It is probably a sign of things to come that the Obama campaign is talking about winning without Ohio or Florida. I'm sure they intended that as a sign of confidence, but it's a remarkable formula -- 'We don't necessarily need to win battleground states, because we'll win red states.'
Consider the conceit that Georgia is 'in play,' for example. I live in Georgia. I've spent most of my life in Georgia. The suggestion that Obama will win Georgia is just whistling past the graveyard. It's never going to happen.
The argument is that he will do it with "record turnout" among "unregistered black voters." Well, Georgia does have a lot of unregistered potential voters. Obama does have special appeal to black voters, and might energize them more than others have in the past. He also has a lot more money than McCain, some of which can be used for GOTV efforts in Georgia.
Furthermore, Georgia has gone to Democratic candidates more often than Southern states generally: Clinton in 1992, Carter in 1976.
Nevertheless, Georgia isn't competitive this year. Carter was a former Georgia governor, and was a 'favorite son' who had been a fairly decent governor (and was therefore a deep disappointment as President). Clinton had the benefit of the Ross Perot candidacy, and the personal endorsement of Zell Miller, the current governor at the time, a hugely popular man whose opinion was widely trusted. There is no figure in Georgia politics as popular today, not even close.
Lacking that kind of personal appeal, Georgia voters have a very strong conservative preference. In 2004, Bush carried the state 58-41. In 2000, 55-43. In 1996, Dole beat Clinton 47-45 -- a year when Dole did horribly at the polls, in a state Clinton had won in 1992. Clinton won in 1992, by the way, 43-42, with Ross Perot carrying 13 percent of the vote. It's highly likely that almost all of Perot's vote came out of Bush's column.
Meanwhile, the last governor's race had the Republican winning 58-38. That was in 2006, a wave Democratic year; and the Republican governor isn't even terribly popular.
So, Democrats in Georgia get between 38-45% of the vote. In a big year, with a popular Democratic candidate and an opposing candidate who doesn't really inspire, 45%.
It's possible Senator Obama can top the high water mark. To win, however, he would have to improve his standing by six full points over the high water mark. Being black isn't enough to do that -- I say, "being black," because his campaign predicates its ability to make Georgia competitive on high black turnout and support, which is supposed to be possible among unregistered black voters because they are excited about Sen. Obama being black.
Being a conservative Democrat might be enough -- I would say, this year, it would be enough -- but it's plain that he isn't any such thing.
Uh-huh
A Sign:
The Chicago Way
The Chicago Way:
A good liberal ought to know that, in fact: the US Army's principal business from the end of the Indian Wars to 1900 was breaking strikes by early unions. If it doesn't do that now, it is chiefly because citizens fought back both through politics and in fact. These violent citizens -- perhaps they would be more sympathetic to TNR if we called them "the workers" -- are owed something better from the modern liberal than a refusal to glorify them, or to scorn them as "violent," though they certainly were violent. Every political power the liberal has to exercise is founded on that resistance, the organizations and machines it built. Every subsequent success came from that, and rests on it.
That said, TNR was right in their basic concept:
Is he a Chicago Way liberal? If so, he'll be dangerous and tough, and any gentle words are only a veneer. Those are the old union machines. They are corrupt to the core, power-centered, willing to bend or break any rule to get their way, ruthless, and violent. The Rev. Mr. Wright is one of that stripe -- a former Marine and Navy Sailor. He's a hard-swinging character, who views himself as the advocate of a part of America against the rest of it. Nevertheless, he's a fighter, and I know that if a man like him were President, he'd fight for the thing he led.
Arguing in favor of this proposition: His attachment to the Chicago machine, including the Daley family and the Rev. Mr. Wright. His connections with Tony Rezko.
He tells us these things are not important, but if he is a man of the Chicago machine, we cannot trust his word.
On the other hand, if he is the well-meaning idealist he presents himself as being, he really could be telling the truth. It could be he went along with the Rev. Mr. Wright because his wife wanted him to do so. He took a land deal with Rezko because it seemed handy, and he didn't look too closely at it. He worked with the Daley family (and Wright, to some degree) because they were the powers that be, and he had no choice.
Is Senator Obama a TNR liberal? If so, his real instinct is to try to talk his way around problems, and the "knife/gun" comment is just an attempt to sound tough to reassure people like Taylor Marsh. He doesn't mean it as anything more than a symbol. He has faith that he'll be able to float through the McCain fight like he did the Clinton one, never really getting himself dirty, standing on the power of his rhetoric.
Arguing in favor of this proposition: his memoir, which is reflexively idealistic. His arc through life: the Ivy Leagues often produce this kind of liberal. He has sought power through the legislature, but hasn't gotten his hands dirty with it -- he has accomplished very little except to run for higher office, making an attempt for another rank every three years.
Also arguing in favor: his reaction to the Rev. Mr. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club. He turned his back on the man who gave him his start and supported him every step of the way, scorning him as a sort of lesser creature. This is precisely how TNR treats the men who actually made their sort of liberalism possible and practical. He and they seem to have the same basic attitude about the fighting men on whose shoulders they stand.
In this case, he believes his own rhetoric about "not demonizing" people (the "gun" he will bring is merely a symbol of a metaphor). People who want to see him succeed for their own reasons often do rough stuff to help him. He doesn't see this, and so his frequent refrain about associates, even longtime ones -- "he is not the man I thought I knew" -- is genuine also. He hasn't really paid attention to who they are.
The problem before us is that there really is no way of being sure which of these types is closer to the real Senator Obama. Is he a hard-hitting machine politician who has simply managed to keep an easy, bright face on for the public? Or is he an idealistic, ambitious man who has managed to look away from much of the ugliness of modern politics, and sincerely wishes to change it?
I can't say I know. I know my instinct is that he isn't a fighter, but a talker. I think he's the TNR-style liberal, who is being put forward by the men of the machine for reasons of their own.
In my opinion, that's the worse of the two for the job he's after. If I'm right, he's a somewhat better man -- weak and lacking the virtue of courage, but having other virtues that machine men do not.
He is still the less fit for a deadly and perilous duty.
Senator Obama, as quoted at the top of his anti-smear website:
What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics... that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize.The New Republic, arguing against a potential Jim Webb vice-presidency on the grounds that he was a "reactionary":
Then there is his glorification of violence. It is one thing to accept a certain level of state-sanctioned violence as necessary to the preservation of a just order--to endorse certain wars abroad or certain police strategies at home. But it is quite another thing to glorify violence, to celebrate it, to elevate its practice into a virtue--which is exactly what Webb seems to do in his books....Senator Obama, on the upcoming contest:For a liberal, violence may sometimes be a necessary thing. It may even lead to good outcomes. But while those outcomes may be worth celebrating--and while the people who do the fighting may be correctly labeled courageous or even heroic--the violence itself is never worth celebrating. Webb's outlook flies in the face of this liberal ideal. He seems to be very much in love with violence.
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said at a fundraiser in Philadelphia Friday, according to pool reports.Taylor Mars, celebrating that stance:
So when I read this quote it made me smile. "New kind of politics" has nothing to do with it. It's the Chicago way, baby. I just want us to win.Proposition: The kind of liberal that agrees with TNR are fools who have never won an election -- let alone a war, success in which is what allows a government to form and hold elections in the first place. Jim Webb is absolutely right to glorify, not violence, but a capacity to perform it when called upon by honor or self-defense. He is right to celebrate that capacity being located in the individual citizen, and not only in the machinery of "state-sanctioned violence." That has produced the United States Army (happy birthday) and the Black Watch, but it has also produced every kind of tyranny. The citizen's capacity is a useful counterweight, the thing that makes the US Army what it is.
A good liberal ought to know that, in fact: the US Army's principal business from the end of the Indian Wars to 1900 was breaking strikes by early unions. If it doesn't do that now, it is chiefly because citizens fought back both through politics and in fact. These violent citizens -- perhaps they would be more sympathetic to TNR if we called them "the workers" -- are owed something better from the modern liberal than a refusal to glorify them, or to scorn them as "violent," though they certainly were violent. Every political power the liberal has to exercise is founded on that resistance, the organizations and machines it built. Every subsequent success came from that, and rests on it.
That said, TNR was right in their basic concept:
To explain just what it is about Webb that bothers me, I need to distinguish between philosophy and policy. It's hard to know what any candidate will do on any particular issue once in office. This is not to say that the stands a candidate takes on specific policy questions are meaningless. But the political world is unpredictable--alliances shift, circumstances change, things turn out to be more complicated than expected. This is why the best voters can hope for is a candidate whose underlying instincts about the world we basically trust. At this point, I am confident that Obama's underlying worldview is that of a liberal. Of course, there is plenty of room for disagreement about what it means to be a liberal--on foreign policy, on economics, on social issues. But, whatever your views on humanitarian intervention or health care mandates or gay marriage, if you call yourself a liberal then chances are that you recognize clear similarities between Obama's basic instincts about the world and your own.If Obama is a liberal -- which he absolutely is, given the evidence of his life, the few pieces of legislation he has pursued, and his stated plans for the future if elected -- then what kind of liberal is he? This is the problem that is so difficult to sort out given his conflicting statements.
Is he a Chicago Way liberal? If so, he'll be dangerous and tough, and any gentle words are only a veneer. Those are the old union machines. They are corrupt to the core, power-centered, willing to bend or break any rule to get their way, ruthless, and violent. The Rev. Mr. Wright is one of that stripe -- a former Marine and Navy Sailor. He's a hard-swinging character, who views himself as the advocate of a part of America against the rest of it. Nevertheless, he's a fighter, and I know that if a man like him were President, he'd fight for the thing he led.
Arguing in favor of this proposition: His attachment to the Chicago machine, including the Daley family and the Rev. Mr. Wright. His connections with Tony Rezko.
He tells us these things are not important, but if he is a man of the Chicago machine, we cannot trust his word.
On the other hand, if he is the well-meaning idealist he presents himself as being, he really could be telling the truth. It could be he went along with the Rev. Mr. Wright because his wife wanted him to do so. He took a land deal with Rezko because it seemed handy, and he didn't look too closely at it. He worked with the Daley family (and Wright, to some degree) because they were the powers that be, and he had no choice.
Is Senator Obama a TNR liberal? If so, his real instinct is to try to talk his way around problems, and the "knife/gun" comment is just an attempt to sound tough to reassure people like Taylor Marsh. He doesn't mean it as anything more than a symbol. He has faith that he'll be able to float through the McCain fight like he did the Clinton one, never really getting himself dirty, standing on the power of his rhetoric.
Arguing in favor of this proposition: his memoir, which is reflexively idealistic. His arc through life: the Ivy Leagues often produce this kind of liberal. He has sought power through the legislature, but hasn't gotten his hands dirty with it -- he has accomplished very little except to run for higher office, making an attempt for another rank every three years.
Also arguing in favor: his reaction to the Rev. Mr. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club. He turned his back on the man who gave him his start and supported him every step of the way, scorning him as a sort of lesser creature. This is precisely how TNR treats the men who actually made their sort of liberalism possible and practical. He and they seem to have the same basic attitude about the fighting men on whose shoulders they stand.
In this case, he believes his own rhetoric about "not demonizing" people (the "gun" he will bring is merely a symbol of a metaphor). People who want to see him succeed for their own reasons often do rough stuff to help him. He doesn't see this, and so his frequent refrain about associates, even longtime ones -- "he is not the man I thought I knew" -- is genuine also. He hasn't really paid attention to who they are.
The problem before us is that there really is no way of being sure which of these types is closer to the real Senator Obama. Is he a hard-hitting machine politician who has simply managed to keep an easy, bright face on for the public? Or is he an idealistic, ambitious man who has managed to look away from much of the ugliness of modern politics, and sincerely wishes to change it?
I can't say I know. I know my instinct is that he isn't a fighter, but a talker. I think he's the TNR-style liberal, who is being put forward by the men of the machine for reasons of their own.
In my opinion, that's the worse of the two for the job he's after. If I'm right, he's a somewhat better man -- weak and lacking the virtue of courage, but having other virtues that machine men do not.
He is still the less fit for a deadly and perilous duty.
Trust the Law
The Trust Issue:
How are we meant to allow ourselves to be governed by courts that behave in this way? The same way we are governed by Congress, I suppose.
UPDATE: I was flip in my dismissal of the SCOTUS case, not wishing to add to what Cassandra had already said about it. It doesn't really say we "can't keep people in prison," but just that we must apply Habeas rights to them as if they were (a) citizens and (b) not unlawful combatants captured in a foreign war zone and never on US soil.
That's madness, in my opinion; but I've disagreed with the whole line of SCOTUS cases here. My reading is that we should be applying the Geneva Conventions as ratified, which offer very few rights to unlawful combatants of nonsignatory nations. They have a right to a hearing on their status, and if they are found to be unlawful combatants, not much else.
The SCOTUS has consistently been expanding their rights and access to the courts, which strikes me as a terrible mistake.
The overlap between this case and the lobster case is that both of them have to do with a blurring of the line between US and foreign law. The US courts here are undertaking to enforce Honduran law -- which they understand imperfectly at best, and whether or not the regulations were actually in force at the time. They are going hog wild looking for ways to make crimes out of ordinary behavior.
The SCOTUS case is a case where people are being treated as if American citizens' rights applied to everyone, everywhere. This is not so, has never been so, and really ought not to be so. American citizenship carries with it rights but also duties, and a debt to the nation that supports those rights. If you want those rights, you should take the lawful steps necessary to apply for immigration.
You shouldn't get them for waging war against us. If you do so honorably, you are entitled to POW protections under the Geneva Conventions. If you do so dishonorably, you are not even entitled to that.
Except, now, you are.
There is a basic failure of trust in the American court system among many of us, including me. Not for no reason! (H/t: Southern Appeal).
The originally named defendants were 70,787 pounds of spiny lobster tails. Less than 5 percent of them were, horror of horrors, too short – which may or may not have been a violation of Honduran sea-harvest laws.Meanwhile, apparently we can't keep people in prison who've actually tried to kill us.
Even worse, the dastardly tails entered Bayou La Batre, Ala., not in the required cardboard containers, but in plastic. Again, Honduran law may have been violated.
U.S. prosecutors, perceiving a dangerous conspiracy, stopped bothering the lobsters and threw their net at the lobster importers. Using something called the Lacey Act, which makes it illegal in the United States to import goods in contravention of another nation’s laws, the prosecutors began building their case.
And if it were an illegal import, well, that made it “smuggling,” right? And if the importers used the money they earned to buy any goods in the United States, well, that turned the case into “money laundering.”
Suddenly, the allegation of minor civil violations became a major criminal case. Three defendants were given sentences of – get this! – eight years each. In federal prison. To enforce a foreign regulation. About undersized lobsters.
Never mind that the importers openly took the lobsters through Customs, seemingly unaware they were doing anything wrong. Never mind that the U.S. Department of Commerce published an official price list for Honduran lobsters of the very sizes supposedly outlawed.
Never mind that one of the importers was a Honduran businessman, David Henson McNab, who willingly returned repeatedly to the United States to defend himself, apparently thinking it was all a misunderstanding.
And never mind that from the very start, there was conflicting, expert testimony about whether Honduran law was violated at all. The original trial judge, citing a midlevel Honduran official, allowed the trial to continue, all the way to convictions.
Later, when the attorney general of Honduras (!) wrote to say the regulations at issue had been repealed four years before this case began, the appeals court said it was too late.
“There must be some finality with representations of foreign law by foreign governments,” wrote the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
So: Prison! Even though no existing law had been violated.
How are we meant to allow ourselves to be governed by courts that behave in this way? The same way we are governed by Congress, I suppose.
UPDATE: I was flip in my dismissal of the SCOTUS case, not wishing to add to what Cassandra had already said about it. It doesn't really say we "can't keep people in prison," but just that we must apply Habeas rights to them as if they were (a) citizens and (b) not unlawful combatants captured in a foreign war zone and never on US soil.
That's madness, in my opinion; but I've disagreed with the whole line of SCOTUS cases here. My reading is that we should be applying the Geneva Conventions as ratified, which offer very few rights to unlawful combatants of nonsignatory nations. They have a right to a hearing on their status, and if they are found to be unlawful combatants, not much else.
The SCOTUS has consistently been expanding their rights and access to the courts, which strikes me as a terrible mistake.
The overlap between this case and the lobster case is that both of them have to do with a blurring of the line between US and foreign law. The US courts here are undertaking to enforce Honduran law -- which they understand imperfectly at best, and whether or not the regulations were actually in force at the time. They are going hog wild looking for ways to make crimes out of ordinary behavior.
The SCOTUS case is a case where people are being treated as if American citizens' rights applied to everyone, everywhere. This is not so, has never been so, and really ought not to be so. American citizenship carries with it rights but also duties, and a debt to the nation that supports those rights. If you want those rights, you should take the lawful steps necessary to apply for immigration.
You shouldn't get them for waging war against us. If you do so honorably, you are entitled to POW protections under the Geneva Conventions. If you do so dishonorably, you are not even entitled to that.
Except, now, you are.
Haggis!
Haggis!
It's also really good, if you make it right. The canned type tastes rather like any other canned meat-and-vegetable concoction, corned beef or what have you. But a real haggis, with good oatmeal and fresh onions, and a dram of golden whiskey poured atop it just at the point of serving, is delicious.
Of course, we also do steaks, biscuits, beans and beer here at the Hall.
UPDATE: Cassandra, meanwhile, wants you to know about Utilikilts. I've never had one, but I've seen them around. They seem like outstanding garments.
BillT is apparently under the impression that he can talk us out of our haggis. In fact, nothing could be a better feast for us.
The haggis is frequently assumed to be Scottish in origin though there is little evidence for this, and food writer Alan Davidson states that the Ancient Romans were the first people known to have made products of the haggis type. A kind of primitive haggis is referred to in Homer's Odyssey, in book 20, when Odysseus is compared to "a man before a great blazing fire turning swiftly this way and that a stomach full of fat and blood, very eager to have it roasted quickly." ...Odysseus! The Romans! The Vikings! The Scots and the Icelendings! Why, it's everything a dish should be to enjoy its celebrated place at a great feast.
Clarissa Dickson Wright repudiates the assumption of a Scottish origin for haggis, claiming that it "came to Scotland in a longship [ie. from Scandinavia] even before Scotland was a single nation." Dickson-Wright further cites etymologist Walter William Skeat as further suggestion of possible Scandinavian origins: Skeat claimed that the hag– part of the word is derived from the Old Norse hoggva or the Icelandic haggw, meaning 'to hew' or strike with a sharp weapon, relating to the chopped-up contents of the dish.
It's also really good, if you make it right. The canned type tastes rather like any other canned meat-and-vegetable concoction, corned beef or what have you. But a real haggis, with good oatmeal and fresh onions, and a dram of golden whiskey poured atop it just at the point of serving, is delicious.
Of course, we also do steaks, biscuits, beans and beer here at the Hall.
UPDATE: Cassandra, meanwhile, wants you to know about Utilikilts. I've never had one, but I've seen them around. They seem like outstanding garments.
Americans First
Americans First:
I see that Senator Obama has started a webpage aimed at fighting rumors.
I'm glad to link to it, as I wish to see him defeated, but fair and square. In return, I trust the Senator will use it fairly, to fight honestly when he is being misrepresented, and not misrepresent his opponent's words in turn.
OK, I don't really trust that he will do that -- I see the site already characterizes every misunderstanding as a "LIE." Still, as intemperate as that is, let's make sure to get the details right as we can. There's reason enough in his Iraq policy alone to believe he is unsuitable for the office; and plenty of other reasons also.
Only Sleep Democrats
Republicans are Sick:
For Cassidy, a video that suggests Republicans are unclean. Being a Democrat myself, I have no dog in the fight. It's amusing, though.
Here's the counter-question I'd offer: which approach offers a chance at a wife who will be with you thick and thin, through the hard times that life cannot but offer?
I realize the young think not that far. But for me, a wife with a Glock who will watch over my shoulders is worth ten thousand women who have neither the heart, nor the arms to carry the day. I married her in part because she carried a knife, and had taught winter survival on the plains of Indiana.
Take a lesser woman, if you want.
What Scouts are For
What Scouts are For:
Grim's Hall wishes to express our condolences to the families of those affected by the tornados of last night. I also wish to praise the Boy Scouts, individually and as an organization for doing exactly what they were created to do:
Boy Scouts who came to each others' aid after a tornado that killed four of their comrades and injured 48 people were hailed as heroes Thursday for helping to administer first aid and search for victims buried in their flattened campsite....Defense in depth.Ethan said the scouts' first-aid training immediately compelled them to act.
"We knew that we need to place tourniquets on wounds that were bleeding too much. We knew we need to apply pressure and gauze. We had first-aid kits, we had everything," he said.
Ethan said one staff member took off his shirt and put it on someone who was bleeding to apply pressure and gauze. Other scouts started digging people out of the rubble, he said.
The injured were taken to Burgess Health Center in Onawa, Alegent Health Clinic in Missouri Valley and Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha.
A Lesson in Scottish History
A Lesson in Scottish History:
We also don't recall how deeply tied Scotland was to the rest of Christendom at the time. The Declaration of Arbroath, which -- whatever Trevor-Roper said about it -- is one of the most noble and beautiful letters ever composed, was addressed to the Pope. And upon his death, Robert the Bruce charged that same Douglas to cut out his heart, embalm it, and carry it on Crusade. Douglas was killed crusading against the Saracens in Spain, when he led a charge against the King of Grenada that the Spanish neglected to support. Bruce's heart, and Douglas' body, were recovered and returned to Scotland.
The Scots have a powerful history in the highlands of America, where they emigrated in force. Many of what we call "Scots-Irish" were either Scots or northern English, who went first to Ireland seeking land under the plantation laws of James I of England (who was also James VI of Scotland). Much of America owes itself in part to them, under one name or another: the Volunteers of Tennessee who supported the Texans; the Scots who formed Georgia's Highland Mountain and Coastal Rangers in the time of James Edward Oglethorpe; the "overmountain men," victors of the Battle of King's Mountain; who fought the Indians with Andrew Jackson; who migrated West in the greatest numbers after the Civil War; and so forth.
Their history is ours, partly.
In celebration of this weekend's upcoming Scottish Highland Games in Blairsville, Georgia, let's talk a bit about Scottish history. A good starting point is this review of historian Trever-Roper, perhaps the most hostile to the mythology of Scotland.
The myths that bothered him were alike in this way: each made Scotland seem less a part of European civilization than it really had been. You can see the result in Braveheart, a movie actually filmed in Ireland, whose extras were provided by the Irish Army Reserves. William Wallace is depicted in a kilt, which he certainly would not have worn. The article above suggests the kilt was invented in the 19th century, but that is not quite right. What we call the military kilt was, that is, the skirt that is a separate garment. The Great Kilt, which is a huge bolt of cloth belted around the body, is ancient in origins; but it was the dress of the poor, who literally belted their bedclothes around themselves for warmth in the daytime. William Wallace was a knight.
Braveheart also has William Wallace wear woad, which was too late -- the Picts did that, in Roman times. Trevor-Roper, who survived long enough to have seen it, must have been beside himself.
The Scots were noted as having a unique character, however, in the Middle Ages. That character is different from how we imagine it today.
I quote Sidney Lanier -- for whom, north Georgia readers, our Lake Lanier is named -- from his redaction of Froissart. Lanier, the Georgia poet, created this for boys -- Froissart was a French author, who composed his history by riding about the country and talking to knights who had fought in the great wars he chronicled. It remains a wonderful read today; Lanier's version updates the language to modern English, but there are other good ones.
Robert the Bruce, that greatest king of Scotland -- and gentleman of Christendom, whose life is discussed in The Dangerous Book for Boys -- had grown old at the time of Froissart's wars. He sent his companion Douglas to lead this defiance of the English, whom he had fought so often and for so long.
The Scots are bold, hardy, and much inured to war. When they make their invasions into England, they march from twenty to four and twenty miles without halting, as well by night as by day; for they are all on horseback, except the camp-followers, who are on foot.An army marching on short rations and sobriety is not how we imagine the Scots of old, but it is how they won their wars at Bannockburn and elsewhere.The knights and esquires are well mounted on large bay horses, the common people on little galloways. They bring no carriages with them, on account of the mountains they have to pass in Northumberland; neither do they carry with them any provisions of bread or wine; for their habits of sobriety are such, in time of war, that they will live for a long time on flesh half sodden, without bread, and drink the river-water without wine.
They have, therefore, no occasion for pots or pans: for they dress the flesh of their cattle in the skins, after they have taken them off; and being sure to find plenty of them in the country which they invade, they carry none with them. Under the flaps of his saddle, each man carries a broad plate of metal; behind the saddle, a little bag of oatmeal: when they have eaten too much of the sodden flesh, and their stomach appears weak and empty, they place this plate over the fire, mix with water their oatmeal, and when the plate is heated, they put a little of the paste upon it, and make a thin cake, like a cracknel or biscuit, wich they eat to warm their stomachs: it is therefore no wonder they perform a longer day's march than other soldiers.
We also don't recall how deeply tied Scotland was to the rest of Christendom at the time. The Declaration of Arbroath, which -- whatever Trevor-Roper said about it -- is one of the most noble and beautiful letters ever composed, was addressed to the Pope. And upon his death, Robert the Bruce charged that same Douglas to cut out his heart, embalm it, and carry it on Crusade. Douglas was killed crusading against the Saracens in Spain, when he led a charge against the King of Grenada that the Spanish neglected to support. Bruce's heart, and Douglas' body, were recovered and returned to Scotland.
The Scots have a powerful history in the highlands of America, where they emigrated in force. Many of what we call "Scots-Irish" were either Scots or northern English, who went first to Ireland seeking land under the plantation laws of James I of England (who was also James VI of Scotland). Much of America owes itself in part to them, under one name or another: the Volunteers of Tennessee who supported the Texans; the Scots who formed Georgia's Highland Mountain and Coastal Rangers in the time of James Edward Oglethorpe; the "overmountain men," victors of the Battle of King's Mountain; who fought the Indians with Andrew Jackson; who migrated West in the greatest numbers after the Civil War; and so forth.
Their history is ours, partly.
Rebel Roots
Rebel Roots:
What is the alternative position to Webb's "suggestion"?
If you're going to be fair to that argument, you should note just how frequently it had come up. After all, northern states had threatened to seceed before the Civil War, South Carolina had nearly come to blows with Andrew Jackson over it, and so forth. There were a number of parties in early America who honestly believed it was a retained power of the states, and that the right to withdraw from a union that had become a tyranny to you was implied by the Founding. It's hard to read the American Revolution as anything other than a successful secession, and the Declaration of Independence is fairly clear that this is something that could happen just frome time to time ("When in the course of human events..." doesn't imply, "Just this once").
Another thing:
Such is the title of this Politico piece on Jim Webb's writings on the Confederacy. Of course, all Americans have rebel roots -- Washington was a rebel that George III would have gladly hanged -- but of course it is the Confederates that are the cause of the journalistic complaint.
[Webb] has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride.I wasn't aware this was a controversial statement. It's obvious from the number of re-enactment groups that people remain not merely interested in the Civil War, but proud of the gallantry of their ancestors who fought in it -- this is true for the descendants of both armies, and indeed, many people (including me) had family on each side of the conflict. Webb himself is descended from Confederate officers.
What is the alternative position to Webb's "suggestion"?
Webb, a descendant of Confederate officers, also voiced sympathy for the notion of state sovereignty as it was understood in the early 1860s, and seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede.It's plain that the Confederates themselves thought they were justified. Webb, among other things, is a historian. If you were writing a history that treated the Civil War, wouldn't you want to explain why the Confederates thought so?
If you're going to be fair to that argument, you should note just how frequently it had come up. After all, northern states had threatened to seceed before the Civil War, South Carolina had nearly come to blows with Andrew Jackson over it, and so forth. There were a number of parties in early America who honestly believed it was a retained power of the states, and that the right to withdraw from a union that had become a tyranny to you was implied by the Founding. It's hard to read the American Revolution as anything other than a successful secession, and the Declaration of Independence is fairly clear that this is something that could happen just frome time to time ("When in the course of human events..." doesn't imply, "Just this once").
Another thing:
Ron Walters, director of the African American Leadership Center at the University of Maryland and a professor of political science there, said Webb’s past writings and comments on the Confederacy could dampen enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket, should he appear on it.We've all observed the enthusiasm black America has for the Obama campaign, and we all understand the reasons for it. I have a tremendous sympathy for their feelings on the subject, given their shared history -- just as I have for Webb's sentiments, given the history of which his family was a part. That said, given the history, does anyone seriously believe that 'African American... enthusiasm could be dampened' for the Obama ticket by... well, anything?
He doesn’t defend the war at all or the practice of slavery. He does make arguments about why the South seceded,” said Denny Todd. “The individual Confederate soldier, for the most part, did not own slaves. They weren’t wealthy landowners. Webb simply talks about why these men — mostly poor and white — stepped up and answered the call to serve.”Yeah, I was noticing that.
The distinctions Webb makes, however, tend not to receive a full airing in the heat of political debate.
Optimism on Iraq
Optimism on Iraq:
One of Dean's commenters adds:
Now available even in newspapers:
But recent substantial gains by the Iraqi army, flagging insurgent violence and civilians reclaiming a sense of confidence have produced expectations that are higher than at any time since 2003.Esmay says:
It’s increasingly reasonable to assume that Iraq’s security environment will continue to improve…
Even if recent events don’t portend a permanent change, nearly all the numbers the past few weeks suggest that Iraq’s center finally may be holding. Of most interest to Americans is the figure 19: the number of U.S. troops who died here in May….
Evidence of near normalcy is widespread.
…
“It’s a perfect storm of conditions on the ground right now,” says Michael Noonan , the managing director of the Program on National Security at the Foreign Policy Research Institute , who served as an Army Reservist captain in northern Iraq in 2006-07.
Iraq isn’t Shangri-La by any means, but by virtually all measures it has improved since 2002 (GDP doubled, potable water access doubled, access to sewage systems doubled, electricity nearly doubled (albeit thanks mainly to private generation), ten times as many phones, one hundred times as many cell phones, internet access from nonexistent to widely available in cafes, thousands of free TV, radio, and newspaper, right of speech and assembly and to vote, freedom to purchase cars without paying exorbitant tariffs) and will continue to do so.The focus on 2002 as a baseline is important, because then we're not just talking about how the Surge made things better than they were in the worst days of the war. We're talking about how the war has made things better overall.
One of Dean's commenters adds:
And let’s not forget another vital measure: since 2002, the number of murdering tyrants running the country and terrorizing the people has dropped precipitpously.A 100% decline, yes.
Reasonable Discourse
Reasonable Discourse:
The progressive movement has been trying for a while to purge itself of people who don't share a particular range of viewpoints, and this is the reason. To allow anyone into the circle of friends is to accept a whole range of possibilities as at least potential -- however undesirable -- alternatives.
Snowflakes goes on:
The way to persuade someone that a political position is not on the table is to demonize its adherents. If you can drive them out of the social circles entirely, then you have a situation where your preferred solution is not just more likely, but the only one accepted as reasonable.
You can see the effects of this by reading New York Times editorials. They use terms like "out of the mainstream," or "commonsense" not in any relation to what the actual mainstream of America believes, or what sense of things may really be common. Rather, it is to define not an argument, but a social circle.
Once defined, the social circle excludes whole rafts of positions actually quite popular with Americans. One of these is gun rights: concealed carry laws, already far too loose in 1988 for the NYT's standard for "commonsense", have been loosened further in almost every state in the union over the last twenty years.
At some point, it becomes necessary to decide if you prefer political victory or friendship. If friendship is the higher value, you are going to lose some things you care about politically. By allowing advocates of positions you disagree with to be friends, you are letting the nose of the camel into the tent. A good part of the whole camel is likely to follow.
Here we prefer friendship. This is one reason that Grim's Hall -- just as old as many another blog that discusses politics -- has never grown very large. People know instinctively that accepting the rules of reasonable discourse means losing a great deal that they care about. You can believe a man is wrong, and very badly and disasterously wrong, but if he is also your friend, often you'll let him be wrong rather than use the courts or the police to force his compliance with your will.
Snowflakes in Hell has some thoughts about the success of reasoned discouse in the gun rights movement. (h/t Gwa45).
You’ll notice that, for the most part, our side is appearing with facts, and reasonable arguments, and their side is slinging personal insults, stereotypes, and various other manners of prejudices.The huge unspoken truth about political positions is that they are social. You are likely to have positions that are acceptable to your friends. More, you are likely to take seriously positions you don't advocate yourself if any of your friends do. Having even one friend who desires gay marriage makes it more likely that you will consider this a reasonable position on which people can disagree; after all, you want to make space for your friends. The gay marriage agenda has proceeded from victory to victory on this score, and will eventually succeed -- very few Americans who oppose gay marriage really want to demonize gays, despite much concern to the contrary.
I think the reason for the vitriol is that we have unwittingly hit on a nerve. The LA Times article presented gun owners in a human light. For those who have their identities wrapped up in who they are not, which is ignorant, paranoid, rednecks compensating for some kind of inadequacy and reacting to an irrational fear of crime stoked by the right wing establishment, it’s horribly destabilizing to a smug sense of self to read that those types of people might actually have things in common with you.
The progressive movement has been trying for a while to purge itself of people who don't share a particular range of viewpoints, and this is the reason. To allow anyone into the circle of friends is to accept a whole range of possibilities as at least potential -- however undesirable -- alternatives.
Snowflakes goes on:
Politics isn’t war. Sometimes you can win by humanizing yourself to the other side. Ultimately we will win by breaking down stereotypes and fighting ignorance, just like every other civil rights movement in recorded history. The Black Panthers didn’t end Jim Crow, that was ended by African Americans humanizing themselves to America, and demanding fair treatment.It is a good thing about the American model that this has so often worked. Here is the corresponding cloud to the silver lining:
The way to persuade someone that a political position is not on the table is to demonize its adherents. If you can drive them out of the social circles entirely, then you have a situation where your preferred solution is not just more likely, but the only one accepted as reasonable.
You can see the effects of this by reading New York Times editorials. They use terms like "out of the mainstream," or "commonsense" not in any relation to what the actual mainstream of America believes, or what sense of things may really be common. Rather, it is to define not an argument, but a social circle.
Once defined, the social circle excludes whole rafts of positions actually quite popular with Americans. One of these is gun rights: concealed carry laws, already far too loose in 1988 for the NYT's standard for "commonsense", have been loosened further in almost every state in the union over the last twenty years.
At some point, it becomes necessary to decide if you prefer political victory or friendship. If friendship is the higher value, you are going to lose some things you care about politically. By allowing advocates of positions you disagree with to be friends, you are letting the nose of the camel into the tent. A good part of the whole camel is likely to follow.
Here we prefer friendship. This is one reason that Grim's Hall -- just as old as many another blog that discusses politics -- has never grown very large. People know instinctively that accepting the rules of reasonable discourse means losing a great deal that they care about. You can believe a man is wrong, and very badly and disasterously wrong, but if he is also your friend, often you'll let him be wrong rather than use the courts or the police to force his compliance with your will.
Perfect nonsense
Obama on Iraq:
The same unit holds Salman Pak, once one of the worst parts of the insurgency, but now having a rebirth. This is a city that is coming out of chaos, with a new bridge connecting it across the Tigris, new courts open, the judges returned to the city, law instead of chaos.
But forget the fate of the Iraqis of Salman Pak, or al Kut. Let's just talk about the effect on American forces, and pretend we owe the Iraqis nothing.
Pull out just that one brigade, and the whole east of Baghdad is opened to however many rockets and mortars and EFPs Iranian smugglers want to provide. The remaining brigades, several in Baghdad, are exposed to increased heavy weapons' fire and armor piercing EFPs. While they wait for their month to leave, their losses will spike -- and for no reason, since they are no longer trying to achieve stability in Iraq. They're just waiting their turn to leave. You would be better to simply saddle everyone up and march them to the sea, all the brigades at once.
You also make wastes of the lives spent in the Surge; but I understand Obama intends to do that in any case.
There are battalions that can be withdrawn at less cost, one at a time, as their AO is stable. To pull a whole brigade, every month? It'll create huge holes in the security of Iraq. It's too fast, and too artificial.
It's no wonder that Obama has been so little interested in examining any of the evidence of progress in Iraq since 2006 or 2007. None of those things affect his plans, which are to throw out any reconciliation or benchmark laws, and the whole constitution with it. The hard-won compromises and slowly built trust, the complex agreements and safeguards for parties distrustful because of years of tyranny? They are to be tossed aside.
This is the plan.
It may -- I guess, surely will -- come as news to the Senator, but there are already people in Iraq taking immediate steps to confront the humanitarian issues. They're doing things like this. They were building water treatment plants through the spring, so this summer there will be water for the people of Mahmoudiyah; water pumps in the Tigris river valley; schools across Iraq; helping rebuild hospitals and medical centers, when they weren't providing medical care themselves; rebuilding towns; providing microgrants to small businesses; establishing agricultural unions to give farmers coop resources to capitalize the fertile Tigris and Euphrates river valleys; refurbishing factories that make tractors, like the one in Iskandariyah's industrial complex; and working to increase Iraqi government capacity to do these things for themselves in the future, from the local to the provincial level and from the provinces to the capital.
These are, by the way, the very people who are going to be rapidly stood down and withdrawn from Iraq. One or two brigades a month.
This plan would be better for America if we just dissolved MNF-I in January 2009 and marched every single servicemember out of the nation. At least then American soldiers and Marines wouldn't die for a certain failure in Iraq, which is what the rest of this plan guarantees.
Iraqi provincial elections are coming in October. The ISF has shown tremendous gains in capacity in Basra and Sadr City. American deaths in May were the lowest of the war. The ISF has taken over most of the fighting. Patience will make this work.
It is still possible to wreck it all by leaving too soon. It's possible to do that even without actually taking a sledgehammer to the progress Iraq has made. Can you imagine how Iraqis would feel if, after their long-awaited provincial elections finally come off in October 2008, in 2009 the new American administration forces their government to toss out the government they've just elected, and the constitution it was based on?
Good gracious.
CDR Salamander is looking today at the four point plan for Iraq on Obama's web page. He is up in arms about the fact that one of those four points is a push to prosecute "war criminals," on the assumption that he means only the US military.
Insofar as that's correct, it's the only part of the plan that makes any sense at all. We already do exactly that. US servicemembers suspected of war crimes are investigated in several ways, and prosecuted when evidence suggests strong enough reason to believe a crime might have been committed.
Meanwhile, several of the major parties to reconciliation are heads of organizations that have been guilty of severe war crimes, off the scale of anything the Coalition has ever contemplated. Any reconciliation in Iraq will have to include a certain willingness by all sides to shake hands and agree to try to forgive what has passed, in the hope of a better future tomorrow.
This is the plan we already operate under. It's the one thing Obama is suggesting that makes something like sense. We have a civilization that is built upon holding our own to very high standards of honor. Iraq is trying to piece together a future out of war, and there is no potential of bringing its parties to a final peace if the leadership of every faction expects prosecution following any successful conclusion of the process.
The other parts of the plan are the problem.
Immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.Such a pace would lead to the rapid destabilization of the entire country. A single US brigade, 2/1 Armor, stands in the territory of Iraq from the Iranian border to Baghdad's eastern edge, as far south as al Kut and as far north as Narhwan.
The same unit holds Salman Pak, once one of the worst parts of the insurgency, but now having a rebirth. This is a city that is coming out of chaos, with a new bridge connecting it across the Tigris, new courts open, the judges returned to the city, law instead of chaos.
But forget the fate of the Iraqis of Salman Pak, or al Kut. Let's just talk about the effect on American forces, and pretend we owe the Iraqis nothing.
Pull out just that one brigade, and the whole east of Baghdad is opened to however many rockets and mortars and EFPs Iranian smugglers want to provide. The remaining brigades, several in Baghdad, are exposed to increased heavy weapons' fire and armor piercing EFPs. While they wait for their month to leave, their losses will spike -- and for no reason, since they are no longer trying to achieve stability in Iraq. They're just waiting their turn to leave. You would be better to simply saddle everyone up and march them to the sea, all the brigades at once.
You also make wastes of the lives spent in the Surge; but I understand Obama intends to do that in any case.
There are battalions that can be withdrawn at less cost, one at a time, as their AO is stable. To pull a whole brigade, every month? It'll create huge holes in the security of Iraq. It's too fast, and too artificial.
Call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation.Throw out the compromises already made, and start from scratch? We'll skip the part where the United Nations is invoked, like a magic word, suggesting against absolutely all evidence that the UN's involvement might aid the process. Just consider the idea that the Iraqi constitution should be thrown out, as well as all the progress so far achieved -- as all those compromises are laws based on the constitution to be thrown out.
It's no wonder that Obama has been so little interested in examining any of the evidence of progress in Iraq since 2006 or 2007. None of those things affect his plans, which are to throw out any reconciliation or benchmark laws, and the whole constitution with it. The hard-won compromises and slowly built trust, the complex agreements and safeguards for parties distrustful because of years of tyranny? They are to be tossed aside.
This is the plan.
Use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact.This will be the part where we negotiate with Iran, from a position of ever-increasing weakness. Every month they delay, one or two fewer brigades will be there to help us achieve our goals. No doubt this will work out well for American interests in the region -- confidence that talks would serve "American interests" being the non-precondition precondition that Obama now says he'd insist on for talks with Iran.
Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes.We've talked about the second half of this before. But consider the first part.
It may -- I guess, surely will -- come as news to the Senator, but there are already people in Iraq taking immediate steps to confront the humanitarian issues. They're doing things like this. They were building water treatment plants through the spring, so this summer there will be water for the people of Mahmoudiyah; water pumps in the Tigris river valley; schools across Iraq; helping rebuild hospitals and medical centers, when they weren't providing medical care themselves; rebuilding towns; providing microgrants to small businesses; establishing agricultural unions to give farmers coop resources to capitalize the fertile Tigris and Euphrates river valleys; refurbishing factories that make tractors, like the one in Iskandariyah's industrial complex; and working to increase Iraqi government capacity to do these things for themselves in the future, from the local to the provincial level and from the provinces to the capital.
These are, by the way, the very people who are going to be rapidly stood down and withdrawn from Iraq. One or two brigades a month.
This plan would be better for America if we just dissolved MNF-I in January 2009 and marched every single servicemember out of the nation. At least then American soldiers and Marines wouldn't die for a certain failure in Iraq, which is what the rest of this plan guarantees.
Iraqi provincial elections are coming in October. The ISF has shown tremendous gains in capacity in Basra and Sadr City. American deaths in May were the lowest of the war. The ISF has taken over most of the fighting. Patience will make this work.
It is still possible to wreck it all by leaving too soon. It's possible to do that even without actually taking a sledgehammer to the progress Iraq has made. Can you imagine how Iraqis would feel if, after their long-awaited provincial elections finally come off in October 2008, in 2009 the new American administration forces their government to toss out the government they've just elected, and the constitution it was based on?
Good gracious.
Kiki Wake
Kike Wake:
There are times when we meet things stronger than we are. There are times when we meet things as strong. We do, or do not do. We act, or do not act. Strong as we are, wise as we might be, we may change nothing.
Yet you may be a master. Remember.
From Taisen Deshimaru, The Zen Way to the Martial Arts, a question and an answer. It is the question that lingers ever in my mind.
Last year in Kyoto, I watched a contest between two kendo masters who were about eighty years old. They stood face to face, sword in hand, sword-tip against sword-tip, without moving, absolutely not moving, for five minutes. At the end of five minutes the referee declared a tie, kike wake.No, on second thought, the answer doesn't matter. It is only that question, phrased with no question mark, that matters.
There are times when we meet things stronger than we are. There are times when we meet things as strong. We do, or do not do. We act, or do not act. Strong as we are, wise as we might be, we may change nothing.
Yet you may be a master. Remember.
Einar Tambarskelver
For Einar Tambarskelver:
He made me read the entire rest of the saga of King Olav Trygvasson, and then asked me to read the next saga (which, being the Saga of St. Olav, would take a week). I told him I would read him more later, but for now, I wanted him to reflect on the great archer, Einar Tambarskelver, and the great fight, and other things. If I read on he would forget, but I hope he will remember.
Here is something to remember too: the way the war ended.
This evening my son asked me to read to him about a bowman, and so I took down my copy of the Heimskringla, and read him this:
118. OF EINAR TAMBARSKELVER.Once, long ago, I told you that someone had bought my son this Viking ship model from Playmobil. We had it out tonight, so that during the course of the ship battle I could show him where each point of action was happening on the ship, and he could visualize the fight between King Olav and the Jarl.
Einar Tambarskelver, one of the sharpest of bowshooters, stood by
the mast, and shot with his bow. Einar shot an arrow at Earl
Eirik, which hit the tiller end just above the earl's head so
hard that it entered the wood up to the arrow-shaft. The earl
looked that way, and asked if they knew who had shot; and at the
same moment another arrow flew between his hand and his side, and
into the stuffing of the chief's stool, so that the barb stood
far out on the other side. Then said the earl to a man called
Fin, -- but some say he was of Fin (Laplander) race, and was a
superior archer, -- "Shoot that tall man by the mast." Fin shot;
and the arrow hit the middle of Einar's bow just at the moment
that Einar was drawing it, and the bow was split in two parts.
"What is that," cried King Olaf, "that broke with such a noise?"
"Norway, king, from thy hands," cried Einar.
"No! not quite so much as that," says the king; "take my bow,
and shoot," flinging the bow to him.
Einar took the bow, and drew it over the head of the arrow. "Too
weak, too weak," said he, "for the bow of a mighty king!" and,
throwing the bow aside, he took sword and shield, and fought
Valiantly.
119. OLAF GIVES HIS MEN SHARP SWORDS.
The king stood on the gangways of the Long Serpent. and shot the
greater part of the day; sometimes with the bow, sometimes with
the spear, and always throwing two spears at once. He looked
down over the ship's sides, and saw that his men struck briskly
with their swords, and yet wounded but seldom. Then he called
aloud, "Why do ye strike so gently that ye seldom cut?" One
among the people answered, "The swords are blunt and full of
notches." Then the king went down into the forehold, opened the
chest under the throne, and took out many sharp swords, which he
handed to his men; but as he stretched down his right hand with
them, some observed that blood was running down under his steel
glove, but no one knew where he was wounded.
120. THE SERPENT BOARDED.
Desperate was the defence in the Serpent, and there was the
heaviest destruction of men done by the forecastle crew, and
those of the forehold, for in both places the men were chosen
men, and the ship was highest, but in the middle of the ship the
people were thinned. Now when Earl Eirik saw there were but few
people remaining beside the ship's mast, he determined to board;
and he entered the Serpent with four others. Then came Hyrning,
the king's brother-in-law, and some others against him, and there
was the most severe combat; and at last the earl was forced to
leap back on board his own ship again, and some who had
accompanied him were killed, and others wounded. Thord
Kolbeinson alludes to this: --
"On Odin's deck, all wet with blood,
The helm-adorned hero stood;
And gallant Hyrning honour gained,
Clearing all round with sword deep stained.
The high mountain peaks shall fall,
Ere men forget this to recall."
He made me read the entire rest of the saga of King Olav Trygvasson, and then asked me to read the next saga (which, being the Saga of St. Olav, would take a week). I told him I would read him more later, but for now, I wanted him to reflect on the great archer, Einar Tambarskelver, and the great fight, and other things. If I read on he would forget, but I hope he will remember.
Here is something to remember too: the way the war ended.
The earls Eirik and Svein bothIt is in this way -- in allowing for differences, and showing respect for the several traditions -- that peace was made for a time in Norway, among a fighting folk.
allowed themselves to be baptized, and took up the true faith;
but as long as they ruled in Norway they allowed every one to do
as he pleased in holding by his Christianity. But, on the other
hand, they held fast by the old laws, and all the old rights and
customs of the land, and were excellent men and good rulers.
Army on GW
The Army on Global Warming:
Dr. Bruce West, a chief scientist with the Mathematical and Information Science Directorate with the Army Research Office, gave a DOD Roundtable on Global Warming the other day. AgainI was invited to this Roundtable, but didn't attend. I did look up the transcript to see what the fellow had to say, though.
Short version: he thinks it's the sun. There's quite a bit more, for those of you who are following the debate closely.
Obama Posters
The Prophet Claim: Visual Aids
And that's without the Lightwalker talk. That's just judging from the campaign's posters and Obama's speech.
This is a serious business. I'm the first one to put it in these terms, but I won't be the last one if this doesn't stop. The next one may be someone who isn't just familiar with Revelations, but has faith in his own capacity to interpret it -- and preach it.
You don't want this.
UPDATE: By the way, did you know that the Left Behind series sold 65 million copies?
I won't include the famous "dare we say it?" one of Obama as Jesus rising from the water, with a unicorn behind him, because it was intended as semi-ironic. Let's just look at a few of the actually-deployed posters for Obama for President.
Now, reread that excerpt from his speech, below. He promises literally to slow the rise of the oceans, and literally to "heal the planet."
This is why I say that this is really creepy. It's also why I say that, if he ends up getting hammered with claims of being a false prophet -- complete with quotes from Revelations or elsewhere in the Bible -- he's going to deserve it. If you run as a prophet, you're opening yourself to claims that you're a false one.
Being perceived as a false prophet has consequences.
There are plenty of people out there trying to decipher Revelations. And a false prophet figure fits very, very well into a lot of end-times talk.
More than likely [the False Prophet] is simply an important religious figure representing a rising religious and ecclesiastical movement which this second beast and Satan will use to promote the beast out of the sea (cf. 17:7, 15-16)... Walvoord says, “The identification of the second beast as the head of the apostate church is indicated in many ways in the book of Revelation.”It would be terrifyingly easy to put those posters, and that speech, into the frame of "a rising religious movement" of "an apostate church," headed by "a false prophet" in league with Satan himself.
And that's without the Lightwalker talk. That's just judging from the campaign's posters and Obama's speech.
This is a serious business. I'm the first one to put it in these terms, but I won't be the last one if this doesn't stop. The next one may be someone who isn't just familiar with Revelations, but has faith in his own capacity to interpret it -- and preach it.
You don't want this.
UPDATE: By the way, did you know that the Left Behind series sold 65 million copies?
Clint Eastwood
On Clint Eastwood:
To be read with yesterday's post, also on cinema, this interview:
Sergio Leone, who directed Eastwood in his breakthrough role in the Man With No Name trilogy of spaghetti westerns, said he liked the actor because he had only two expressions: "one with the hat, one without it".
Bothersome
A Confession:
Also this kind of thing:
Also: Beware. This language is more dangerous than you believe it to be. I realize we've been told that the Rev. Mr. Wright spoke in the prophetic tradition; perhaps Obama learned the lingo from him.
Nevertheless, while it may appeal to some -- those "deeply spiritual" people who aren't "coweringly religious" -- there is a broader tradition that has quite a bit to say about those who falsely claim the right to speak as prophets.
You do not want what you are buying. If Obama is to be judged as a man, he should speak as a man. If he speaks as a prophet, it is on his own head if he is judged a false one.
This kind of thing is really starting to bother me.
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."Coweringly religious"?
The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare.
Also this kind of thing:
...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...Holy crap, people. Get hold of yourselves.
Also: Beware. This language is more dangerous than you believe it to be. I realize we've been told that the Rev. Mr. Wright spoke in the prophetic tradition; perhaps Obama learned the lingo from him.
Nevertheless, while it may appeal to some -- those "deeply spiritual" people who aren't "coweringly religious" -- there is a broader tradition that has quite a bit to say about those who falsely claim the right to speak as prophets.
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.It would take not one minute's work to fit that verse to Obama: a false prophet, promising miracles, "going forth to the kings of the earth" and the "kings of the east" (without preconditions!) to gather them to battle by the drying Euphrates. With Iran developing nuclear weapons, many minds would find it no stretch to invoke "the great day of God Almighty." I place no faith in any human reading of the Revelation of St. John the Divine -- but beware, because you are asking for one.
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
You do not want what you are buying. If Obama is to be judged as a man, he should speak as a man. If he speaks as a prophet, it is on his own head if he is judged a false one.
Bad Eagle Film
"Daughter of Dawn"
It's been a while since we looked in on Bad Eagle. Dr. David Yeagley, proudly of the Commanche Nation, was asked to compose a soundtrack for a silent film from 1920.
The film, Daughter of Dawn, was made by Norbert Miles, assisted by Charles Simone. It is based on legend and fiction put together in a story by R. E. Banks, who is identified as a person who “lived among the Indians” for twenty-five years. This implies that Banks knew the sons of the free warriors. The Oklahoma Historical Society purchased the film from a private owner. The movie was never released in Hollywood, but instead has remained obscure for a century now. Plans are to release a DVD with music sound track within a year.This should be of interest to us, not only for the subject matter, but because of the question of the music. We've talked a lot lately about problems of modern music, and Eric has rightly mentioned the connection to the movie industry. Dr. Yeagley discusses what it is like to compose for a silent film:
The film is an Indian story, and the actors are all Indian. There are Comanche and Kiowa Indians alive today who are the descendents and family of actors in the movie. Saupitty, Lebarr, Toyebo, Cozad, Yellow Wolf, and Parker are among the names of the families represented in the film. It is the first full-length feature using all Indian actors, and portrays an Indian story. It was filmed in the Wichita Mountains, and includes an actual herd of buffalo and a hunt. The Indians ride bare-back, of course, and their clothing and mannerisms are surely authentic. 1920 is not far removed from the days of the free warriors.
Ted Turner has devised a way to get young composers to write movie scores for basically nothing.I look forward to the opportunity to view the film, and hear the results.
He holds a contest for young composers to write music scores for silent movies. There is a special night, every week, during which Turner's silent movies are shown.
Most of these have newly composed scores. They are very creative and interesting. I was completely unaware of this new composer/movie fad until a few months after I had already composed many pages of my score.
I really am doing something different. I'm writing symphony music. I'm not depicting the movie image with imitative sounds.
It has been a strange and wonderful experience, to write music for a film. The silent film is not a modern thing, really. It movies generally very quickly, and this was part of the way interest was held.
To put rich, dramatic, romantic music to an old silent film is like putting a tuxedo on a skeleton. There are times when you can do it, but, generally, the old silent films don't allow it. It is inappropriate.
Now, you can use full orchestra, any time you want. It isn't the full orchestra, but the music, that determines propriety.
...
Very odd experience, actually.
It is not a sonata form, not a fugue, not a minuette, not scherzo, not a rondeau. What is it?
A continuum of symphonic expression. I've never written music before that is not in a form. I'm a great formalist. I love the invention of form, the shape, the construct, the architecture.
This is none of that. The movie is the form. I follow the movie. I should say, this is a most humble enterprise. Thus, the challenge!
Shattered Sword.
To day is June 5. 66 years ago today, the battle of Midway had its most crucial 10 minutes: Between 10:20 and 10:30, Dauntless Dive Bombers from the US Carriers Yorktown and Enterprise, Put out of action 3 of the 4 Japanese carriers the Imperial Japanese Navy brought to the battle of Midway.
Steeljaw Scribe (via OPFOR) has a lessons learned post. Which needs to be developed a little.
--First of all, the take away from many (if not most) wars is that those that make the fewest mistakes win. That needs to be remembered as both the Japanese and Americans made several mistakes. Obviously, the Japanese made worse ones.
Its doubtful that the US would have diverted more than what was for the Aleutian operations. The Japanese, however, turned what was supposed to be a diversion into a full fledged operation, drawing off resources better used elsewhere, including 2 light carriers commited, and a further 3 others earmarked, but ultimately not sent. Think about that for a bit. 5 carriers that could have been used at Midway were not. But make no mistake, the breaking of the Japanese codes made the battle possible.
The crew of the Yorktown did that at Coral sea, but the crew of the Lexington did not. (I don't know about the Langely). While it seems a 'mundane' thing, its clear that other ships in the US Navy, (never mind the Japanese) weren't either as talented, trained or lucky as the Yorktown's crew, and its hard to account for that.
Training requires time, which the unfortunate USMC aviators didn't have. Henderson's flight group was probably the rawest in the battle, and it showed. Some of them had not even flown an SBD until a few days previously, and more than half the unit had only joined a few days before. Henderson tried what he thought his men could do, and if there's a fault, its sending untrained men into combat. But you go to war with what you have. Other measures, such as the use of B-17's and the rigging of torpedoes on B-26 Maurader medium bombers were a clear sign of desperation.
Pursuant to the point above, some 50 odd Japanese ships were detailed to the first phase of the Aluetian campaign, that obviously could have been used elsewhere. But the other thing to remember with 20-20 hindsight is that so far, the entire war had been going Japan's way. Its hard to call something outmoded or ill thought out if it seems to be working. The destruction heaped on the American Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor forced the US Navy to instantly rethink how to fight--because it didn't have its battleships anymore. That still didn't stop hare-brained schemes like Doolittle raid, which risked two of the four carriers that the US had in the Pacific. It worked, so one sees no real criticism of it, but what were they thinking? The best Nimitz could think of for a while was sending the carriers out on raids, which again, worked out in the end, but had no guarantee that they would.
Best was supposed to attackt he Akagi in the first place. Best's change came from ill coordination/communication between the American flight groups, --bombing six and scounting six ended up simultaneously attacking the Kaga, leaving both the Akagi unmolested, and yes, Best attacked the Akagi with 3 planes out which one lucky bomb hit, which ultimately doomed the Akagi. He could have missed. Infact, he actually did not attack according Wade McClusky's instructions, (which weren't to doctrine) and instead of sending Bombing 6 at the Akagi as instructed, Best continued attacking the Kaga--only at the last second after seeing McClusky and Scouting 6 dive on Kaga, along with the rest of Bombing 6, did Best and two other planes actually pull out of their dives and attack the Akagi. It sort of puts the lie to the idea that it was inspired initiative. In reality, it was nearly blind adherence to doctrine.
The entire attack ought to have been a study in how *not* to do it, given the horrible coordination between the torpedo and bombing squadrons, and the losses suffered. The Hornet's bombing assets did not even manage to make it into battle. --If they had, perhaps the Hiryu might have been hit at the same time as the Kaga, Akagi and Soryu, and the Yorktown would not have been hit in the Japanese counterstrike from the Hiryu later that day.
The Americans attacked the Japanese piece-meal from 0700 that morning, with everything from B-17's to B-26's (jury rigged with torpedoes!), Henderson's ill-trained Marines and of course all the doomed carrier torpedo squadrons. While this kept the Japanese off balance, and contributed to the success of the divebombing attacks, It wasn't planned that way, it just worked out that way. We were lucky.
While the Japanese planning was sub-par for Midway, one could argue that the entire war was a really bad idea in the first place, and any tactical success was not, in the end, going to help the Japanese out of their predicament. The Japanese had indeed 'run wild' for six months, but ill will between the Japanese Army and Navy precluded any sort of efficiencies that would be required for the war. The entire Guadalcanal campaign only underscored this.
One could make the same analogy with Bin Laden and Al-Queda, which while achieving a spectacular tactical success on 9/11, committed a monumental strategic blunder, which has essentially doomed them.
Even the US was dogged with the machinations of MacArthur vs. Nimitz and the directions of the American campaigns in the Pacific. This also highlights the difficulty of such fighting such a big war.
I am not sure what's being ignored here, not having read the rest of SJS's blog, but I'm not certain things are being ignored the way he implies.
Still, as Rumsfeld so elequently put it:
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
And yes, we need to keep thinking about the last.
To day is June 5. 66 years ago today, the battle of Midway had its most crucial 10 minutes: Between 10:20 and 10:30, Dauntless Dive Bombers from the US Carriers Yorktown and Enterprise, Put out of action 3 of the 4 Japanese carriers the Imperial Japanese Navy brought to the battle of Midway.
Steeljaw Scribe (via OPFOR) has a lessons learned post. Which needs to be developed a little.
In racing there is a saying - ‘luck is where preparation meets opportunity’ Perhaps there is no truer an example than the Battle of Midway. Popular literature seems to emphasize the American forces stumbling into a heaven-sent scenario of laden carrier decks and little to no opposition to the dive bombers, while giving short shrift to the preparation that enabled them to make use of that opportunity. How so?
--First of all, the take away from many (if not most) wars is that those that make the fewest mistakes win. That needs to be remembered as both the Japanese and Americans made several mistakes. Obviously, the Japanese made worse ones.
COMINT: Communications Intelligence - the US code breakers labored mightily to figure out what the IJN was up to. Were it not for their efforts prior to Midway, and some particularly inspired thinking and risk taking, the US may well have fallen for the feint up to Alaska and end up caught in the trap laid by Yamamoto.
Its doubtful that the US would have diverted more than what was for the Aleutian operations. The Japanese, however, turned what was supposed to be a diversion into a full fledged operation, drawing off resources better used elsewhere, including 2 light carriers commited, and a further 3 others earmarked, but ultimately not sent. Think about that for a bit. 5 carriers that could have been used at Midway were not. But make no mistake, the breaking of the Japanese codes made the battle possible.
Damage Control: Had the crew of the Yorktown not been so proficient in DC, particularly something as seemingly mundane as draining the avgas lines and filling them with inert gas prior to the battle of Coral Sea, the Yorktown may very well have been lost, leaving CINCPAC with only two carriers facing four, forcing a different battle plan. Conversely, the almost lackadaisical approach the Japanese took in repairing Shokaku’s damage or replinishing Zuikaku’s air wing and repairing her light damage from Coral Sea’s action ensured their nonavailability for Midway, keeping the balance of forces on a razor’s edge.
The crew of the Yorktown did that at Coral sea, but the crew of the Lexington did not. (I don't know about the Langely). While it seems a 'mundane' thing, its clear that other ships in the US Navy, (never mind the Japanese) weren't either as talented, trained or lucky as the Yorktown's crew, and its hard to account for that.
Training: The contrast between USN and USMC effectiveness in employing dive bombers at Midway was signatory. Using the same platform (SBD-3’s) USN pilots scored major hits while minimizing losses to AAA and fighters, whereas the Marines suffered significant losses for little, if any gain. The difference? Tactics, training and procedures or TTP (yes, we know -ugh, one of those modern terms…) - the Navy employed steep, usually 70-degree, dives on the target whereas the Marines used much shallower, gliding approaches. The former minimizes your exposure time and profile to AAA and fighters while increasing the likelihood of a hit. However, it requires considerable practice at obtaining the proper dive angle, avoiding target fixation and knowing how/when to pullout of the dive and avoid over-stressing the airframe. Lots of practice, underscoring the maxim about training like you are going to fight…
Training requires time, which the unfortunate USMC aviators didn't have. Henderson's flight group was probably the rawest in the battle, and it showed. Some of them had not even flown an SBD until a few days previously, and more than half the unit had only joined a few days before. Henderson tried what he thought his men could do, and if there's a fault, its sending untrained men into combat. But you go to war with what you have. Other measures, such as the use of B-17's and the rigging of torpedoes on B-26 Maurader medium bombers were a clear sign of desperation.
Employment of forces: The Japanese were the first to employ massed striking power using carriers and the strike at Pearl (and subsequent actions through SE Asia and the IO) validated the philosophy. The problem was the Japanese failed to comprehend the inherent flexibility of carrier-based air and thus eschewed opportunities to utilize it in other scenarios, such as scouting, which in turn, led to less than robust search plans and reliance on out-dated search aircraft and methodologies. Curiously, the Japanese broke this rule in planning the Aleutian invasion, diverting forces on a mission of questionable value and success for territory that would prove to be exceptionally harsh on man and machine while yielding little, if any strategic value outside of propaganda for an overly wrought plan of entrapment. This leads to questions of planning…
Pursuant to the point above, some 50 odd Japanese ships were detailed to the first phase of the Aluetian campaign, that obviously could have been used elsewhere. But the other thing to remember with 20-20 hindsight is that so far, the entire war had been going Japan's way. Its hard to call something outmoded or ill thought out if it seems to be working. The destruction heaped on the American Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor forced the US Navy to instantly rethink how to fight--because it didn't have its battleships anymore. That still didn't stop hare-brained schemes like Doolittle raid, which risked two of the four carriers that the US had in the Pacific. It worked, so one sees no real criticism of it, but what were they thinking? The best Nimitz could think of for a while was sending the carriers out on raids, which again, worked out in the end, but had no guarantee that they would.
Planning/Command: In studied contrast to the run-up at Pearl, Japanese planning for Midway was poorly thought out, egregiously evaluated and gamed and haphazardly executed (cf: the entire submarine picket plan). Indeed, it was put together and executed in such a toxic atmosphere of arrogance and bluster that even when one of the final wargame sessions showed American forces gaining an upper-hand because of gaps in the air search pattern, referees for the wargame manipulated the environment and other factors to bring about a successful conclusion for Kido Butai. As for dealing with changing factors at sea, commanders were loath to step outside the boundaries of the plan and demonstrate initiative. In studied contrast were the actions of the Americans from Nimitz’s orders based on calculated risk to Dick Best’s last minute change in targets.
Best was supposed to attackt he Akagi in the first place. Best's change came from ill coordination/communication between the American flight groups, --bombing six and scounting six ended up simultaneously attacking the Kaga, leaving both the Akagi unmolested, and yes, Best attacked the Akagi with 3 planes out which one lucky bomb hit, which ultimately doomed the Akagi. He could have missed. Infact, he actually did not attack according Wade McClusky's instructions, (which weren't to doctrine) and instead of sending Bombing 6 at the Akagi as instructed, Best continued attacking the Kaga--only at the last second after seeing McClusky and Scouting 6 dive on Kaga, along with the rest of Bombing 6, did Best and two other planes actually pull out of their dives and attack the Akagi. It sort of puts the lie to the idea that it was inspired initiative. In reality, it was nearly blind adherence to doctrine.
The entire attack ought to have been a study in how *not* to do it, given the horrible coordination between the torpedo and bombing squadrons, and the losses suffered. The Hornet's bombing assets did not even manage to make it into battle. --If they had, perhaps the Hiryu might have been hit at the same time as the Kaga, Akagi and Soryu, and the Yorktown would not have been hit in the Japanese counterstrike from the Hiryu later that day.
The Americans attacked the Japanese piece-meal from 0700 that morning, with everything from B-17's to B-26's (jury rigged with torpedoes!), Henderson's ill-trained Marines and of course all the doomed carrier torpedo squadrons. While this kept the Japanese off balance, and contributed to the success of the divebombing attacks, It wasn't planned that way, it just worked out that way. We were lucky.
While the Japanese planning was sub-par for Midway, one could argue that the entire war was a really bad idea in the first place, and any tactical success was not, in the end, going to help the Japanese out of their predicament. The Japanese had indeed 'run wild' for six months, but ill will between the Japanese Army and Navy precluded any sort of efficiencies that would be required for the war. The entire Guadalcanal campaign only underscored this.
One could make the same analogy with Bin Laden and Al-Queda, which while achieving a spectacular tactical success on 9/11, committed a monumental strategic blunder, which has essentially doomed them.
Even the US was dogged with the machinations of MacArthur vs. Nimitz and the directions of the American campaigns in the Pacific. This also highlights the difficulty of such fighting such a big war.
Luck indeed smiled on the Americans that day, but she did not grab them by the hand (or scruff of the neck) and tell them what must be done in PowerPoint bulletized format. She merely opened the door, a crack, and offered a fleeting moment to change the course of the battle…the Americans grasped it and changed the direction of the war. Review the list above - these are timeless lessons learned, every bit as applicable today as they were 66 years ago. My observations lead me to believe we are ignoring them at our future peril. - SJS
I am not sure what's being ignored here, not having read the rest of SJS's blog, but I'm not certain things are being ignored the way he implies.
Still, as Rumsfeld so elequently put it:
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
And yes, we need to keep thinking about the last.
Don't piss off the boss.
Wired magazine's DANGER ROOM has a little background:
It isn't the cold war anymore, and I think the Air Force is chafing at the role of essentially being air-borne artillery.
WASHINGTON, June 5, 2008 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today announced the resignations of Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley following an investigation revealing a decline in the Air Force's nuclear program focus, performance and effective leadership.
Wired magazine's DANGER ROOM has a little background:
The move, initially reported by Inside Defense and Air Force Times, isn't exactly a shocker. The Air Force has come under fire for everything from mishandling nukes to misleading ad campaigns to missing out on the importance of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Most importantly, the Air Force's leadership has been on the brink of open conflict for months with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. That's because in the halls of the Air Force's chiefs, the talk has been largely about the threats posed by China and a resurgent Russia. Gates wanted the service to actually focus on the wars at hand, in Iraq and Afghanistan. "For much of the past year I’ve been trying to concentrate the minds and energies of the defense establishment on the current needs and current conflicts," he told the Heritage Foundation. "In short, to ensure that all parts of the Defense Department are, in fact, at war."
It isn't the cold war anymore, and I think the Air Force is chafing at the role of essentially being air-borne artillery.
Black Swans
Black Swans:
The reason there is a right answer is that mathematics is a science of models that approximate reality. It is not reality itself. When you move into reality as it is, even the hardest science -- physics, say -- becomes an exercise in probability at best.
I say, "at best," because there is also the problem of the Black Swan: of something in reality you've never encountered before. It can't figure into your calculations, because you have no way to know it exists. There are such things in the world as we have never imagined, waiting in the dark.
The way to visualize these three histories is with the events they all three experienced as a point in the center of a diagram. Stretching out from this point are three separate fields, each of which is full of additional data. There are things that the Greeks do not know about that the French thought were very important to the story. There are things that the Levantines found central that never entered the consciousness of the French knights.
If what you want to do is sort out a 'most likely course' of what happened, you can probably do that by learning the three cultures and, therefore, the contents of each of the three backfields. Then, you can compare the accounts and triangulate the "truth position" of any given claim located in that center point, the Crusades themselves. You'll be able to do this with greater accuracy than if you had known only one tradition.
You are still doing probability work. You must always keep in front of your eyes that you aren't really right. You've only sorted out what is most likely.
As Fat Tony would say, "most likely" is the way to bet. Just understand that you can still lose, once in a while, on what seems like a sure thing.
An interview with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, at The Times of London. He is one of those deeply eccentric people who demonstrates that eccentricity can be a mark of a very clear sight, and a willingness to see the world for what it is.
For the non-mathematician, probability is an indecipherably complex field. But Taleb makes it easy by proving all the mathematics wrong. Let me introduce you to Brooklyn-born Fat Tony and academically inclined Dr John, two of Taleb’s creations. You toss a coin 40 times and it comes up heads every time. What is the chance of it coming up heads the 41st time? Dr John gives the answer drummed into the heads of every statistic student: 50/50. Fat Tony shakes his head and says the chances are no more than 1%. “You are either full of crap,” he says, “or a pure sucker to buy that 50% business. The coin gotta be loaded.”Mathematics is the most certain of the sciences; it is the one of the sciences where you can be sure you have the right answer. What people forget, however, is why that is so.
The chances of a coin coming up heads 41 times are so small as to be effectively impossible in this universe. It is far, far more likely that somebody is cheating. Fat Tony wins. Dr John is the sucker. And the one thing that drives Taleb more than anything else is the determination not to be a sucker. Dr John is the economist or banker who thinks he can manage risk through mathematics. Fat Tony relies only on what happens in the real world.
The reason there is a right answer is that mathematics is a science of models that approximate reality. It is not reality itself. When you move into reality as it is, even the hardest science -- physics, say -- becomes an exercise in probability at best.
I say, "at best," because there is also the problem of the Black Swan: of something in reality you've never encountered before. It can't figure into your calculations, because you have no way to know it exists. There are such things in the world as we have never imagined, waiting in the dark.
They are also Christian – Greek Orthodox. Startlingly, this great sceptic, this non-guru who believes in nothing, is still a practising Christian. He regards with some contempt the militant atheism movement led by Richard Dawkins.The ideal thing to do is to learn each of the three histories of the Crusades, and sort out as best you can what is most likely to have happened. The fact of the three histories, though, is something to keep in mind.
“Scientists don’t know what they are talking about when they talk about religion. Religion has nothing to do with belief, and I don’t believe it has any negative impact on people’s lives outside of intolerance. Why do I go to church? It’s like asking, why did you marry that woman? You make up reasons, but it’s probably just smell. I love the smell of candles. It’s an aesthetic thing.”
Take away religion, he says, and people start believing in nationalism, which has killed far more people. Religion is also a good way of handling uncertainty. It lowers blood pressure. He’s convinced that religious people take fewer financial risks.
He was educated at a French school. Three traditions formed him: Greek Orthodox, French Catholic and Arab. They also taught him to disbelieve conventional wisdom. Each tradition had a different history of the crusades, utterly different. This led him to disbelieve historians almost as much as he does bankers.
The way to visualize these three histories is with the events they all three experienced as a point in the center of a diagram. Stretching out from this point are three separate fields, each of which is full of additional data. There are things that the Greeks do not know about that the French thought were very important to the story. There are things that the Levantines found central that never entered the consciousness of the French knights.
If what you want to do is sort out a 'most likely course' of what happened, you can probably do that by learning the three cultures and, therefore, the contents of each of the three backfields. Then, you can compare the accounts and triangulate the "truth position" of any given claim located in that center point, the Crusades themselves. You'll be able to do this with greater accuracy than if you had known only one tradition.
You are still doing probability work. You must always keep in front of your eyes that you aren't really right. You've only sorted out what is most likely.
As Fat Tony would say, "most likely" is the way to bet. Just understand that you can still lose, once in a while, on what seems like a sure thing.
FT Greyhawk
Fort Greyhawk:
I've been out of town for a few days, enjoying the gracious -- indeed, the extravagant -- hospitality of Mr. & Mrs. Greyhawk. I'm not at liberty to reveal the secret location of their hidden fort. Suffice to say, they have a beautiful home in a lovely part of the world, and they receive their guests kindly.
I just know Grim's going to like this:
It's getting crowded under that bus.
"US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has announced his resignation from the controversial Chicago church he attended for 20 years"
It's getting crowded under that bus.
3/6
The 3/6ths Compromise:
This is going to cause some problems.
Photo from RedState, reporting from the scene.
At the beginning of our great country’s history my ancestors were counted as only 2/3 of a person. Until passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, they weren’t allowed to vote. During that same time and until 1920, women could not vote. White men who did not own property could not vote at one point in our history as well.It was not 2/3rds, but 3/5ths, very close to the 3/6ths that Florida and Michigan voters are going to be allowed to be.
Now, on May 31, 2008, a group of elitist insiders of the DNC have effectively said that some of my ancestors’ progeny equal only 1/2 and that men and women in Florida who voted on January 29th are 1/2 also.
This is going to cause some problems.
Photo from RedState, reporting from the scene.
Followup
Followup on Masculinity:
Then I read Mr. Klein's latest:
I don't think we're going to do well against the evils of the world with that attitude. If this is emblematic of the "Obama best and brightest," is it too late to save the Clinton candidacy?
Professor Althouse wrote about this:
That's the last sentence of his essay! Come on, Ezra! Real men don't use semicolons. And more than that: Say what you have to say. Don't pussyfoot around. I think you mean:I was going to say that I thought she was being a little harsh, and reiterate that gentle natures could be valuable -- as the post below mentions, John Wayne portrayed how it could sometimes save a young and reckless man who would otherwise be destroyed. It is just that such classes have to be protected. You need the President to be a marshal, in part so that you can have the benefit of Quakers. They could not otherwise exist.
We are the Mommy Party. Let's own it. Let's do it! The home game is knitting and cooking and putting bandaids on booboos.
Then I read Mr. Klein's latest:
Earlier, I asked for a better term than "soft power".... Reading through all this, though, I'm not sure the term can be saved. The problem isn't just the "soft" part, it's the "power."So, point to Professor Althouse. "The problem isn't just the 'soft'... it's the 'power.'"
I don't think we're going to do well against the evils of the world with that attitude. If this is emblematic of the "Obama best and brightest," is it too late to save the Clinton candidacy?
Against Masculinity
Masculinity and Martial Courage:
That is a supporter's words, notice. It is not the first time an Obama supporter has described his candidate in such terms, "...as a skinny, athletic, gentle-seeming, virtually metrosexual man, he nearly splits the difference on gender as well."
Daniel Larison, an isolationist conservative blogger, agrees:
What you can play with is what Aristotle called your "second nature." The second nature is widely variable, because it is the socially-trained ideas about right, wrong, etc. All of this 'reframing the debate' to make Obama more acceptable is really about that: about changing the preferred second-nature of American men.
That second nature, however, is only an overlay on top of the first nature. As flexible as the second nature is, all it can do is train the first nature in certain directions. So, for example, it is the first nature of men that they have a quality that we call courage or cowardice, which pertains to their ability to face danger and overcome fear; or, their ability to recognize danger and use fear to avoid it. All men have this quality. What the second nature does is train it, either to what we call courage or what we call cowardice -- but those are our terms. A different second nature might call what we call courage, "rashness," and might call what we call cowardice, "prudence."
Of all the masculine virtues, martial courage is the least mutable. It is the virtue that men can identify most readily in any successful culture: ideas about charity, mercy, justice, generosity, any of the others may vary widely. Courage, tied to prowess in battle, does not. The reason it does not is that it cannot. A society that lacks it will not survive its encounters with the rest of humanity.
The only groups that have managed to succeed at serious departures from the traditional masculine virtue of courage are protected groups. I wrote about this when I wrote the review of Angel and the Badman.
The problem with this 'reframing' that is being suggested is that Obama is offering to assume the role of the Marshal. He is offering to fill the job of protector, for that is the President's chief role.
Second-nature ideas about courage and cowardice can exist in a protected class, whether Quakers or Senators, without causing harm -- they may even improve us as a society in some ways.
If they step outside of that class, however, they will quickly find that their ideas on second nature clash sharply with the first nature of man, and the nature of the world. If the Quaker becomes the Marshal, and sets aside the rifle in favor of a kind heart and a language of hope, he will be fine as long as he only meets with other Quakers; or with Quirt Evans, the young man ready for reform in the face of beauty.
But there are other kinds of men in the world, too. You cannot wish them away. Klein's preferred second nature may be fine for him, as his streets are guarded by United States Marines. It may be fine for a Senator. It may have things to offer the greater society that are of value. But it cannot defend society. Society cannot stand on it, nor survive protected by it.
A President must be of the Marshal class. That is not a preference that can be reframed; it is an absolute requirement arising from the nature of the world. It may be that a good politician can smooth voters' fears enough to cause them to set aside that requirement, and elect the Quaker to office. If they do, however, there will be evil consequences.
There is no changing that. You can talk all you want, but there are men who do not talk. It is the President's job, first among all his duties, to be the answer to them.
Ezra Klein is disturbed by talk that Jim Webb might serve as Obama's VP.
I've been sort of struggling with whether to write this post, but after Daniel Larison and Matt Stoller both toed around the point while offering their takes on Webb, I guess it's worth doing. Let me start by saying that this isn't really about James Webb. He is who he is, and this post has nothing to do with his positions on the issues. But then, nor does most of the excitement around his candidacy. Rather, Webb represents something of almost transcendent importance to some post-Bush liberals: The opportunity to out-tough the GOP. A candidate who's not only a liberal, but in no way a sissy. He is the daywalker, combining a progressive's positions with a southern militarist's affectations.I had to look that one up. "Daywalker" is a comic book reference to a kind of vampire that isn't destroyed by sunlight.
But this is not a sustainable approach to politics. Democrats can't out-tough the GOP. It's possible that James Webb can do it. But he's sui generis; a Democrat who can win at politics when played under Republican rules.... But Democrats can't win at politics when played under Republican rules. Progressivism can't prosper when politics is played under Republican rules. It needs to make its own rules.Jim Webb is hardly the only Democrat who can 'win' an election on the grounds of having traditional masculine virtues. The problem is not that "Democrats" can't do this; it is that the progressive movement is opposed to traditional masculine virtue. They don't want warriors, even reluctant ones; they want people who will "negotiate with dictators," and are excited to see someone who will stand up for their right to do so. They want Obama, a man who has "not been 'tough.'." They don't want a character who is "a liberal, but in no way a sissy."
Barack Obama's effort to do exactly that has been, by far, the most exciting element of his campaign. His policies -- particularly his domestic policies -- have not been half as innovative as his politics. But his willingness to double down on opposition to the gas tax holiday, to battle back on negotiating with dictators, to respond to attacks by pressing the point, has been genuinely exciting. And though he has been confident and even aggressive in all of this, he has not been "tough."
That is a supporter's words, notice. It is not the first time an Obama supporter has described his candidate in such terms, "...as a skinny, athletic, gentle-seeming, virtually metrosexual man, he nearly splits the difference on gender as well."
Daniel Larison, an isolationist conservative blogger, agrees:
[The perception that Democrats are weak on security and less patriotic] has put Democrats in the position of having to engage in a bidding war to demonstrate their patriotism in the most heavy-handed ways, which has usually mistakenly involved trumpeting their willingness to bomb one country or another or being unusually reckless in promoting democracy and human rights abroad. Obama’s supporters sometimes seem eager to remind the world that he would be willing to violate Pakistani sovereignty with impunity, unlike the wimp John McCain, and next they will probably laud his willingness to escalate the drug war as proof of his “toughness.”Here's the problem: those "traditional lines" aren't there by accident. Regardless of a hundred years' argument to the contrary, the fact is that our conceptions of virtue aren't mere 'social constructs' that can be played with and reformed at will, or without consequence. The virtues arise from two things: what Aristotle called the 'first nature' of man, and the nature of the world. The first nature of men is everything that we don't really have the power to change, from hardcoded structures in the brain -- we perceive the world in three dimensions, not four, and so we assume there can only be three -- to basic instincts and reflexes trained by endless generations of survival. The world has so deeply informed the nature of man that it is hard to separate the nature of man from the nature of the world.
The point is that Democrats cannot defeat today’s GOP in a bidding war over who is more militaristic and irresponsible in foreign policy, just as the GOP can never outbid the Democrats when it comes to making lavish, irresponsible promises about domestic spending. To fight the election on this ground is a losing proposition for Democrats, and this is why efforts to out-veteran the veteran opponent, which is part of the rationale for selecting Webb, will simply draw attention to the “weaknesses” that have been attributed to Obama. It is an attempt to beat the opposition at its own game with a candidate who is uniquely ill-suited to playing that kind of game. Hence he has tried to frame the election in entirely different terms, because once the election is defined along tradiitional lines he probably knows that he will lose.
What you can play with is what Aristotle called your "second nature." The second nature is widely variable, because it is the socially-trained ideas about right, wrong, etc. All of this 'reframing the debate' to make Obama more acceptable is really about that: about changing the preferred second-nature of American men.
That second nature, however, is only an overlay on top of the first nature. As flexible as the second nature is, all it can do is train the first nature in certain directions. So, for example, it is the first nature of men that they have a quality that we call courage or cowardice, which pertains to their ability to face danger and overcome fear; or, their ability to recognize danger and use fear to avoid it. All men have this quality. What the second nature does is train it, either to what we call courage or what we call cowardice -- but those are our terms. A different second nature might call what we call courage, "rashness," and might call what we call cowardice, "prudence."
Of all the masculine virtues, martial courage is the least mutable. It is the virtue that men can identify most readily in any successful culture: ideas about charity, mercy, justice, generosity, any of the others may vary widely. Courage, tied to prowess in battle, does not. The reason it does not is that it cannot. A society that lacks it will not survive its encounters with the rest of humanity.
The only groups that have managed to succeed at serious departures from the traditional masculine virtue of courage are protected groups. I wrote about this when I wrote the review of Angel and the Badman.
The beauty of the Quaker faith, and its way, are the subject of the film. Yet the film is clear about the reality of evil, and more than that: it distinguishes between three different types of moral violence. There is the kind the Quaker model can and ought to help, the violence of Quirt Evans, which arises from recklessness and selfishness and an insensitivity to love. There is the kind that the Quakers cannot help, the violence of Laredo, which is in love with its own cruelty. And there is the violence on which the Quakers survive: the violence of the Marshal.If you read the rest of the review of the movie, you will find it is an extended defense of pacifism's right to exist and be respected in spite of needing protection. I don't think it's a bad thing, and in fact I believe it must be a good thing. It is not, however, capable of standing on its own. It requires a marshal on the hill, with a rifle, to ensure that it survives.
Unspoken but obvious is the fact that, except for the marshal on the hill, evil would have triumphed. Quirt can go and live his new life of peace, rejecting anger and violence, because the Marshal rides the territory to defend it from evil. It is not clear that the Quakers mind whether they live or die; expecting heaven, they may go to their grave as if to bed. Yet, insofar as they live to serve as an example to us in this world, they do so because of the marshal.
The problem with this 'reframing' that is being suggested is that Obama is offering to assume the role of the Marshal. He is offering to fill the job of protector, for that is the President's chief role.
Second-nature ideas about courage and cowardice can exist in a protected class, whether Quakers or Senators, without causing harm -- they may even improve us as a society in some ways.
If they step outside of that class, however, they will quickly find that their ideas on second nature clash sharply with the first nature of man, and the nature of the world. If the Quaker becomes the Marshal, and sets aside the rifle in favor of a kind heart and a language of hope, he will be fine as long as he only meets with other Quakers; or with Quirt Evans, the young man ready for reform in the face of beauty.
But there are other kinds of men in the world, too. You cannot wish them away. Klein's preferred second nature may be fine for him, as his streets are guarded by United States Marines. It may be fine for a Senator. It may have things to offer the greater society that are of value. But it cannot defend society. Society cannot stand on it, nor survive protected by it.
A President must be of the Marshal class. That is not a preference that can be reframed; it is an absolute requirement arising from the nature of the world. It may be that a good politician can smooth voters' fears enough to cause them to set aside that requirement, and elect the Quaker to office. If they do, however, there will be evil consequences.
There is no changing that. You can talk all you want, but there are men who do not talk. It is the President's job, first among all his duties, to be the answer to them.
Against Obama, Again
On James Baker III:
"When you have marched on a road of bones, then you can usefully barter with an enemy. Your foes will see you standing at the end of that road, and they will imagine where it might yet lead if an end to it isn't negotiated."
If our interlocutor fails to get the "road of bones" reference, I'd add, "Don't you write about American politics? If you aren't doing the required reading, there's nothing I can do for you."
This is the same reason that Israel can negotiate with Syria, now. They bombed Syria's nuclear reactor. If President Obama wants to blow up some Iranian reactors as a precondition, he can talk all he wants after that. That's the time to talk.
Here we see that Kim du Toit has a minor rant (by his standards) on the subject.
Of course, the youthful pundit was born in 1990 or something, so he probably thought Abraham Lincoln won the Vietnam War. Needless to say, he spluttered and babbled, but essentially conceded the point to Colmes.Views about Mr. Baker vary somewhat. I might have put it differently:
Which is where I wanted to shoot the TV with my 1911. (From the kids’ rooms: ”Mom! He’s yelling at the TV again!”)
The two simplest answers for Colmes’s question came immediately to my lips:
Baker III has never been a conservative. Like his erstwhile boss, Bush 41, Baker is a liberal Republican and internationalist, and he would almost always prefer negotiation to confrontation (Gulf War I excepted);
If Baker did spend all that time talking to Assad, it sure as hell didn’t achieve anything—Syria continued to threaten Israel, and continued to fund and support the thugs of Hezbollah and Hamas.
And then, the counter-question for Colmes: “If an experienced, wily diplomat like James Baker III was unable to achieve any palpable results by talking to a terrorist-supporting regime like Syria, what makes you think that the rookie Obama, with no foreign polcy experience, could achieve any better results?”
"When you have marched on a road of bones, then you can usefully barter with an enemy. Your foes will see you standing at the end of that road, and they will imagine where it might yet lead if an end to it isn't negotiated."
If our interlocutor fails to get the "road of bones" reference, I'd add, "Don't you write about American politics? If you aren't doing the required reading, there's nothing I can do for you."
This is the same reason that Israel can negotiate with Syria, now. They bombed Syria's nuclear reactor. If President Obama wants to blow up some Iranian reactors as a precondition, he can talk all he wants after that. That's the time to talk.
Rashomon.
I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it soon.
“There’s a lot of people with a lot of different perspectives,” Prosecutor David Gibbons said. “It’s difficult to say what caused it.”
I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it soon.
Oh, No
No Way:
This must be stopped. The courts martial are one thing, but the MEJA is something else. It was passed in 2000, before the war began, by a Congress that had never had a war to consider. Their context was peacekeeping and garrison operations. This is one of those cases where "let the process work" is not a worthy answer: this process was never meant to apply to these questions.
I strongly suggest you write to your representative and Senators, and to the President, to urge them to put a stop to this business. Furthermore, in the case of the Congressmen, demand that they fix the law so that military members will not be prosecuted in civilian courts for "crimes" "committed" in combat.
New Search Function
New Search Function:
We've entered into a small partnership with a well-known search provider to maximize your ability to locate things in the archives.
Or anything else you might want.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)