required to join us, assuming you have the power. This is a movie you should see, if you haven't yet.

This just makes me giggle.

IT'S NOT CLOSE. YOU FREAKING LOST THE NOMINATION, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

I wonder how he really feels.

Bthun

Congress and States Rights?

I don't have the background to know for certain what to think about this article on proposed immigration law, which bthun sends. I'm not sure how much Congress is trying to assert new authority, and how much it's extending something it already has the power to do.

Opinion from our friends who have been called to the bar is welcome.

Woohoo

Georgia Revises Handgun Carry Law:

With the governor's signature, a major update to Georgia firearms law has passed. The AJC's coverage is typically horrid, both wrong on the facts and biased against the law even in defeat; but it's an occasion for celebration all the same. (The text of the law is here.)

Two ways in which the article is wrong, for those of you in Georgia:

"Concealed weapons will now be allowed in state — and by extension — local parks."

Wrong: the Georgia Firearms Law permits you to carry openly or concealed.

Also wrong: "...by extension -- local parks." Georgia already has a pre-emption law that forbade localities from passing laws against carrying in local parks. So really, it's just the state parks, historic sites, recreational areas, and wildlife management areas.

Another error, although minor by comparison to these basic errors of fact:

"[The NRA and] GeorgiaCarry.org... argued that holders of concealed weapons permits — who submit to fingerprinting and a criminal background check — are no danger to the public and might even protect the public."

Actually, what we argued was that armed citizens would definitely protect the public.

GeorgiaCarry deserves a lot of credit for working to get this passed, as does the NRA.

The law doesn't take effect until July 1st, 2008, so don't let your eagerness get the better of you. (I'm looking at you, JHD. :)

Now, my next hope for Georgia law: fixing the knife laws, so that anyone with a firearms license may also carry a knife (openly or concealed). It doesn't make a lot of sense to permit the one and not the other.

Patriotism

Patriotism and a Woman:

Protein Wisdom was musing on proper patriotism, yesterday, as expressed by left and right. I think they both have it wrong.

[I]t is fair to infer that Obama tends to attract those who disagree that that “we should be willing to fight for our country whether it is right or wrong,” which seems entirely consistent with Obama’s view of patriotism (and of Israeli nationalism). As Michael Barone would put it, it is the difference between Jacksonians and academics. For the New Left, the idea that disagreements over foreign policy stop at the water’s edge died in Vietnam.

The New Left view can be usefully contrasted with a metaphor Rick Moran has used to describe liberal patriotism:

I think it is apparent that some on the right love America in a different way than some on the left. Think of the right’s love of country as that of a young man for a hot young woman. The passion of such love brooks no criticism and in their eyes, the woman can do nothing wrong. They place the woman on a pedestal and fail to see any flaws in her beauty, only perfection.On the other hand, love of country by many liberals is more intellectualized – perhaps the kind of love we might feel for a wife of many years. The white hot passion may be gone and her flaws might drive you up a wall at times. And it is difficult not to dwell on her imperfections. But there is still a deep, abiding affection that allows you to love her despite the many blemishes and defects they see.

It isn’t that most on the left love America any less than those on the right. They simply see a different entity – a tainted but beloved object that has gotten better with age.

Alternatively, it could be argued that some on the left (esp. the New Left) treat America like the girlfriend they hold to a standard of perfection and always find wanting, complaining about her to their friends in her presence. And that some on the right love America like their wives, acknowledging her past and present flaws, while recognizing that those flaws might not be corrected overnight, or even in his lifetime. And that most American husbands do not find it useful to publicly take sides in an argument against their wives, even when they might privately do so. Or to dismiss their wives’ concern that there may be an intruder in the house.

It is wonderful — not to mention politically smart — that Obama has started talking more about the greatness of America and its ideals. However, should he be elected president, he will be elected president of the nation as it is, not of its ideals. Obama claims he wants to bring Americans together. If he truly does, he will have to accept that he cannot cavalierly dismiss the views of his fellow citizens anymore than he can dismiss the views of his wife.

Insofar as you want to make a metaphor wherein the country is a woman, both of these concepts are wrong. If America is a woman, she is your mother.

You should love her because she bore you into the world, and gave you every chance you had as a youth. You should love her because she defended you, nursed you while you were weak, and gave you a chance to grow strong. You should love her without failing because it is your duty, and because no man can hate his mother without destroying a part of himself.

Of course, "patriotism" is from the Latin patria, in turn derived from Pater, which means "Father." Still, it is usual to think of America as being a woman, in part because the name takes a feminine form. Whether you love her as a mother or as a father, however, love her that way.

Obama was right (this once)

Obama was Right:

ABCNews takes Obama to task on Iraq. Well, he deserves all he gets on that score, as his Iraq plans demonstrate neither an understanding of the military nor reasonable judgment as concerns the fate of millions of Iraqis or the stability of the region.

Yes, he deserves all he gets... almost.

No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another.

"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.

So far, so good.

"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.

Agriculture is indeed tremendously important to Iraq. The Tigris and Euphrates river valleys are very fertile, which is why so many ancient civilizations were rooted in Mesopotamia -- a fact even an ABCNews reporter might have learned in school if he'd been listening. If not, he might have learned it from the US military, which has been talking for quite some time about efforts to set up agricultural unions and coops, chicken and fish farms, help refurbish tractor factories, and so forth.

Why is it that, five years into the war, the media still have this concept that Iraq is a Saudi Arabia-style desert where nothing grows but oil? The reporter objects to Obama's "pushback" on the issue, claiming that he has reported on Iraq "extensively" and that the claim strikes him as "doubtful."

OK, well, it's still true. Iraq needs agricultural experts, and there's much to be gained from deploying them. Not only does the agricultural industry exist in Iraq, it's the main industry in much of the country. Not only is Mesopotamia fertile, it's fertile enough that -- when it begins to be fully developed again -- it will be a major source of wealth and food in a time when food prices are rising worldwide.

An Reservation To Both Earlier Posts

Regarding Both Earlier Posts:

Both of today's posts turn out to be linked, in a way. Greyhawk says that the Obama speech is what he's calling "a telegraphed punch," and that Obama intends to fight for the military vote using the new GI Bill.

That's a telegraphed punch. Obama acknowledges he expects Hillary Clinton to get as much as 80% of the West Virginia primary vote. So he quite wisely turns his focus to his next opponent, and the issue that will ensure the Vietnam veteran loses the military/veteran vote in November - the new GI Bill.

In response, McCain and other Republicans are busy creating "kick me" signs to wear throughout the upcoming political season.

The proposed 21st Century GI Bill would allow soldiers to receive free tuition for college. Obama said it is one of a number of upgrades to GI benefits and healthcare the federal government should provide.

"It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention," Obama told about 1,500 people at the Charleston Civic Center. After that, he stopped to shoot a game of pool with a veteran at a South Charleston pub.

The Illinois Democrat said McCain, whom he added he greatly respects as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, doesn't like the new plan.

"He is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous," Obama said. "I couldn't disagree more.

"At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American dream."

In fairness it must be noted that McCain supports a hastily contrived Republican alternative to the Webb bill that offers lower benefits and covers fewer troops - and has no chance of passing in a Democrat-controlled congress. But while he simplifies the issue here, Obama's characterization of McCain's opposition is on the mark.

Hawk is a big fan of the bill, in part because the SECDEF is so worried about it -- Secretary Gates says that the benefits are so generous that it will be hard to retain servicemen and women past their first term of service, because they'll want to get out and start collecting benefits. That may very well be true.

I'm not sure it's that big a problem, however: because there will also be a large number of 18-year olds coming up behind them who want to get in line for the same generous benefits. While retaining veteran servicemen who have proven excellent is indeed a necessary and important function, that can be done through further incentives for top performers.

It seems to me that we as a nation would greatly benefit if a lot more of our youth passed through the military -- on a volunteer basis, of course. Insofar as this bill would help create that, I'm all for it. We'll work out the deficiencies through more generous pay or other benefits for those who remain in the service -- another thing I'm all for.

So in any event, how does this tie together with the first post of the day?

This bill was the brainchild of Jim Webb, one of the last Southern Democrats, and the author of Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. In other words, he's one of the last -- at this point, may be the only -- of the old type of Southern Democrat to occupy a position of leadership in the Senate.

This is the kind of advantage the party could get from listening to people from the South. And it's the kind of advantage the country can get, too: this new GI Bill is good policy, not just good politics.

America would be stronger if the Democratic Party were more the party of the people it claims to be -- of the people, that is, not just "for" the people.

Obama hits boomers

Obama Hates Hippies:

Woof. TalkLeft notices Obama trying to say something nice about Vietnam Veterans, and chiding those who didn't honor their service. Which, ah, includes almost every one of his intellectual supporters:

In other words, Obama intends to battle the war-hero McCain by throwing us under the bus... Everybody will be lying under the bus, which sounds like it may be the size of a 747 before we're through with this election.

Hey, don't worry, man. You fought for him, you believed in him. He'll fight for you too, right?

Swing States

Swing States:

West Virginia is voting today. According to Wikipedia, it's one of the three "swing states" in the South (assuming one counts WV, FL or Arkansas as "Southern" -- a point that might be debated).

In West Virginia the Democratic Party still enjoys a numerical advantage in registered voters. It looks like Sen. Clinton will be getting a lopsided number of those voters on her side -- something better than a thirty-point margin. Of the other two "Southern" swing states, Florida and Arkansas, Clinton won 70-26 in Arkansas, and won Florida under the odd circumstances of which we are all aware.

However, Clinton is increasingly unlikely to be the nominee.

So it looks like this will not be the year that the Democratic Party tries to reform its message in a way that will appeal to Southerners. In a way, that makes sense: the public mood for change has never been higher. 2006 was also a "change" election -- the Democrats won every single educational grouping, for example, as well as both males and females.

So why are we doing it all again? Amusingly, the answer is that the Democrats have been so incompetent.

The Democratic Congress has been so worthless, voters currently blame all problems on Bush and the Republicans -- who, in spite of not controlling Congress these last two years, seem to be the only ones who ever get their way on anything in government. This probably explains the Communist Party USA's demand to "end right-wing control of Congress." The Speaker of the House from San Francisco is so incompetent that she can't get Rep. Obey or her other fellow party members to line up with her, so it's the "right wing's" fault: they actually manage to vote together some of the time.

As a result, this change election is about changing out Republicans for Democrats in the minds of most of the electorate. It's about making the same change as in 2006 all over again, "but harder this time." If we do it hard enough, even these idiots might be able to pass a damn law once in a while.

Well, OK. Rational or not, that does suggest a Democratic victory in November. On the other hand, a victory can be broad or narrow; and given the supermajorities needed for real change (e.g., cloture votes in the Senate, which require 60 Senators), a broad change would be the thing to go for.

Instead, however, the Democratic party seems to want to push for the candidate least acceptable to swing state voters, and not just in the South: Ohio prefers Clinton to McCain to Obama.

So what? The overall trends are so negative for McCain and Republicans in general, why not get while the getting is good?

I think the answer has to do with the nature of the Democratic Party's constituency. Recent elections have shown that Republicans do best among those with high school educations, some college, and those with college degrees. Those who did not finish high school and those who have postgraduate degrees tend to prefer Democrats by large margins.

What do the two groups, highest and lowest, have in common? One thing: the sense that the system doesn't work for them. This makes sense for lower-education voters: they really do tend to be on the bottom, socially and economically. Whether it's their fault or the system's fault, or some combination of the two, it is easy to see why they would resent living in a system where people like them drift downward.

But why do the most highly-educated people favor Democrats? The problem was explained, and predicted, by economist Joseph Schumpeter in the 1930s.

Marx believed that capitalism would be destroyed by its enemies (the proletariat), whom capitalism had purportedly exploited. Marx relished the prospect. Schumpeter believed that capitalism would be destroyed by its successes. Capitalism would spawn, he believed, a large intellectual class that made its living by attacking the very bourgeois system of private property and freedom so necessary for the intellectual class's existence. And unlike Marx, Schumpeter did not relish the destruction of capitalism. He wrote: "If a doctor predicts that his patient will die presently, this does not mean that he desires it."

The problem is resentment. Schumpeter taught that the capitalist system would create such wealth that a large class of people could make a living doing nothing but thinking and writing; and many of the smartest people of society would drift into that class.

But capitalism's real rewards aren't for the smartest, but for those who take the greatest risks. Many of these lose everything. For those who have little to gain otherwise, the risk of losing everything isn't so great -- which is why most millionaires never finished college.

For those who can do quite well, thank you, without taking those risks -- well, a reasonable appreciation of the risks suggests taking the sure but more modest gains, such as you might get with a career as a lawyer or a college professor. Being smart people, they tend to understand the risk/profit calculation, and do just that.

And then they watch people less well educated, and maybe not so smart, rush past them into wealth and power. The wealth buys access to politicial leaders, and with access comes policy preferences. And these smart folks start to get mad. They start to hate the system that preferences risk-takers over intelligent, careful, stable people. And they want to "fix" the system to raise themselves, and enshrine their class -- the class of the intellectuals -- over the others.

These people are the leaders of the modern Democratic Party. They make common cause with the poor because it's useful, but they have little idea what the problems of the poor actually are. They get what understanding they have through "listening tours" and similar things. These folks -- the ones Jeffrey was calling "the best and brightest" -- believe their intelligence and education makes them the natural leaders of mankind. They want to fix society so that they are in fact the actual leaders of mankind -- and, in return, they'll do kind things for us when they get there.

Which will be paid for through taxes. On those damn businessmen, the idiots. They never deserved all that money -- it's not right someone so stupid should have it.

The problem is that these leaders really don't understand the other half of their coalition -- more than half, in fact, since they produce the majority of the votes. The Obama critique of Pennsylvania voters ("bitter," "cling to religion and guns") arises from this basic belief: we are the natural leaders, and if we give the poor the right set of services, they will keep us in power. There is no real connection with these voters: the intellectuals are in no way part of the class that empowers them.

The Republican leaders, at least, can draw on a class of people they understand -- because they belong to it, and arise from it. Democratic leaders miss these opportunities, even in their best years, because they really don't understand the people they want to vote for them.

Consider this:

Psychologists David Sears and Donald Kinder, as well as others, found that this racial resentment was the single most important factor -- more important than even conservative ideology or political partisanship -- in explaining strong opposition to a host of government programs that either directly or indirectly benefited minorities. Of course, that doesn't mean there couldn't be principled conservative opposition to government-guaranteed equal employment or urban aid. But, according to the political psychologists, racial resentment played the largest role in fueling public skepticism.

The answers also revealed which groups within society continued to harbor racial resentment. With the help of Harvard doctoral student Scott Winship, I looked at the levels of racial resentment in ANES data from 1988, 1992, and 2000 (the questions were omitted in 1996). What Winship and I found was that resentment was highest among males rather than females, the middle class rather than the wealthy or poor, those lacking a college degree, those who worked in skilled or semi-skilled blue collar jobs or as laborers, and residents of small towns in the Midwest and South. Does that profile sound familiar? It's more or less a description of the white working-class voters who have spurned Obama and with whom John Kerry and Al Gore had trouble. The only groups that didn't evince racial animosity toward blacks were voters with post-graduate degrees and, of course, African Americans....

But the problem with implicit association tests--or tests that use subliminal cues--is deciding what they mean in the real world.

Do Republicans carry out psychology exams on the middle class to figure out what prejudices they might have? Do they then say, at the end, "But the problem is, we still don't know what this means in the real world"?

Democrats from the South, including myself, have been trying to talk the intellectual class out of this nonsense for years. I have a postgraduate degree, but I have also been poor in the South: we got by on $15,000 a year at one point. I'm part of one of the classes you want to vote for you, have been part of the other, and have cultural reasons to continue to think of myself as a Democrat even though the party refuses to listen to anything I say, and is led by people who despise my home.

Such argument hasn't worked -- the South has factored less and less in the calculus of the Democratic leadership in every election cycle. They consider the South unredeemable, mired in cultural issues they can't understand or engage; and so write off a third of the Senate in even the most friendly election year.

So again this year, as West Virginia makes clear what its preferences are -- following Florida and Arkansas, and in the face of Ohio working-class voters' clear warnings -- the intellectuals will be picking their favorite instead.

Does that mean McCain wins in November? No, but it means he has a fighting chance. I'm glad about that, because he's a better candidate than either Clinton or Obama -- especially Obama. Of course, if you really listened to the people you want to vote for you, you'd have better candidates, too.

Coyote

On Coyote:

I've been curious about the interest in dangerous coyotes shown by InstaPundit and the Chicago Boyz. We have coyotes here, and I can tell you that if you're concerned about them, one of the best defenses is to have a horse. Horses love to stomp coyotes.

The general point they are trying to make -- that many wild animals we normally haven't worried about become dangerous if we stop being dangerous -- is well-taken. Coyotes are a nuisance anyway, so much so that Georgia regulations permit taking them in the day or at night; with big game weapons if you're hunting big game, and small-game weapons otherwise; with no limit; using electronic or other kinds of calls; using traps or firearms; etc. If you read through the document, you'll find they are exempted from every kind of protection that is normally afforded to animals.

In some states, coyotes have a bounty on them. And, too, you can sell the hides if they're good -- I've heard of people getting as much as $40 for a coyote hide, though mostly they're worth a lot less, and some of them are worth nothing.

In spite of all that, I've never shot one. I think I have an attitude about dangerous wildlife somewhere between the "hippies" the Chicago Boyz point to, and the "put the fear of God into them" attitude that InstaPundit seems to be favoring (if I'm understanding him correctly -- his brevity could be misleading, but I gather that he believes it is important to shoot cougars and coyote in order to keep them afraid of people). I tend to agree with the hippies that these animals are an ornament of nature, and one I would rather have around me than not. I find a world without wild animals, all of which are potentially dangerous, sterile and sad. (This will surprise no one who remembers my killing time in Iraq stalking hyenas with a camera.)

On the other hand, I and my family always go armed in part to be prepared for animal encounters, like this one with a bear when I was out swimming with what was then a very young boy. We've taken the trouble to learn how to interpret their behavior. We maintain food and garbage discipline, to avoid luring them into conflict, and so forth.

I think the proper attitude toward life runs in this direction: not to eliminate dangers, but to be dangerous enough yourself that you needn't fear to encounter them. Then you may have the beauty of the bear, without watching one carry off your children.

Life of the Mind

Life of the Mind:

Returning to a fairly classic theme for Grim's Hall, a post on the military and the life of the mind. It references two roundtables from last week, one on the Minerva project, and the other on military advances in regenerative medicine.

Mother's Day

Mother's Day:

Happy Mother's Day to all -- those of you who are mothers, and those of you who have mothers.

If you have a television, you may wish to watch the America's Favorite Mom thing tonight. Soldiers' Angels founder Patti Patton-Bader was a semi-finalist. It would be wonderful if she had won.

CPUSA 2008

A Pro-Obama Argument:

Bthun points out that we've been unfair, in printing endorsements of Obama only when they come from foreign terrorists. So here is another view, from Americans who stand ready to support him.

The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.

While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.

The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies.

Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.

We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.

The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected.

I think that is pretty representative of the argument as I've seen it framed.

Lost Bearings

Yeah, His Bearings are Lost:

Today's headline: "Barack Obama Sacks Advisor over Talks With Hamas."

OK, McCain wins this round big time.

But this isn't a point-keeping blog, and we already know who we're voting for. So let's tell the whole story, and see what the deeper truth at work here is.

Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.

“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.

I know of the ICG. It's an organization of the type of the United Nations -- that is, it was founded as an element of Anglosphere influence in the world. Just as we were the primary influence in the UN's formation, so too was the US and UK responsible for the ICG. It is still mostly dominated by Anglosphere "internationalists," the folks who believe that the US military has an important role to play in the world -- under UN leadership, directed by the Security Council, with input from the EU and other allies.

Its recent recommendations on Iraq aren't half-bad, unlike the "leave at any costs" philosophy so much of our Left here at home has. It has significantly more faith in the UN than I have, but it also is not hostile to the use of US power. It interacts with the US military, and in fact, the ICG rep gave a Hooah speech of sorts to female officers on the occasion of Women's History Month.

(And who was that speaker? Why, Jane Arraf, who was CNN's Baghdad Bureau Chief when they covered up for Saddam. Just who I'd go to for an honest appraisal of the situation in Iraq. But she's 'in the club,' so everything is always forgiven. Anyway, as I said, the specific recommendations aren't bad, so in spite of my distaste for her, she obviously did her job this time.)

What does that mean? It looks to me like Obama's lack of loyalty and courage has burned him again. Once again, he's thrown someone who has helped him and believed in him under the bus, because he's afraid of the conflict. This time, it was someone he really needed -- the weakest area of his candidacy, aside from his personal flaws, is his unspeakably bad foreign policy.

This is the third time, if you count this guy and also Samantha Power -- a smart and informed woman. Whatever disagreements I've had with her on policy and concept don't arise from her being ill informed: they're just honest disagreements about the best way to do things, and the most important things to do.

This guy from the ICG probably knew far more about the structure and function of the US military, and its recent history, than Obama does himself. Obama should have explained to his supporters that working for ICG is a qualification for a left-leaning Administration, not a disqualification. This is exactly the kind of person they should want to have on board: someone who is in favor of engagement, as Obama is, but isn't hostile to the US military and in fact has some understanding of its function and role in the world.

I suppose if he gets elected, he can hire them back on anyway. Maybe they'll understand about the knife in the back.

I don't, though. Loyalty and honor matter in a man, and this obsessive fear of conflict does not bode well for any potential President. He won't fight, not even for his friends and supporters.

"Civilization is hard work."

-Commentor TmjUtah on Jeff Goldstein's explanation of why people should try to figure out what other people mean when they say something, and why this is would be a useful thing for judges to be able to do.

It helps some if you read Goldstein out loud to yourself as you go along.

O, Generous Prince:

Apparently Daniel thought I was in peril of jail for violating the law against having a house without Tabasco Sauce (I'm sure there must be a law about that somewhere). Either that, or he owns stock in the McIlhenny Company.

For what to my wondering eyes should appear today but the UPS truck, with a great big giant package. My wife says, "It's for you. What did you order?" I didn't order anything.

Nevertheless, behold:



Eight bottles of Tabasco's finest recipes.

Many thanks, Daniel, my friend. I promise to use them all.

Oh, My

Oh, My:

And I thought evil defense contractors were bad:

In a speech in 1971, Vice-President Spiro Agnew accused CBS News of disseminating "deceptive, self-serving propaganda". He quoted from reports by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Commerce Committee. These reports mentioned a CBS documentary called "Project Nassau",an effort to depose the Francois Duvalier regime in Haiti. "The House Subcommittee found that CBS had, in effect, financially subsidized a planned 1966 invasion of Haiti in order to make a documentary on the event."

Slow news week? Commission a war!

Obama accuses

Obama Accuses:

We wouldn't want any name calling.

For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate.

Comments like what?

"...a Hamas adviser's apparent affinity for Obama. The adviser, Ahmed Yousef, said in a recent interview: 'We like Obama and hope that he will win the election.'"

Wouldn't want the fact that actual terrorists endorse you to interfere with the debate.

WITCHES, CLOWNS & SIRENS, OH MY!

WITCHES, CLOWNS & SIRENS, OH MY!

Apparently Code Pink is having some trouble attracting participants to their ongoing protest in front of the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Office. So much so that they have enlisted (pun intentional) the help of practitioners of the dark arts to foil Marine Corps recruitment and end the war. Read the article here.

"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.

I am sure that wisdom is the last thing that will be imparted by this parade of horribles. Nevertheless, I look forward to the final score in this contest:

United States Marine Corps 1
Witches 0

RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES UNDER ATTACK

RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES UNDER ATTACK

Feddie over at Southern Appeal has an informative post concerning Sen. Grassley’s assault on our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The word needs to get out about this abuse of government power.

Who makes that now?

Listen:


Or this:


Or this:


Or this:


I'm sure you'll like this:


How about this:


Or this:


Or this:


Can't forget this:


So I say lots of people are making that now. Most of those clips have dragged the music out of the movie, but I think that's similar to playing the overture there without the rest of the opera.

But let's consider Wagner again: Listen to Tannhauser, and you're listening to 1845.

Let's go back a bit:


That's 1724. And I'm going to make a wild ass guess and say Wagner never heard that. But you just did. (Maybe Wagner did hear that, but I betting not because I don't think anyone was playing the Viola de Gamba in 1845 in Germany, in a style of music written a century earlier, in France, for a French King.)

And why did you hear that? Its the technology.

Let's go back another 100 years:


I wonder if Wagner ever heard Monteverdi. Anybody know if Monteverdi got performed in mid 19th century Germany?

And go back even earlier:


I'm sure Wagner never heard that. But now we have.

Now watch these guys mash it up:


Looks pretty fearless too. I wonder what they've heard that influenced and inspired them and how they heard it--and who are they going to inspire someday? Sure, it isn't Wagner, but hell, he was a genius. I bet if Wagner was alive today he'd be making films.

Its the technology part everybody misses here. Its part of the problem with 'classical' music in the 20th century. The original article walked right past it:

We all know that the invention of recorded sound around 1900 made possible an extraordinary dissemination of the riches of the classical repertoire – largely composed for the rich and powerful – to the mass of ordinary people. On the gramophone, the radio, television and, subliminally and hence more powerfully, through the movies, the classical sound in all its variants (even the supposedly rebarbative confections of the Second Viennese School) has insinuated itself into the culture at large. Never before have so many people listened to, or liked, so-called classical music. Yet this extraordinary triumph has culminated in a malaise, a feeling, widespread in the musical profession and elsewhere, that classical music is in crisis and that things have never been so bad. Classical music feels abandoned, left behind as history has moved on, sulking in its tent as the real cultural action happens somewhere else.

(emphasis mine)

Through the technology, everything old is new again. There is so much of it, that one could not listen to it all. And because we are all different, we can now follow our different likes. And through the technology, we don't have to go to an opera house to listen to Piercello play Tannhauser. We can record him and listen to him while typing our blog posts.

So what's been lost? Its not so much lost as it is found. We as listeners have access to all styles of music from all history now. And other cultures too. All because of the technology.

UPDATE:
Grim asks "Where are the geniuses like Wagner now?" Which is a fair question (although I'd not call it a "problem" per se).

I don't have a answer, only a hunch. And that hunch is that those geniuses are out there, but they're doing something else. What? well, what ever they want to. The time and place that Wagner grew up in was a more circumscribed culture than was now exists in nearly any Western country Maybe any country. Perhaps he's playing on his xbox right now. I'm not sure.

As to what happened in the 20th century--well, there were close to 100 million people killed off before their time, and who knows what they would have done. Those thread were snipped. One cannot know what would have happened.

Also, musical tastes and forms have changed. Wagner was writing for an orchestra, which is just one kind of musical form. When Piercello gets back, perhaps he can give us some idea of how that has changed over the years.

Or take Jordi Savall, the guy in that video you so liked. He's not composing anything new, he's reviving old stuff. he maybe arranging it, and intrepreting it, but its not really the creation of "new" music, the way it would be if he say, wrote an new opera about the Reconquista or something, even if was in the style of Monteverdi. And that idea there, the revival of the old--especially in terms of music developed in the last century, and to my observation that was new. Before, the old went out style and stayed that way, for the most part.

I googled this phrase: "revival of ancient music" and look what popped up:
WASHINGTON LIKES OLD TUNES.; A Revival of Ancient Strauss Music Due to Mrs. McKinley. (Open the .pdf file) That was in 1899, and Strauss' "Blue Danube" is described as "Ancient". (And notice that the Marine band was chucking Tannhauser aside to play Blue Danube). The New York Times thought it was noteworthy enough to comment on it. Think about that for a minute.

And if this wikipedia article on Early Music Revival is anywhere near accurate, although it started in the 19th century, it seems to have taken off with the advent of recording, and is described as 'fully underway' in the 1950's. When you could record anything you'd ever want to record. To reiterate: this had to have an effect on 'new' music.

Rio Bravo

Fierce River:

Dissent Magazine praises John Wayne (hat tip, Arts & Letters Daily):

Let me offer my own overstatement: If I were asked to choose a film that would justify the idea of America, it would be Rio Bravo.

One of the best elements of Rio Bravo is the way that people of good heart find ways to contribute to the defense in spite of their limitations. In the case of the young gunfighter, oddly, it's his sense of caution that is his primary limitation -- he has to get over the idea that he shouldn't get involved in trouble he doesn't have to.

In the case of Dude, it's drink, and in the case of Walter Brennan's character "Stumpy," it's age and a crippled leg. Chance tells him he can't come to the final confrontation because he'd have to 'move, and move fast.' "You give me a reason," Stumpy admits. The next thing you know, there he is anyway with a shotgun and a bunch of extra shells -- and showing up unexpected, cuts off an enemy flanking maneuver that would have been dangerous for the companions.

The movie is really about a particular kind of friendship, the frith we've talked about here from time to time. As Doc Russia put it:

We hold our ground,
We stick to our guns,
and we stand by our friends.

That's one reason I find myself experiencing genuine disgust and anger at Obama's turning his back on the man who gave him his start, and helped him become a success in Chicago and beyond. The Reverend has his problems, and there's much in what he says to be angry about. But, whatever his weakness, he knows how to fight for what he believes in. When Obama was ready to fight for him too -- not to agree with wrong ideas, but simply to affirm that they were friends and that it mattered -- I was impressed. When he turned his back on a man who had long supported him, I find I got genuinely angry about it. That is no way for a man to act to those who have been his friends.

We've all got our weaknesses and flaws -- I know I have mine. That's one reason it's important to forgive each other when we are broken, to help each other stay strong, and to stand by our friends.

A man who won't do that is no man at all.

A man who will and does is part of a fierce river, rio bravo, that can slowly carve its image in the world. Such an image, based on friendship and freedom, ferocity and forgiveness: like a mighty river, it adds beauty to creation.

Wagner

On Power:

What is power?

Recently, The London Times wrote on orchestral music, and the difficulties that touched it in the 20th century. Our Eric would say that it never got over World War I; it certainly never got over World War II.

When it came to the great contest of the 1914–18 war, German propagandists like Thomas Mann characterized it as a conflict between the Kultur of Germans and the Zivilisation of their French-led opponents; between, in musical terms, the deep, metaphysical character of the German tradition, and the superficial joie de vivre of the French.

The price paid for classical music’s proximity to power was heavy, and the central chapters of Ross’s book lay bare the moral somersaults composers turned, the degradation into which they sank. The cultural theory which the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century had inherited from the nineteenth gave artists a dangerous potency, the all too useful capacity to become, in Stalin’s words, “engineers of human souls”. Stalin’s amateur interest in classical music – he reputedly owned ninety-three opera recordings, writing critical remarks on his record sleeves – did nothing to protect composers like Prokofiev and Shostakovich from the cultural policy of a regime which saw no role for anything that smacked of autonomous art. Shostakovich’s output veered between the cryptic privacy of his chamber music, the crassness of his patriotic cantatas and songs, and the still-contested “irony” of the major public works. Ross’s analysis of the possibility of irony in music is at one and the same time sceptical and appreciative. “To talk about musical irony”, he writes, “we first have to agree what the music appears to be saying, and then we have to agree on what the music is really saying. This is invariably difficult to do.” His concluding advice is that one should “stay alert to multiple levels of meaning”, making Shostakovich’s symphonies, the Fifth or even the supposedly propagandistic Seventh, “rich experience[s]”. The consequence of Ross’s superbly nuanced historical accounts of both Prokofiev’s and Shostakovich’s music is to send one back to the music with new ears.

In any aspirant totalitarian regime, cultural producers like musicians have to be overseen, goaded, persecuted and petted. Hitler’s Germany was different only in that a musical vision of politics was uniquely central to the nightmare that was played out in the Reich between 1933 and 1945. It wasn’t that music was too important not to be politicized, more that politics was music in another form; “Politics aspired to the condition of music, not vice versa”, as Ross puts it. The threatening rhetoric of Hitler’s coded language about the Jews from the Kroll Opera speech of 1939 on the eve of war, and the speeches from the period of the exterminations themselves, are drenched in Wagner, and Ross acutely picks out the references to Parsifal in the Führer’s tirades.... For Ross, the Nazi infatuation with music is the crux of his story.

So fell angels.

For listen to this, once:





Theodore Roosevelt, who has been quoted here often lately, once said of America's frontiersmen that they were "a grim, stern people, strong and simple, powerful for good and evil, swayed by gusts of stormy passion, the love of freedom rooted in their very hearts' core."

That phrase, "powerful for good and evil," is the thing that underlies what is at work here. Our ancestors had a power that we have almost lost, a strength that has almost gone out of the world.

Here, in this last century, is where heroes and demons fought. This was the weapon that fell broken from their hands. It lies before us. We have turned from it in fear: but there it rests, for the one strong and brave enough to forge it new.

Do you let a wry mouth turn you aside from that? Wagner did not hide from such things: neither from demons nor broken swords. Cynicism, an affliction with irony, they are shelters for the fearful. Here is the real thing: joy and fury, love and fire, with no looking away. That is the thing we have almost lost.

It is not too late.

If you take it, strike for the good.

UPDATE: To my very great pleasure, I learn that we have a musician among us who has just performed this piece. He offers an insightful comment that I would like to encourage you to read.

Thank you sir, both for the comment, and for your work.

I Don't Know How That Could Have Happened:

So you saw this New York Magazine article by a journalist worrying about the Obama bubble:

If Obama is deemed to be an effete, out-of-touch yuppie, then the effete-yuppie media Establishment that’s embraced him must be equally oblivious and/or indifferent to the sentiments of the common folk.

Is it possible? Well, let's see how the journalist himself describes Obama's appeal:

Born on the very cusp of the baby boom and Generation X, he’s both oldish and youngish. And as a skinny, athletic, gentle-seeming, virtually metrosexual man, he nearly splits the difference on gender as well.

With appeal like that, I don't know how those yokels could possibly think him effete.

Really, though, this goes straight to yesterday's complaint against him. He won't fight, not even for those who will fight for him. Hillary Clinton's snide remark -- "Why can't he close the deal?" -- turns out to be an insightful critique.

He won't fight for it. He won't fight at all. Yet he wants to be President in a time of war.

1968

1968:

From several, including Christopher Hitchens:

I vanished to Cuba and spent a hot summer in a camp in the province of Pinar del Río, where sixty-eighters of every stripe had forgathered, ostensibly to plant coffee but mostly to drink it (and rum) and to discuss new horizons of revolution. Cuba was torn between grim austerity for its people and flamboyant hedonism for its revolutionaries, and one’s elementary socialist principles managed to register the gross injustice[.]

Woof. That's an admission to shake the roof.

Wright II

The Reverend Mr. Wright:

The first time Obama spoke about his preacher of twenty years' standing, I said that I was impressed by one thing: that he did not disavow the man. That took courage, and showed a certain decency of character. The worst and most damning thing about Obama's more recent statements is that they show the Reverend Mr. Wright was right about him: he is doing "what politicians do."

That's too bad, because choosing between the pair of them, I like Wright a lot better.

I don't like his ideas, but I don't have to like the ideas to like the man. There are several things about him to like. He was a Marine, and served also in the Navy. He speaks his mind, straight and honest. Honesty is a virtue, even when you're honestly wrong. By God, tell me what you think! We can sort out whether you're right or not, as long as you're ready for the fight.

For example, his ideas about blacks having different brain functions than whites? That's a genuine scientific theory: we can actually test it, and if it's wrong, we can prove it's wrong. There's no dishonor in being wrong about a question of science. Tell us what you think might be true, based on your experience, and let's put it to the test.

I mention his being a former Marine and Navy sailor. I have a cause for mentioning it, which is based in Chesterton:

And what is the matter with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature.

I venture to say that what is bad in the candid friend is simply that he is not candid. He is keeping something back -- his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. This is certainly, I think, what makes a certain sort of anti-patriot irritating to healthy citizens. I do not speak (of course) of the anti-patriotism which only irritates feverish stockbrokers and gushing actresses; that is only patriotism speaking plainly.... But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, "I am sorry to say we are ruined," and is not sorry at all. And he may be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor; for he is using that ugly knowledge which was allowed him to strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it....

The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises -- he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things.

Wright is not that kind of man. He does love the thing he chastises. He has fought to defend it, and can likewise fight to reform it. If he believes 9/11 is America's "chickens coming home to roost," that is a proposition we can debate -- but he offers it as a man who has not flinched from serving America.

If he calls God to damn America for putting black men in prison, we may debate whether it is America or the community that permits and defends rampant criminality among its members that is more likely to draw down the curse of Heaven. Yet there is no doubt he is trying to raise up his community, and believes that the broader America would likewise be improved by his suggestions. He may be wrong, but he is not motivated by a secret desire to hurt the nation.

In this, he compares well with Code Pink, and with Michelle Obama -- 'For the first time in my life, I am proud of my country.' These people are the ones that Chesterton would call "without rhetoric, traitors." They do not love the thing they chastise, save in the moment it submits to them. That is not supernatural loyalty: it is not the loyalty of the patriot.

Wright seems to love and to fight for what he loves, and good for him. I'll meet a man like him in the midst of the field any time he likes, and break lances with him honestly.

The wind blew out from Bergen to the dawning of the day
They ride and race with fifty spears to break and bar my way
I shall not die alone, alone, but kin to all the powers
As merry as the ancient sun, and fighting like the flowers!
How white their steel! How bright their eyes! I love each laughing knave
Cry high and bid him welcome to the banquet of the brave
Yea, I will bless them as they bend, and love them where they lie
When upon their skulls the sword I swing falls shattering from the sky
That hour when death is like a light, and blood is as a rose -
You never loved your friends, my friends, as I will love my foes!

Give me a man who will speak his mind honestly, and fight for what he loves! God save his soul, whatever becomes of his body -- or his ideas.

The Reverend Mr. Wright is such a man, and the more I hear from him, the more I like him. Barack Obama is a coward for abandoning him, after sitting in his pews for twenty years while the crowd answered "Amen!" at the call from the pulpit. If he sat there and yelled "Amen" with them, he is the more a coward for running now: and if he did not, he is the more a coward for not calling out his opposition all along.

No coward is fit to be President. But that is almost a minor matter compared to the betrayal of Wright by Obama. What a thin, weak, worthless coward, to run from a man in whose shadow he so long hid, and who so long nutured him! Wright is a vibrant man, a fighter, a man I might respect. Obama has proven himself in this matter the worst sort of creature, without loyalty, without courage, without heart. Give me a man like the Reverend Mr. Wright; and never one like Obama.

Confer

Cf.:

Cassandra writes about suing your students:

Ms. Venkatesan lectured in freshman composition, intended to introduce undergraduates to the rigors of expository argument. "My students were very bully-ish, very aggressive, and very disrespectful," she told Tyler Brace of the Dartmouth Review. "They'd argue with your ideas." This caused "subversiveness," a principle English professors usually favor.

Quelle horreur! Can one imagine anything more unprecedented or alarming to a progressive eco-feminist than a classroom full of American college students arguing about ideas? Unless, perhaps, it is the prospect of a classroom full of young people Questioning Authority?

Clearly the dominant patriarchal hegemony is rife with rigid, authoritarians threatened by anyone who challenges their ideas.

The New Criterion published a piece by Roger Kimball called, "What was a Liberal Education?" It makes a useful companion piece.

I believe that the point of education is to build careful, rational, insightful minds; and to give those minds the background knowledge to understand the world and address its problems. The building blocks of education are logic, mathematics and critical thinking: to which capacities are added history, philosophy, literature and a clear understanding of the scientific method. You should have a brain that works rationally, and a clear understanding of the history of the world and the West, the debt you owe to those who came before, and the duty you have to preserve those gains for the generations to come. If you have that, you have an education.

If you got something else out of college, I'm sorry for you. It is not, however, too late to learn on your own.

Dining in the Wilderness

Dining on the Road:

The New York Times apparently believes that it constitutes a great adventure to eat in a chain restaurant. Places like Chilis, Outback Steakhouse, and the Olive Garden are written about as if the reporters were amateur anthropologists writing from a 19th-century expedition to Polynesia:

You go out the back of the sprawling Westchester mall and across a narrow street lighted by the dull glow of a Crowne Plaza Hotel and there it is, a ground-floor box sandwiched between entrance ramps to the parking garage for the smaller Westchester Pavilion mall....

On a recent Saturday night, a companion and I threaded our way through the crowded holding pen beside the host’s station. Table for two? The teenagers staffing the post slid their eyes down the long list of names as though working a particularly difficult problem on an AP statistics test. “Ummm, 70 to 75 minutes,” one finally said. I’m not sure what was more unnerving, the length of the wait or the precision of the estimate.

We were handed one of those coasterlike disks that light up when your table has been called. There were no seats in the bar or waiting area, of course. They had long been snared by people who appeared to have taken up semipermanent residence and were perhaps even having their mail forwarded.

We tried the hotel bar across the street. Would the beeper signal reach? One nursed beer later, only 45 minutes had passed, but as we wandered back to within reach of the restaurant door, the beeper erupted in a mini-Vegas light show.

Exciting stuff, no doubt, when you are the sort of person who nurses a beer for 45 minutes, and is willing to admit it in public.

What struck me most about the reviews was how often they mention the children. A couple of the reviewers had children of their own, and brought them along; but all the reviews mention that, man, there are a lot of children here. I guess I've been to about half the restaurants on the list at one time or another, and a couple of them multiple times, but I don't remember being struck by the presence of children. One wonders what these poor folk would do if they were required to eat in a McDonald's or Chick-Fil-A, complete with plastic playground.

We don't do a lot of eating in restaurants, both for health reasons and because -- with a little practice -- you can make better food than you can buy in a restaurant. But especially on cross-country road trips, we do eat in chain restaurants by the highway. Here's my recommendations for any hipsters who may find themselves forced out on the road:

1) The Texas Roadhouse: good chili, good burgers, good steaks. Not so good beer, but if you're driving, you're not drinking.

2) Longhorn: The Texas Cheese Fries are good. Their take on taquitos are good. The steaks are fine. The beer selection is better, so if you've reached the end of your trip and have a hotel to hand, stop here for the last meal of the day.

3) Cracker Barrel: Beans and greens, sweet tea anywhere in the USA. Their biscuits and cornbread vary by region, which is interesting -- you'll get sweet cornbread and drop biscuits in some places, and proper biscuits and salty cornbread in more civilized regions. Warm fires in the winter, and checkers.

4) Ruby Tuesday's: Used to be better. However, the buffalo burgers are still OK. I like buffalo meat better than beef, and around the Hall, that's what we keep on hand.

5) Applebee's: The only one of these restaurants reviewed by the Times. I can't think of any of their food I really care about one way or the other; but somehow, whenever we go there, we seem to have a good time.

Two kinds of food that no nationwide highway chain knows how to make well: barbecue, and pizza. If you want a good meal of either one of those, you'll have to ask the locals what's all right where you are.