Here is a short sample of a haunting piece of music by a group called La Nef ("The Ship"). It treats the Grail legend, and the arming of a young knight to wander in search of something beautiful -- though he cannot quite say what.
The full version is available here and here.
Do you recognize the song being sung? The lyrics are different, but the tune -- now slow, with polyphony -- is the old drinking song "The Star of the County Down."
But the tune is surely older, and it is no sin to imagine it ancient: for it well might be, fitted to other songs in other times, as is so often the case.
La Quete du Graal
La Quête du Graal:
WTF?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Campaign Edition:
It's a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the facts, which ought to be telling in a man who is running as the smart guy. Sen. McCain may have the IQ, but Sen. Obama has the reputation. I assume Sen. Obama is not intending to "endorse blackouts," as HotAir puts it, but it's plain that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The whole thing was a misery for everyone involved, not a model to emulate.
More, it shows how short the candidate is falling from his rhetoric.
The Obaman New Politics was going to put the South in play. Tell me one more time how endorsing California and Europe as your models is going to win Southern votes? Are you sure Hank done it this way?
The media is doing its best to keep Sen. Obama in the bubble. They sent the son of the great writer James Dickey down South to take the waters:
I have lived in the South most of my life, and I have heard the word "quadroon" exactly three times. The first was in a class on 'the social construction of race' that I took as an undergraduate at Georgia State University, where it was used to explain that places other than the American South had an "escape valve" from "blackness." Whereas in the South there was the "one drop rule," in places like the Dominican Republic a family could move from black to white through a series of carefully-calibrated marriages. Americans, the professor explained, had a notion that this was much more racist than our system, because it tracked how "black" you were to a sixteenth percentage, and took serious stock of who your grandfathers and even great-grandparents had been; but islanders thought we were the racists, because we offered no escape.
The second time I heard the word it was from a fellow student at the university, who was making a satirical point. The third time was yesterday, when I read the article from the younger Dickey.
The younger Mr. Dickey seems eager to repeat the favor his father -- a man I once met, and whose experience as a night-fighter pilot in the Pacific Theater of WWII I greatly respect -- did for the South. As Deliverance painted the South for a generation of outsiders, so too the Newsweek articles manages to find a host of improbables. A guy who sells evil bumperstickers and muses about "quadroons." A sheriff with a noose-wielding supporter. A group re-enacting a lynching -- indeed, lynching occupies a remarkable percentage of the article. Given the actual prevalence of lynching -- that is, its close-to-nonexistence in the last forty years -- one might almost say it's what he came to find. If all he found of it was theater, well, we'll just talk about that, then.
He paints the immigrants to the region as fearful, whether Spanish-speaking girls yelling "la migra!" when he approaches, or Hindi-speakers in Savannah who didn't want to talk to him. Certainly there are many immigrants to the South, including Hindi-speakers: when I lived in Savannah, some of our neighbors included a family like this, headed by a kind-hearted grandfather that language proved no barrier to befriending. I can attest that Dairy Queens throughout Georgia are largely run by a family of Indians, including the one not too far from here: but I never heard of them suffering anything but wealth from their chosen occupation.
"Obama's going to win," the article closes. "And if he does not?" Well, if he does not, it may be because you came to the task with such an odd view of what it entailed. You can't sway people you can't even imagine.
So today, Sen. Obama endorsed the California Model as the road to energy independence.
The state of California has implemented such a successful efficiency strategy that while electricity consumption grew 60% in this country over the last three decades, it didn’t grow at all in California. There is no reason we can’t do the same thing all across America.I was in California last in 2001. As the author points out, "rolling blackouts" was the watchword of the day. And "brownouts." This wasn't a "Model" to emulate, but a failure. As I recall, at the time we were last discussing who was responsible for the failure. Liberals cited deregulation as the cause of the failure (which means that for liberals the "California Model" is one to be avoided by governments in the future, as it was nothing but an abdication of their responsibility to act in the interest of the people); conservatives pointed to the governor (and succeeded in having him recalled over the point).
It's a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the facts, which ought to be telling in a man who is running as the smart guy. Sen. McCain may have the IQ, but Sen. Obama has the reputation. I assume Sen. Obama is not intending to "endorse blackouts," as HotAir puts it, but it's plain that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The whole thing was a misery for everyone involved, not a model to emulate.
More, it shows how short the candidate is falling from his rhetoric.
The Obaman New Politics was going to put the South in play. Tell me one more time how endorsing California and Europe as your models is going to win Southern votes? Are you sure Hank done it this way?
The media is doing its best to keep Sen. Obama in the bubble. They sent the son of the great writer James Dickey down South to take the waters:
Dent argues that when Southerners criticize Obama, "They say, 'He's a Muslim, he's a mulatto Muslim, or quadroon Muslim … [only because] they don't want to use the old N word.""Quadroon"? Seriously?
I have lived in the South most of my life, and I have heard the word "quadroon" exactly three times. The first was in a class on 'the social construction of race' that I took as an undergraduate at Georgia State University, where it was used to explain that places other than the American South had an "escape valve" from "blackness." Whereas in the South there was the "one drop rule," in places like the Dominican Republic a family could move from black to white through a series of carefully-calibrated marriages. Americans, the professor explained, had a notion that this was much more racist than our system, because it tracked how "black" you were to a sixteenth percentage, and took serious stock of who your grandfathers and even great-grandparents had been; but islanders thought we were the racists, because we offered no escape.
The second time I heard the word it was from a fellow student at the university, who was making a satirical point. The third time was yesterday, when I read the article from the younger Dickey.
The younger Mr. Dickey seems eager to repeat the favor his father -- a man I once met, and whose experience as a night-fighter pilot in the Pacific Theater of WWII I greatly respect -- did for the South. As Deliverance painted the South for a generation of outsiders, so too the Newsweek articles manages to find a host of improbables. A guy who sells evil bumperstickers and muses about "quadroons." A sheriff with a noose-wielding supporter. A group re-enacting a lynching -- indeed, lynching occupies a remarkable percentage of the article. Given the actual prevalence of lynching -- that is, its close-to-nonexistence in the last forty years -- one might almost say it's what he came to find. If all he found of it was theater, well, we'll just talk about that, then.
He paints the immigrants to the region as fearful, whether Spanish-speaking girls yelling "la migra!" when he approaches, or Hindi-speakers in Savannah who didn't want to talk to him. Certainly there are many immigrants to the South, including Hindi-speakers: when I lived in Savannah, some of our neighbors included a family like this, headed by a kind-hearted grandfather that language proved no barrier to befriending. I can attest that Dairy Queens throughout Georgia are largely run by a family of Indians, including the one not too far from here: but I never heard of them suffering anything but wealth from their chosen occupation.
"Obama's going to win," the article closes. "And if he does not?" Well, if he does not, it may be because you came to the task with such an odd view of what it entailed. You can't sway people you can't even imagine.
What?
In Todays News: The Knights Templar. Really.
I'm guessing, since Google shows nothing about this before today's story, that the association has a different name in Europe -- in Spanish? Latin? If anyone knows more about the question, and can point me in the direction of better information, I must admit to being deeply intrigued by the subject.
Here's something I didn't expect to see when I got up today: Knights Templar sue Pope.
The Association of the Sovereign Order of the Temple of Christ, whose members claim to be descended from the legendary crusaders, have filed a lawsuit against Benedict XVI calling for him to recognise the seizure of assets worth 100 billion euros (£79 billion).Ok... one thing I think I know about the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon is that they were under a vow of chastity. I realize that not every priest, even of the church militant, kept his vows with absolute faithfulness. Neverthless, is it really possible that there is a whole "association" of people in Spain who, seven hundred years after the Order was dissolved, can show that they are "descended" from knights of this Crusader order? Would a modern court really accept their standing to sue, on a seven-hundred year old question?
I'm guessing, since Google shows nothing about this before today's story, that the association has a different name in Europe -- in Spanish? Latin? If anyone knows more about the question, and can point me in the direction of better information, I must admit to being deeply intrigued by the subject.
Now this is fun:
Introducing over 175 Movie Posters of Classic War Films that are Outstanding Reproductions in Original Colors.
Enjoy.
Update: link fixed. (I think. Works for me, anyway)
Introducing over 175 Movie Posters of Classic War Films that are Outstanding Reproductions in Original Colors.
Enjoy.
Update: link fixed. (I think. Works for me, anyway)
Boyd's Cycle.
Simon over at Classical Values, thinks McCain (or his campaign) is getting inside Obama's (or his campaign's) decision cycle.
(via Instapundit)
Simon over at Classical Values, thinks McCain (or his campaign) is getting inside Obama's (or his campaign's) decision cycle.
Elections are nothing if they are not time competitive. Evidently the "freezing of the opponent" that Alinsky recommends has not worked on McCain. He was not frozen. Once that happened McCain was operating inside Obama's decision loop.Discuss.
(via Instapundit)
Heh
A New Politics:
Sen. McCain, whom rhetoric would have as the candidate of Not-Change, not only wants to move to frequent Town Hall debates where the voters can question the candidates directly -- he also has adopted laughter, rather than fear, as his mode. Karl Rove's former employees may be working for him, but it's clear that the tone is being set by the candidate, not the campaign. Indeed, the tonal difference between McCain 2008 and Bush 2000 or 2004 could hardly be greater.
So, which one is the change candidate again? Which one actually changes things? Whether for better (as here and in Iraq) or for worse (as in campaign finance reform), if actual change is what you want, McCain is your man.
One that will not involve questions from the voters.
Barack Obama’s campaign made its distaste for free-style debates more or less official yesterday in their letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates. Team Obama only will agree to three debates, which has been the tradition through the last several presidential cycles, and all of them in the standard moderated format. He will not accept McCain’s challenge to meet him in a format where voters can ask the questions...Team McCain hits back with humor, which they have apparently decided will be the trademark of their campaign.
“We understand it might be beneath a worldwide celebrity of Barack Obama’s magnitude to appear at town hall meetings alongside John McCain and directly answer questions from the American people, but we hope he’ll reconsider.”We've talked about the disconnect between rhetoric and reality in this campaign before, so this is just another example. Sen. Obama is running on "a new politics," but in fact wants the campaign to run just as previous ones have run. He wants the media to continue to serve as the moderator and filter (no surprise, given that they are strongly allied with him), and to limit debates to the traditional number.
Sen. McCain, whom rhetoric would have as the candidate of Not-Change, not only wants to move to frequent Town Hall debates where the voters can question the candidates directly -- he also has adopted laughter, rather than fear, as his mode. Karl Rove's former employees may be working for him, but it's clear that the tone is being set by the candidate, not the campaign. Indeed, the tonal difference between McCain 2008 and Bush 2000 or 2004 could hardly be greater.
So, which one is the change candidate again? Which one actually changes things? Whether for better (as here and in Iraq) or for worse (as in campaign finance reform), if actual change is what you want, McCain is your man.
Non-Prophets
Southern Appeal on Prophecy:
Francis Beckwith at Southern Appeal offers some advice to Obama on how to answer the latest McCain ad:
Here are some lines that I thought of on the way home from the gym today:(So, did you know that there were two financial entrepreneurs mentioned in the Bible? The first was Pharaoh's daughter, who went down to the river and pulled a little Prophet from the water...)
* I was going to invite Senator McCain to the Transfiguration. Not anymore.
* Ye of little faith.
* Next time he asks for me to heal his melanoma, the answer is “no.”
* I’ll turn water into wine for him, but I draw the line at being his designated driver.
* I’m surprised Senator McCain didn’t say, “I knew Moses; Moses was a friend of mine; Senator Obama, you are no Moses.”
* Ironically, more men named “Jesus” will vote for me than will vote for Senator McCain.
* The people want more jobs and less Job.
* This just shows us that the McCain campaign is a non-prophet organization.
Too Far
Too Far:
Eric will be delighted to know that I have found the limit beyond which I will not accept something into my life simply because it has echoes of chivalry and knighthood. You can see that limit right here.
If there is an item in worse taste than a toilet seat featuring the arms of Richard the Lionheart (albeit with the wrong base color), I am not sure what it would be. Nominations are not solicited.
(I've gotten this catalog for several years now, for reasons unknown to me. They have the strangest mixture of really wonderful things, like this; kind of nifty things, like this; and truly horrid things like, well, heraldic toilet seats.)
False Prophets
False Prophets:
Skip to 5:50 to where Barack Obama is explictly brought into the matter.
As for the claims Oprah is making, they aren't actually new at all; what she is advocating is nothing but Theosophy, which was also a major interest of the British upper classes in Chesterton's day, and which drew his ire. (There is more to object to theologically, for a Christian, in the teachings of the Rev. Mr. Wright and his mentors, which are also more closely and fairly attached to Sen. Obama.)
McCain clearly intends his ad for humorous effect, but the folks downloading the Oprah video are in earnest. If you follow the link to the site, it is called "BlackVoices.com," and references another site which appears (based on the content of the ads) to be a Black spiritual site. These things are starting to percolate through the Christian churches in America, and race is no barrier to them. Insofar as they harmonize with the satirical point that McCain is making, the sense of satire may be lost.
The BlackVoices site has a video -- already removed by YouTube, but I watched it this morning -- that explictly makes the connection between Obama and Biblical false prophets. We spoke of that a couple months ago (also here).
I am strongly opposed to Senator Obama's election, for many and what I think are excellent reasons. I have no special love for Oprah. I hope that people will recognize, however, that Oprah is simply the modern version of the 19th century British aristocrat, seeking a faith that eliminates conflict in the Otherworld, so that it harmonizes with her current world. Having wealth and power, comfort and luxury, naturally she wants it to endure forever: and so a faith that promises no conflict through all Eternity is an attractive one.
Who is wrong here? Some will say that Oprah is wrong, and there is a great deal of argument to be had there on theological grounds. Others may say that McCain is wrong, to mock Barack in a way that might be misconstrued (just as they said he was wrong to permit an ad that featured even a glimpse of white women, in case that might be misconstrued). That seems a bit overbearing for me, but I expect it will be said. Others will say that the Christians are wrong, to bring what are essentially non-rational concepts to bear on day to day life; but they are explictly licensed to do this by the First Amendment, which itself only recognizes an inalienable right the Founders attributed to "their Creator." I have said myself that Sen. Obama has only himself to blame, for adopting prophetic language in a country that has a strong faith tradition about such language: it's easy to be understood as a false prophet when you speak as a prophet, but are false as a politician.
It's worth thinking through, though. I don't care for the Senator, and have little love for the Oprah movement either, but I would see everyone treated fairly.
UPDATE: By the way, watch the McCain video, 0:16-0:20. Pay attention to the dancing in the shadowy background. The line, "Can you see the light?" is surely meant to evoke this:
"Jake, are you all right?"
"We're on a Mission From God!"
We've all seen McCain's newest piece on Obama:
So what about this?
A new video which features popular talk show host Oprah Winfrey denying Jesus as the only way to God has received over 5 million views on several reporting video sites.Here is the video:
The approximately seven-minute video entitled, "The Church of Oprah Exposed," was posted less than a month ago and has claimed the a Top Favorites spot in the News & Politics category of a popular social networking site.
Skip to 5:50 to where Barack Obama is explictly brought into the matter.
As for the claims Oprah is making, they aren't actually new at all; what she is advocating is nothing but Theosophy, which was also a major interest of the British upper classes in Chesterton's day, and which drew his ire. (There is more to object to theologically, for a Christian, in the teachings of the Rev. Mr. Wright and his mentors, which are also more closely and fairly attached to Sen. Obama.)
McCain clearly intends his ad for humorous effect, but the folks downloading the Oprah video are in earnest. If you follow the link to the site, it is called "BlackVoices.com," and references another site which appears (based on the content of the ads) to be a Black spiritual site. These things are starting to percolate through the Christian churches in America, and race is no barrier to them. Insofar as they harmonize with the satirical point that McCain is making, the sense of satire may be lost.
The BlackVoices site has a video -- already removed by YouTube, but I watched it this morning -- that explictly makes the connection between Obama and Biblical false prophets. We spoke of that a couple months ago (also here).
I am strongly opposed to Senator Obama's election, for many and what I think are excellent reasons. I have no special love for Oprah. I hope that people will recognize, however, that Oprah is simply the modern version of the 19th century British aristocrat, seeking a faith that eliminates conflict in the Otherworld, so that it harmonizes with her current world. Having wealth and power, comfort and luxury, naturally she wants it to endure forever: and so a faith that promises no conflict through all Eternity is an attractive one.
Who is wrong here? Some will say that Oprah is wrong, and there is a great deal of argument to be had there on theological grounds. Others may say that McCain is wrong, to mock Barack in a way that might be misconstrued (just as they said he was wrong to permit an ad that featured even a glimpse of white women, in case that might be misconstrued). That seems a bit overbearing for me, but I expect it will be said. Others will say that the Christians are wrong, to bring what are essentially non-rational concepts to bear on day to day life; but they are explictly licensed to do this by the First Amendment, which itself only recognizes an inalienable right the Founders attributed to "their Creator." I have said myself that Sen. Obama has only himself to blame, for adopting prophetic language in a country that has a strong faith tradition about such language: it's easy to be understood as a false prophet when you speak as a prophet, but are false as a politician.
It's worth thinking through, though. I don't care for the Senator, and have little love for the Oprah movement either, but I would see everyone treated fairly.
UPDATE: By the way, watch the McCain video, 0:16-0:20. Pay attention to the dancing in the shadowy background. The line, "Can you see the light?" is surely meant to evoke this:
"Jake, are you all right?"
"We're on a Mission From God!"
Trolls among us.
The article is disturbing on several levels.
In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word “troll” to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities. Early trolling was relatively innocuous, taking place inside of small, single-topic Usenet groups. The trolls employed what the M.I.T. professor Judith Donath calls a “pseudo-naïve” tactic, asking stupid questions and seeing who would rise to the bait. The game was to find out who would see through this stereotypical newbie behavior, and who would fall for it. As one guide to trolldom puts it, “If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.”
Today the Internet is much more than esoteric discussion forums. It is a mass medium for defining who we are to ourselves and to others. Teenagers groom their MySpace profiles as intensely as their hair; escapists clock 50-hour weeks in virtual worlds, accumulating gold for their online avatars. Anyone seeking work or love can expect to be Googled. As our emotional investment in the Internet has grown, the stakes for trolling — for provoking strangers online — have risen. Trolling has evolved from ironic solo skit to vicious group hunt.
The article is disturbing on several levels.
Followup clubs
A Followup on Clubs:
Again via FARK, a worthy followup to the post on clubs v. guns. Sometimes, older arms still work just fine:
Iwasaki, a Hillsboro native and decorated veteran, was honored last weekend as part of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the desegregation of the U.S. armed forces. He served in a segregated unit that became the most decorated Army infantry group in U.S. history.Generally, what matters is the spirit. If the spirit is right, the mind follows: if the mind is right, the body follows.
Iwasaki fought across France and Italy during World War II and was wounded three times. He earned a Purple Heart with two oak leaf clusters and a Bronze Star before returning to Hillsboro in 1946.
Despite Iwasaki's military experience, Washington County deputies are wary about people confronting gun-wielding suspects.
End of Racism
The End of Racism:
This is a rhetorical shift in the same direction as the shift we've already made politically: racism as a concept is being emptied of meaning, except as a hedge for those groups once disadvantaged. What does it mean? Anything. Therefore, nothing. The McCain campaign is guilty of racism even if they can only be suspected of having subconscious impulses that might have possibly informed an ad they put out; even if they strictly forbid actual racism; even if they squash attempts at legitimate criticism that might make an issue of race; even if they have been subject to actual racism themselves, in an earlier day, and learned to despise it.
Therefore, they must always be guilty of racism; and therefore, racism is not a charge to be taken seriously. It is instead a condition -- like the necessity of having oxygen around to breathe -- that you simply accept and ignore as a basic feature of reality.
Once we get there, the advantage of raising charges of "racism!" will wane to the point that it will likely go away. Four years of a President Obama waving the flag over every criticism will probably do it for most of America; the holdouts will find their currency so debased that, though they may continue to try and spend it, it will buy them little.
Thus we might really "hope" to "end racism" through President Obama after all. Middle Americans, to the degree that they are conscious of race -- the younger generations seems much less so even than mine, and mine far less than the one before -- already think of it only in terms of ameliorating the harm of historic racism. When people become convinced that the charge is finally empty, we may at last walk away from this most poisonous of weeds.
Jake Tapper is not happy:
There's a lot of racist xenophobic crap out there. But not only has McCain not peddled any of it, he's condemned it.Ed Morissey agrees:
Back in February, McCain apologized for some questionable comments made by a local radio host. In April, he condemned the North Carolina Republican Party's ad featuring images of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
With one possible exception, I've never seen McCain or those under his control playing the race card or making fun of Obama's name -- or even mentioning Obama's full name, for that matter!
(The one exception was in March when McCain suspended a low-level campaign staffer for sending out to a small group of friends a link to a video that attempts to tie Obama not only to Wright but to the black power movement, rappers Public Enemy and Malcolm X.)
...
I've seen racism in campaigns before -- I've seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I've seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.
What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.
I warned about this over a month ago, when Obama first accused McCain of racism without any evidence whatsoever. The McCain campaign has exercised considerable restraint in its choice of criticisms, frustrating some Republicans over his refusal to even mention the Jeremiah Wright debacle. It has roundly condemned other Republicans who have tried to use that argument in an attempt to show good faith in this electoral cycle, and the only payback McCain has received is to be called a racist anyway.Cassandra scoffs at the attempt to call 'racism':
I agree that the Celeb commercial is pretty weak, but if it’s racist, then Obama has defined the term so far downward as to have no meaning at all.
Yessir, there is nothing like a little honest dialog about race relations in America to dispel all that wrong/bad tension between blacks and whites. Because the Other Side, you know, they operate from the Politics of Fear. And the only way to combat the Divisive Fear and Hate perpetrated by those hateful, divisive fear mongers who keep dragging race into this campaign even though I'd prefer not to mention it is by constantly reminding you of Fear and Race. Because we all know that any criticism of Me during a hotly contested political campaign can only be based on 400 years of simmering racism.And Professor Reynolds notes:
I imagine that we'll see a lot of this kind of thing if Obama is elected President. And perhaps the best reason to vote against Obama is to spare the country an administration that reflexively characterizes any criticism as racist.It occurs to me that this -- if not quite a reason to vote for Sen. Obama -- could be a major consolation prize if he is elected. It's already the case in America that "racism" has gone from actual racism -- I remember the KKK passing out their literature on the courthouse square when I was a boy -- to "institutional" racism. "Institutional" racism is combatted in this country via a huge arrangement of what are meant to be counterbalances, but which are now the only way in which race is openly considered. Thus, the only formal recognition of race in society is designed to redound to the benefit of minorities.
This is a rhetorical shift in the same direction as the shift we've already made politically: racism as a concept is being emptied of meaning, except as a hedge for those groups once disadvantaged. What does it mean? Anything. Therefore, nothing. The McCain campaign is guilty of racism even if they can only be suspected of having subconscious impulses that might have possibly informed an ad they put out; even if they strictly forbid actual racism; even if they squash attempts at legitimate criticism that might make an issue of race; even if they have been subject to actual racism themselves, in an earlier day, and learned to despise it.
Therefore, they must always be guilty of racism; and therefore, racism is not a charge to be taken seriously. It is instead a condition -- like the necessity of having oxygen around to breathe -- that you simply accept and ignore as a basic feature of reality.
Once we get there, the advantage of raising charges of "racism!" will wane to the point that it will likely go away. Four years of a President Obama waving the flag over every criticism will probably do it for most of America; the holdouts will find their currency so debased that, though they may continue to try and spend it, it will buy them little.
Thus we might really "hope" to "end racism" through President Obama after all. Middle Americans, to the degree that they are conscious of race -- the younger generations seems much less so even than mine, and mine far less than the one before -- already think of it only in terms of ameliorating the harm of historic racism. When people become convinced that the charge is finally empty, we may at last walk away from this most poisonous of weeds.
Politics Aside
Politics Aside:
The interior ministry, if you don't know this, controls much of the police function in Iraq: so he speaks as a man who has had occasion to watch the fall of violence firsthand. Here speaks a man who knows what these wounds bought for his nation.
This is the reason to visit the wounded:
“We have come … to express our gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices made by these great warriors, soldiers, in freeing the Iraqi people and in helping us in Iraq recover from tyranny and dictatorship,” Jawad Karim al-Bolani, Iraq’s minister of the interior, said through a translator... “We also want to express our gratitude to the families of all these great men and women and express how important their sacrifices are for our nation,” he added.I haven't mentioned the subject of another visit that didn't happen, and don't intend this post to serve as a proxy for it. This, though, is what it's supposed to be about: and it's genuinely inspiring to see this man speak so.
The interior ministry, if you don't know this, controls much of the police function in Iraq: so he speaks as a man who has had occasion to watch the fall of violence firsthand. Here speaks a man who knows what these wounds bought for his nation.
GWTW
War Movies:
Cassandra is compiling lists of great war movies today. This is something we've done a few times, but I have to remark on a couple of the entries suggested.
Bthun suggested "Casablanca." That's an interesting choice. It's not a "war movie" according to what I would normally think of as the defining features of the genre: all the actual fighting is quite a long way away. It's very much on the fringes of a war, though the war is large enough that it drives the plot.
More, though, it was written to encourage the United States to join a war. In that way, it is truly a war movie.
Another one that is mentioned is "Gone With The Wind." This is the point where I have to make my own confession, similar to those literary confessions from a day or two back.
I have never seen "Gone With The Wind." I realize, for a Southerner -- and a proud one -- this is a shocking omission. Nevertheless, I have not.
Guns, yes. Clubs, no.
Guns, Yes. Clubs, No.
Georgia law is no better. I have a firearms license, which means that I can carry -- openly or concealed -- pretty much anything short of an automatic weapon. .44 Magnum revolver? No problem. A pair of Glocks and a dozen extra clips? Perfectly legal.
A knife? Well...
You can carry a knife, with certain exceptions, if it is carried openly, OR if it is not "designed for the purpose of offense or defense"; but that latter has been defined by the court in really strange ways that I still haven't fully sorted out. A cop I know tells me "it's OK if it has a clip on the outside, and it folds," but there's nothing in the law to suggest that, and I see no reason a DA couldn't decide to prosecute you on the plain meaning of the language. On the other hand, I know several knifemakers, and could get a letter from them stating that they'd made me a custom knife "not at all for the purpose of offense or defense, but purely for the enjoyment of being able to open boxes and cut onions with a handmade work of art"; but presumably that plain-language defense wouldn't stand up.
And a club? Well...
As we begin to talk about the ramifications of Heller, it will matter how "arms" are defined. The second round of lawsuits is now under way, challenging Chicago's handgun ban to try and get the 2A incorporated to the states; and also challenging DC on its attempt to ban semiautomatic handguns by fiat, though they are the most common form of firearm chosen for self defense.
There is no obvious reason, however, that more primitive forms of arms should be banned. The Founders took the field with everything from muskets and Kentucky Long Rifles to knives, swords, and clubs of the type in common use among the Indian tribes of what was then the frontier.
Via FARK, a story about how Texas animal control officers can't use a stick against an angry dog:
Harris County's animal control division wants the Legislature to allow its officers to use telescoping batons to fend off attacking dogs amid a sharp increase in the number of aggressive stray pit bulls in unincorporated areas.Texas state law allows the carrying of firearms, of course: just not clubs.
Animal control officers say the batons, called "bite sticks," can prevent serious injuries by intimidating aggressive, charging animals and blocking their attempts to bite. But they currently are prohibited in Texas under a state law that bars most people who are not certified peace officers from carrying clubs.
Georgia law is no better. I have a firearms license, which means that I can carry -- openly or concealed -- pretty much anything short of an automatic weapon. .44 Magnum revolver? No problem. A pair of Glocks and a dozen extra clips? Perfectly legal.
A knife? Well...
You can carry a knife, with certain exceptions, if it is carried openly, OR if it is not "designed for the purpose of offense or defense"; but that latter has been defined by the court in really strange ways that I still haven't fully sorted out. A cop I know tells me "it's OK if it has a clip on the outside, and it folds," but there's nothing in the law to suggest that, and I see no reason a DA couldn't decide to prosecute you on the plain meaning of the language. On the other hand, I know several knifemakers, and could get a letter from them stating that they'd made me a custom knife "not at all for the purpose of offense or defense, but purely for the enjoyment of being able to open boxes and cut onions with a handmade work of art"; but presumably that plain-language defense wouldn't stand up.
And a club? Well...
As we begin to talk about the ramifications of Heller, it will matter how "arms" are defined. The second round of lawsuits is now under way, challenging Chicago's handgun ban to try and get the 2A incorporated to the states; and also challenging DC on its attempt to ban semiautomatic handguns by fiat, though they are the most common form of firearm chosen for self defense.
There is no obvious reason, however, that more primitive forms of arms should be banned. The Founders took the field with everything from muskets and Kentucky Long Rifles to knives, swords, and clubs of the type in common use among the Indian tribes of what was then the frontier.
Go, Iraq
Go, Iraq!
I've never been a big fan of the Olympic Games. I did my best to avoid them in Atlanta in 1996, at a time when I was living there. On the other hand, I was in China during the 2000 Olympics, and I can tell you that the Chinese take it very seriously: it was absolutely eerie how the streets became empty. Millions of people disappeared, in order to watch the games huddled around whatever television they could find. And when China would win a medal, everyone would cheer.
My wife and I, walking through the darkened and empty streets of a normally-bustling city, would suddenly hear a high cry as a few million voices raised together: everywhere, but out of sight.
So it is with tremendous pleasure that I read that at least two of Iraq's Olympic hopefuls will be competing this year. It is a disgrace that the Olympic Committee couldn't get off its... ah, couldn't find a way to resolve the matter in time for the other hopefuls to compete. It will mean a lot, though, to the people of Iraq to get to see their champions in competition with those of the other nations of the world.
I'll be rooting for Ms. Dana Abdul-Razzaq. In the Olympic spirit: Good luck. Bon chance. ¡Buena suerte! I'd put it in Arabic, but I don't have enough of the language to know the form.
Science at work
Science @ Work:
Actually, I think what the scientific study has definitively proven is that laziness is very hard to overcome. Even with free treadmills, regular group meetings, and telephone pep talks.
The rest of the study's data, breathlessly reported in a major news magazine, are called into serious question by the utter breakdown of their methodology. I'd love to know who was responsible for funding a program for two years when "within a few months" it was clear the methodology had failed, and the results from the study would therefore be entirely unusable for the intended purpose.
A new study, which got attention from slick Time Magazine, purports to show that moderate exercise won't help you with your long-term weight goals. How scientific was this study?
The study, led by John Jakicic at the Physical Activity and Weight Management Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh, followed nearly 200 overweight or obese women ages 21 to 45 through a two-year weight-loss program. The women were given free treadmills to use at home, regular group meetings and telephone pep talks to help keep them on track...I love that phrasing: "A slightly different data set than they had planned for."
The problem was that not enough of the women stuck with their assigned exercise categories for the researchers to gather enough meaningful data. Within a few months, most of the participants had resorted to exercising as much as they chose to. That left researchers with a slightly different data set than they had planned for...
Actually, I think what the scientific study has definitively proven is that laziness is very hard to overcome. Even with free treadmills, regular group meetings, and telephone pep talks.
The rest of the study's data, breathlessly reported in a major news magazine, are called into serious question by the utter breakdown of their methodology. I'd love to know who was responsible for funding a program for two years when "within a few months" it was clear the methodology had failed, and the results from the study would therefore be entirely unusable for the intended purpose.
Confess
Literary Sins:
I think my favorite of these confessions is the professor who got top marks for his paper on Wuthering Heights. (H/t Arts & Letters Daily.)
This points to a serious problem with far more than literature theory, though: the academic world has become extremely derivative. Nothing will produce greater disdain than writing a paper on a work of literature or history, or a scientific topic, which does not show that you have read the important secondary works on the subject. In a way, this makes sense: if you aren't aware of the important work already done on a topic, how do you intend to build on what we already know?
Yet it quickly becomes the case that there is so much secondary literature to read that there isn't really time to read the primary sources. Instead, you become a specialist on a small handful of topics -- or less, even -- mastering all the secondary literature on that little demense. In doing that, though, your own mind is quite limited in its capacity to investigate the original work. How will you tell me about Bronte if you haven't read her contemporaries? You may know everything about her, but if you didn't read the works that influenced her... or know about the politics troubling her lifespan...
We are pushing against the limits of human capacity. There is a short span in which a man lives, learns, writes, and dies. The need to build on what has come before us must, of necessity, cut into our capacity to see the original picture. As we were discussing Sidney Lanier, look again at his capacities: Middle English and French, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon. A man who today wished to be an expert in Anglo-Saxon poetics, as he was, would scarcely have time for any of the others. He would be swamped in secondary sources.
What is the answer? A second ring of generalists of the old sort, to check the specialists against the bigger picture?
Muzzle Discipline
Muzzle Discipline Is So Important:
Via The Donovan, the funniest thing I have seen in ages. This guy looks exactly like an Army Reserve Captain I used to know.
Military Deception
Military Deception:
As a continuation of yesterday's post on the ethics of manipulation, an interesting example from the Hundred Years' War.* Sir John of Norwich is commanding a garrison in a city that comes under siege by a large French army. Discovering that the citizens are inclined to the French, that he has few provisions, and that there is little hope of aid from the main army, he decides to escape with his trusted companions.
He summons the Duke of Normandy, commanding the French army, and obtains a one-day truce to honor the Feast of Candlemas, "in honor of Our Lady." Then he packs up his stuff, and boldly rides out on that day directly through the French Army. Obliged by his word and his honor, the Duke allows them to withdraw in peace.
The poet Sidney Lanier,** in his redaction, adds a footnote: "This act of Sir John Norwich was mean and small beyond all decent words; for he took the basest advantage of the Duke of Normandy's honorable confidence in his fidelity to the sacred obligations of a truce."
In truth, I doubt the Duke minded much, since the result was that the city surrended to him peacefully. He obtained whole and without bloodshed what might have come to him in a far poorer condition, and with some loss.
Military deception has advantages and also disadvantages: a man who keeps his word and his truce in war does profit by it, especially in counterinsurgency efforts to win the population. Part of the reason the people of the city were inclined to be ruled by the Duke of Normandy was his honorable and decent character.
By the same token, American efforts in Iraq have profited strongly by the understanding that we would keep our word. Of all the actors in Iraq, of all the factions, we have been the most reliable: our terms are clear, and if you adhere to them, we will defend you and further your interests. While Iraq's factions still want self-rule, not American protection, they find it easier to trust and work with us as brokers than they do even with each other. Deception, while useful in certain cases, will dissolve that key advantage if overused.
On the other hand, trusting the enemy's word leaves you open to manipulation. It worked to the Duke's advantage in this case, but obviously it does not always. Likewise, there are times when deception is the only chance for a weaker party to attempt a danger: Sir John of Norwich saved his command unharmed for future battles this way; and centuries later, Allied forces were able to attempt Normandy due to careful efforts to distract its defenders.
The existence of war obviously changes the terms somewhat. We're looking at three different kinds of cases now: deceptive manipulation in intelligence work, deceptive manipulation in war, and deceptive manipulation between neighbors. It would be tempting to say that deception was licensed in a decreasing degree along these types of cases: nearly always in intelligence work, sometimes in war, and rarely in peaceful relations with neighbors. (And how about in a fourth case: politics?)
Insofar as men must carry out these deceptions, we should still try to establish an idea of exactly when "sometimes" is.
* If you follow the link and head down to the next chapter, starting on p. 122, you can read an interesting account of medieval counterbattery fire.
** It should be noted that Sidney Lanier practiced what he preached. He was a pilot on blockade runners, assisting English vessels in shipping Confederate cotton out through the Union blockade. On one occasion the ship was borded, and he refused to don an English uniform or deny his status as a Confederate. The Federals imprisoned him, and he contracted tuberculosis in prison, which tormented him the rest of his life. He has, therefore, earned the right to speak on the subject as a man who has sacrificed for his principles.
Manipulation as a virtue
Manipulation As A Virtue:
So, an ethical question: Is manipulation a virtue? Under what circumstances? What are the necessary constraints to keep it from becoming vicious rather than virtuous?
One of the writers I admire most is Judith Martin, better known as "Miss Manners." Sometimes, though, she reminds me of a conversation I once had with an intelligence professional, which began with a question about what connotations I thought the word "manipulation" had. Were they negative?
I was especially annoyed at my neighbor who was complaining to me about this two days ago -- and just yesterday her daughter went into my cooler and took out my container of grapes and brought them over to my lounge chair and began eating them.An elegant solution -- a diplomatic one, even. Manipulative, however, from conception.
Her mom said "Susie, no" and the little girl just laughed and said, "But I like them" and continued to eat. I was so annoyed that I didn't know what to do, so I turned to my husband and asked if he would like to go swim with me.
As I said, we are friends, and our kids play together, but this is getting old. It is not a matter of not being able to afford it, either, because most of our neighbors live a much higher lifestyle than we do. Please help me know what to say without making enemies out of my neighbors!
The neighborly thing to do would be to show concern for the children and organize the parents to do something about it.
"The children always seem to be hungry at the pool," you can tell them. "Should we take turns bringing them snacks?"
Miss Manners does not expect such an enterprise to be the result. Rather, some parents will say that they don't want their children eating between meals, and others will argue about what they consider to be proper snacks.
This will empower you to say, the next time some child tries to help himself, "No, dear, I'm sorry, but your parents don't want you to have that."
So, an ethical question: Is manipulation a virtue? Under what circumstances? What are the necessary constraints to keep it from becoming vicious rather than virtuous?
Another
Disconnection:
As Eric likes to say, 'Facta, non verba.'
A little while back, I wrote:
It's interesting, in terms of how disconnected this election is from reality. If you want campaign finance reform, McCain is your candidate: he's really done things for you, hard things. Yet Obama has been running as the campaign finance reform candidate -- though he has no actual commitment to the issue, has done nothing but talk about it in terms of advancing it, and undercut the project at the first sign of advantage.Gateway Pundit has another example:
Similarly, if you are concerned about "change" in Iraq, McCain is your candidate. He stood up to the Bush administration and forced them to undertake the Surge, which Rumsfeld and others did not wish to do. The current successes are in many ways his progeny. He can honestly claim to be the candidate of a very positive change: the chance to wind up the Iraq war on a positive note, with relative stability and upcoming provincial elections, and a status of forces agreement of some sort rather than a withdrawal and collapse of the state of Iraq.
Obama has done nothing but talk, and hasn't updated his concepts on Iraq since 2006.
Twice, apparently. As for the scourge of AIDS in Africa, I'm not sure how much Sen. McCain has done, but Bush has done quite a bit."Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?"Barack Obama talks.
Barack Obama
Campaign Speech in Berlin, Germany
July 24, 2008
Barack Obama talks about lifting the child from Bangladesh from poverty.
John McCain already did it.
As Eric likes to say, 'Facta, non verba.'
Smart
Smartocracy:
I've never found intelligence worthy of resentment: admiration, rather. If I resent anything about Sen. Obama, it's that he's risen so high on so little actual accomplishment -- I don't even resent that he's done it on so little work, since that's a sort of accomplishment in itself. It's just that nothing he's turned his hand to has prospered; no one who has befriended him, except his fair wife, has gained the honors that friendship rightly earns. Yet he rises on, ever, with those in his trail forever disappointed, wondering why he promised so much and then left them behind. This is the clear message of the Boston Globe's piece on the slums his housing efforts produced, and the New Yorker interviews with those who used to work with Obama in Chicago. It is the clear message also of his relationship with the preacher who sponsored him in Chicago politics, and his grandmother (and indeed, answering Hitchens, I can quote a line from his speech on race from memory: that line. It is the one he made memorable, by his deeds).
No, what bothers me is that no one seems ever to have stopped him and said, "Fine -- but before you advance again, tell us: What have you done?"
UPDATE: I have deleted a paragraph here, because on reflection it distracts from the discussion of the concept of Derbyshire's piece, which is the interesting part.
UPDATE: According to Steve Sailer, John McCain tested at IQ 133, which is not bad. (Assuming standard distribution, it would place him in the top few percentage points of humanity. It's also more than "two standard deviations" above the mean IQ of 100. If Derbyshire were right, that would mean Sen. McCain was too intelligent to communicate effectively with the majority of Americans -- if you add up the ones right at 100, and the ones below it, it would only be the most intelligent Americans who could understand him. Sen. Obama, being a famously great communicator, should sit lower on the curve according to that model: somewhere around 120 would be optimal, as it would allow you to be intelligent enough to communicate well with the most intelligent (up to around 150, which is close to everyone) as well as the bulk of people sitting from 90-110.
I doubt that the model is right, though -- I mention it only because it runs strongly counter to what appears to be the popular impression. Sen. Obama has been accorded an impression of being a serious thinker by the press; Sen. McCain is assumed to be somewhat slower. Yet Sen. McCain is in fact confirmed to be of reasonably high IQ .
Sen. Obama's does not appear to be public; I've seen estimates Googling around from 125-148, but they all appear to be SWAGs not based on any actual test results. The higher end results (130-148) estimate off the LSAT, but not Sen. Obama's actual LSAT, which isn't public -- just the median scores for Harvard law. The LSAT is not actually an IQ test, nor is it particularly difficult.
These popular impressions about the candidates' intelligence are probably rooted more in our prejudices than in their actual intelligence. As a culture, we think of older people as being mentally slow -- a hostile prejudice undeserved in the case of those who remain mentally engaged and active; in fact, research indicates that intelligence changes with age, but does not necessarily decrease, and may even benefit in some areas.
By the same token, we tend to think of Ivy League graduates as being exceptionally intelligent. Yet this prejudice is generally set aside when someone runs counter to our own decision-making process: it would be hard to find anyone who thought George W. Bush and John Kerry were about equally intelligent, though both are members of Yale's Skull & Bones. The normal opinion is that one is a sharp character and the other is a buffoon; but which one is which depends on where your own prejudices lie.
John Derbyshire has an article on America's issue with intelligence. On the one hand, it's an amazing change in the world, because for the first time intelligence is the primary factor in whether you rise or fall -- a fact with huge implications. On the other hand, it's at odds with the notion that 'men are created equal.' He thinks this is the real issue with Sen. Obama:
It seems to me that we are starting to be a little more open and truthful about these matters. Columnist Chris Satullo in the Philadelphia Inquirer back in May pointed out that the charges of "elitism" then being hurled at Barack Obama were really about smarts.I never thought Sen. Obama was all that smart. He doesn't come across as being particularly intelligent -- certainly not stupid, probably above-average, but I've met some real geniuses in my time, and he is not among them. He has a Harvard education and has been given positions of academic honor, but has produced no scholarship of note. His prose is forgettable; it sounds good at the time, but no idea is so clearly expressed and insightful that it stays with you. If he meant any of it, he might think deeper and come up with better lines: but in general, he strikes me as someone of reasonable but not shocking intelligence, who has a talent for speaking but nothing worth saying.
The charge of elitism isn't about people flaunting income; it's about people flaunting IQ. Americans, as a rule, don't resent people who have more money than them — particularly if the wealth is seen as earned. Envy, maybe, but not resent. You don't resent people whom you hope to emulate. And most Americans dream easily about having much more dough than they do. What Americans more readily resent is someone who is smarter than them, who knows it, who shows it, and who seems to think being smart makes you better than everyone else. A gap in income, you can always dream of closing. A gap in IQ, not so much. It's more personal, thus easier to resent.
I've never found intelligence worthy of resentment: admiration, rather. If I resent anything about Sen. Obama, it's that he's risen so high on so little actual accomplishment -- I don't even resent that he's done it on so little work, since that's a sort of accomplishment in itself. It's just that nothing he's turned his hand to has prospered; no one who has befriended him, except his fair wife, has gained the honors that friendship rightly earns. Yet he rises on, ever, with those in his trail forever disappointed, wondering why he promised so much and then left them behind. This is the clear message of the Boston Globe's piece on the slums his housing efforts produced, and the New Yorker interviews with those who used to work with Obama in Chicago. It is the clear message also of his relationship with the preacher who sponsored him in Chicago politics, and his grandmother (and indeed, answering Hitchens, I can quote a line from his speech on race from memory: that line. It is the one he made memorable, by his deeds).
No, what bothers me is that no one seems ever to have stopped him and said, "Fine -- but before you advance again, tell us: What have you done?"
UPDATE: I have deleted a paragraph here, because on reflection it distracts from the discussion of the concept of Derbyshire's piece, which is the interesting part.
UPDATE: According to Steve Sailer, John McCain tested at IQ 133, which is not bad. (Assuming standard distribution, it would place him in the top few percentage points of humanity. It's also more than "two standard deviations" above the mean IQ of 100. If Derbyshire were right, that would mean Sen. McCain was too intelligent to communicate effectively with the majority of Americans -- if you add up the ones right at 100, and the ones below it, it would only be the most intelligent Americans who could understand him. Sen. Obama, being a famously great communicator, should sit lower on the curve according to that model: somewhere around 120 would be optimal, as it would allow you to be intelligent enough to communicate well with the most intelligent (up to around 150, which is close to everyone) as well as the bulk of people sitting from 90-110.
I doubt that the model is right, though -- I mention it only because it runs strongly counter to what appears to be the popular impression. Sen. Obama has been accorded an impression of being a serious thinker by the press; Sen. McCain is assumed to be somewhat slower. Yet Sen. McCain is in fact confirmed to be of reasonably high IQ .
Sen. Obama's does not appear to be public; I've seen estimates Googling around from 125-148, but they all appear to be SWAGs not based on any actual test results. The higher end results (130-148) estimate off the LSAT, but not Sen. Obama's actual LSAT, which isn't public -- just the median scores for Harvard law. The LSAT is not actually an IQ test, nor is it particularly difficult.
These popular impressions about the candidates' intelligence are probably rooted more in our prejudices than in their actual intelligence. As a culture, we think of older people as being mentally slow -- a hostile prejudice undeserved in the case of those who remain mentally engaged and active; in fact, research indicates that intelligence changes with age, but does not necessarily decrease, and may even benefit in some areas.
By the same token, we tend to think of Ivy League graduates as being exceptionally intelligent. Yet this prejudice is generally set aside when someone runs counter to our own decision-making process: it would be hard to find anyone who thought George W. Bush and John Kerry were about equally intelligent, though both are members of Yale's Skull & Bones. The normal opinion is that one is a sharp character and the other is a buffoon; but which one is which depends on where your own prejudices lie.
President Batman?
As Grim likes to use movies to instruct and inform on morality, this item caught my eye.
Andrew Klavan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, has a curious interpretation of the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight".
I have not seen the movie, so I can't really comment on Klavan's idea, but any who have, feel free to discuss.
One thing I do note about Batman, as opposed to the other superheroes movies are being made about recently--Superman, Spiderman, the Hulk, the X-men, even Hellboy--is that Batman is still, underneath the costume, just a guy. He has no actual super powers, just some neat toys that help him get things done. I wonder if that makes stories about him more accessible than the others on some level.
As Grim likes to use movies to instruct and inform on morality, this item caught my eye.
Andrew Klavan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, has a curious interpretation of the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight".
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
I have not seen the movie, so I can't really comment on Klavan's idea, but any who have, feel free to discuss.
One thing I do note about Batman, as opposed to the other superheroes movies are being made about recently--Superman, Spiderman, the Hulk, the X-men, even Hellboy--is that Batman is still, underneath the costume, just a guy. He has no actual super powers, just some neat toys that help him get things done. I wonder if that makes stories about him more accessible than the others on some level.
Yikes
Yikes:
His competitors at Metro magazine are trying to get him hanged.
So: do you agree that someone, anywhere might misunderstand what you wrote? If so, would you explain why you would write something that anyone might misunderstand for any reason? Can you recall any occasion you offended someone before now? We'd just like to add that we are deeply, personally offended.
Hey, that's a great standard for encouraging freedom of discourse. Have you ever offended anyone?
From Ireland (via Kim du Toit):
ON THE one hand, I expected some uproar in Ireland over my piece about Ethiopia on July 10. But there really wasn't any. On the other, I didn't expect an attempt to jail me by a state-sponsored body. Yet Denise Charlton, of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, has urged An Garda Siochana to investigate me under a special law, by which I could be tried and imprisoned for two years without even the benefit of a jury."Garda" is "guard" in Gaelic, obviously a loan word. An Garda Siochana is "The Peace Guard," that is, the police.
His competitors at Metro magazine are trying to get him hanged.
METRO e-mailed me the following questions. "Do you agree with the charges levelled against you by the Immigrant Council of Ireland (namely that the article can be seen as inspiring racial hatred?) Why/why not?No pressure!
"2. Do you agree that your article could be misunderstood in some quarters? If so then what is the main idea of it and what was it really trying to say?
"3. Do you agree that some of the statements you made could be offensive to people from Africa who live in Ireland? Did you think about them when writing the piece?
"4. It's definately (sic) not the first time that your writing offended somebody. Can you recall any other instances/ official complaints/death threats etc that you got from, say, the Irish republicans?
"That is all. It would be great if you could answer these questions or give your comment in any way you wish. I just want to add that there are a lot of Africans associated with Metro Eireann and they're all very offended."
So: do you agree that someone, anywhere might misunderstand what you wrote? If so, would you explain why you would write something that anyone might misunderstand for any reason? Can you recall any occasion you offended someone before now? We'd just like to add that we are deeply, personally offended.
Hey, that's a great standard for encouraging freedom of discourse. Have you ever offended anyone?
OK, But...
Actually, the McCain one is a really great poster. It frames his age and experience as "wisdom," which is a traditional way of thinking about age: we all hope that we become wiser as we age. It clarifies that his interest in the use of military force is directed at the goal of peace, which is the noble and proper use of force. It has an evocative use of color and shape, and the fighter formation imagery is a commonplace in American politics.
Then again, maybe the Obama one is a really great poster for Germany. I'm not enmeshed in German culture enough to know how it might resonate.
Congrats on your new house
Congratulations! You Bought A House!
Four Hundred Thousand of them, actually.
The effect of this kind of thing is to punish economic actors who are intelligent, careful, and thorough, while rewarding those who are reckless and hasty. As we know, when you subsidize something you get more of it; when you tax something, you get less of it.
That suggests that this "remedy" will not be good for the long-term economic health of the nation.
Liberal Thinking At Work
NYT Economics @ Work:
One wonders if Mr. Krugman was consulted.
The New York Times suffers a massive drop in its circulation, advertising, revenue and profits. Solution? Raise the price of the newspaper.
The June performance followed an 11.9 per cent decline in May advertising revenues, and suggested that an already deep erosion in newspaper advertising could be accelerating. Ms Robinson said the company would respond by raising newsstand prices for the New York Times from $1.25 to $1.50 per copy beginning in August, marking the paper’s second increase in a year.'What? Revenue is down? Just raise taxes. Everyone will continue to behave just as before, so the only effect will be more $$$ for us!'
That announcement came as the company reported that second-quarter profits fell 82 per cent to $21m, or 15 cents per share, compared with the same period a year ago, when it benefited from a $94m gain from the sale of television stations.
One wonders if Mr. Krugman was consulted.
CNN
CNN Hits Obama:
We've seen the love affair at length, but give CNN credit where credit is due.
This is a technical violation of the Logan Act; although the Logan Act has never in two hundred years been enforced, so it's probably a dead letter. The point tonight is that CNN deserves a huzzah for allowing a clear violation of diplomatic etiquette to be called out as such on the air.
One other matter of housekeeping: the other day I was mocking the "Obama One." I saw in a report today that McCain has also leased a plane for his campaign, which is apparently also decorated. So -- what we have here is a case of me being ignorant about what is apparently standard practice for campaigning politicians. I apologize for the unfair remarks.
Schadenfreudeburg.
Yeah, ok, its the National Enquirer. But. Just wow.
Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
Yeah, ok, its the National Enquirer. But. Just wow.
Defending Obama
Defending Obama:
Even if all of psychology's claims and models are untrue in the final analysis, it can still help a willing participant to overcome problems that he identifies in himself. It's not necessary -- a devotion to rock climbing can work as well or better. But it's not wrong, confined to its proper role as an art, participation in which is wholly voluntary. Any disciplined method will do, so long as it pursues a vision of beauty that you personally truly believe.
These attempts to use psychology as a weapon against political enemies are not within the proper limits of psychology. Its unscientific, unfalsifiable nature means that no one so accused has any means of clearing himself. This is the same reason it should not be allowed in courts: it is an unfair method of argument because its claims cannot be disproven.
No one should be subject to having their fitness for public office questioned because of such an attack. Whether we like them or despise them, they deserve better than this.
It's clear by now that I don't have any brief for the guy. However, just as I defended him a bit this weekend on the grounds of his wife, I'm going to defend him against this psychoanalytic attack. It's from back in March, but just came to my attention this morning.
The problem with the "diagnosis" starts with the fact that it's unethical to diagnose people you haven't actually examined -- especially politicians in an election year. However, ethical rules in the field of psychology are 'really more of a guideline.' In 2006, the Sanity Squad debated whether or not they were free to talk psychology about political figures they hadn't examined, and determined that of course they were. It's the public's fault if they mistake such talk for an 'actual' diagnosis.
The second problem with it is that every single Presidential candidate gets 'diagnosed' with NPD without examiniation. Sometimes it's laymen doing it, but sometimes it's "real mental health professionals." It happened to Bush, it happened to Kerry, and it happened to Gore. Oh, and people raised the charge about Sen. Clinton. And her husband -- that was what the Sanity Squad got criticized for doing in the first place.
Third, the whole methodology underlying psychology and psychoanalysis is non-falsifiable. It's not science. It's pseudoscience. [UPDATE: It is pointed out to me that I use the term "she" and "her" here incorrectly: this piece was posted at the Body Language Lady's site, but was in fact written by one of her male correspondents. She merely endorsed and distributed the view; she did not originate it.] In an email on the subject of the Obama piece, I wrote:
What is the evidence this expert fields?There is nothing wrong with someone going to a psychologist on his own, to seek help for a problem or disturbance in his life. I don't personally believe any of its claims, but just as religion or the martial arts can improve your life, so can psychology in its proper limits: so can a belief in feng shui. Just wanting to feel or do better, and adopting a disciplined method of working towards it, can have positive effects on you. As we discussed with regard to Aristotle and Free Will, the first thing is to adopt a vision of beauty and pursue it.
1) "An amorphous expression that looks like a child, about three years old, needing approval. I’ve almost never seen this expression in someone who isn’t NPD (occasionally in Borderline Personality Disorder, a closely related type II personality disorder). To me, it’s an exceptionally good indicator. It’s often a fleeting micro-expression (hard to catch without practice)."
So: we are required to take her word for it. If we don't see it, it's because we aren't practiced enough. How do we know who is practiced enough? They can see it!
As always with psychology, there is no way to falsify the claim. You either agree, or you're wrong.
2) "The eyes of NPDs usually have an unusual look. My face-reading friend describes them as “dead eyes”. I perceive NPD eyes as “no boundary between inside and outside”. Some people perceive them as magnetic."
So: their eyes look "unusual." But not unusual in any particular way. Some people see them one way ("dead"). Others see them in exactly the opposite way ("magnetic").
3) "The startle response of pupils (e.g. to disturbing scenes) is often diminished relative to normal people (both less of a change in pupil diameter, and a longer lag before pupil size changes). I think people with NPD also spend less time playing through internal imagery (visible in eye tracking and facial expressions)."
At last, a falsifiable claim. So, has she measured Obama's pupil dilation, to measure it against "normal people"? Well, no, not as such.
Also -- even if she had, it's not telling. The delay is "often" diminished, not always. Nor is it claimed that this is the only potential reason for such diminishment. Most importantly, though, because it is only "often" diminished, a "normal" reading wouldn't clear him of her diagnosis. He might be one of the NPDs whose response is not diminished.
So: in theory this is the strongest claim so far, because it could be tested. It hasn't actually been tested. And even if it were, it wouldn't actually prove or disprove the claim. Once again, psychology doesn't deal in science -- if X then Y. It deals in pseudoscience: its claims cannot be falisified.
I won't go through the whole thing, but hopefully with these examples you can see how the game works. It's all [redacted barnyard expression inappropriate for public discourse]. I don't doubt that she sincerely believes it, as she sincerely believes she is an "expert" in reading people. The problem is that the "expertise" can't really be put to the test: even when individual claims can be falsified, the diagnosis is untouched.
Even if all of psychology's claims and models are untrue in the final analysis, it can still help a willing participant to overcome problems that he identifies in himself. It's not necessary -- a devotion to rock climbing can work as well or better. But it's not wrong, confined to its proper role as an art, participation in which is wholly voluntary. Any disciplined method will do, so long as it pursues a vision of beauty that you personally truly believe.
These attempts to use psychology as a weapon against political enemies are not within the proper limits of psychology. Its unscientific, unfalsifiable nature means that no one so accused has any means of clearing himself. This is the same reason it should not be allowed in courts: it is an unfair method of argument because its claims cannot be disproven.
No one should be subject to having their fitness for public office questioned because of such an attack. Whether we like them or despise them, they deserve better than this.
Yeah
Yeah, This Is What We're Talking About:
But what's it based on? 'He's a gift from the world to us.' He is? What's he done?
Public Service Warning
A Service to the Readers:
If you may too, here is the USDA's page on how to avoid salmonella-caused food poisoning. Keep them cold, clean them carefully, and cook them through. The USDA has specific guidelines.
In the meantime, the cayennes in the garden are starting to come in, so we'll just make do for a while.
We don't usually do public service announcements here, but this one on jalapenos targets the readership in several ways:
For now, the government is strengthening its earlier precaution against hot peppers to a full-blown warning that no one should eat fresh jalapenos — or products such as fresh salsa made from them — until it can better pinpoint where tainted ones may have sold.I know we have a lot of Georgia and Texas readers, and a lot of folks who like to eat jalapenos. I love fresh jalapenos: one of my favorite things to do with any food is to chop up a fresh jalapeno and put it on top, seeds and all. Burgers, salads, chili, whatever: jalapenos are great. We grow them in the garden, but they come in later in the season for us, so we may very well have contaminated, store-bought jalapenos in the house.
Tomatoes currently on the market, in contrast, now are considered safe to eat.
The Texas plant, Agricola Zaragoza, has suspended sales of fresh jalapenos and recalled those shipped since June 30 — shipments it said were made to Georgia and Texas.
If you may too, here is the USDA's page on how to avoid salmonella-caused food poisoning. Keep them cold, clean them carefully, and cook them through. The USDA has specific guidelines.
In the meantime, the cayennes in the garden are starting to come in, so we'll just make do for a while.
Groan
Groan:
Barack Obama's campaign unveiled a sparkling makeover for his chartered plane on Sunday, ahead of the presumptive Democratic nominee's high-profile tour of the Middle East and Europe. The remodelled Boeing 757 jet, dubbed "Obama One" is painted blue and white and sports the Illinois senator's distinctive rising sun logo on its tail....Vero Possumus!
Comp. w/ McCain
Who He Is:
Something like this is what you'd expect to see in a man who puts himself forward for election to the highest office in the nation: a record of accomplishments, of good and bad qualities, based on which you make a measured evaluation and vote.
Whatever else can be said about Senator McCain, we know who he is.
As a point of comparison for the discussion below, consider the piece on McCain in today's New York Times:
Mr. McCain, 71, acquired the sobriquet “maverick” about a decade ago. When he was first elected to the Senate in 1986, after two terms in the House, he was in the mainstream of his party. He even made a credible, though unsuccessful, run for a party leadership post.The piece continues in that fashion: now quoting a McCain supporter, now a detractor. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican, plans to vote for Obama apparently (to read the piece) because he's developed a personal dislike for McCain's 'Naval Academy' style. Russ Feingold, a Democrat, is a friend to McCain and works with him, and says that McCain reaches out to younger legislators in a way unusual for senior Senators. Supporters say he demonstrates actual bipartisanship, not just talk of bipartisanship. Detractors say he has a temper. Supporters say he never runs from a fight on principle. Detractors say that he's stronger with independents and Democrats than Republicans.
But his popularity did not last. First, there was his “truculent nature,” as he calls it. His Republican colleagues call him aggressive, brusque and abrasive. He later adopted the habit of publicly scolding other senators about their special privileges, from pet spending projects to airport parking spots. What Mr. Lott called his “cuddling up” to the Democrats has further strained Mr. McCain’s relations with Republicans.
“I suppose over the last 10 years he has passed more significant legislation than any senator around,” said Senator Judd Gregg, a conservative New Hampshire Republican frequently at odds with Mr. McCain. “But that doesn’t necessarily entail being liked.”
Something like this is what you'd expect to see in a man who puts himself forward for election to the highest office in the nation: a record of accomplishments, of good and bad qualities, based on which you make a measured evaluation and vote.
Whatever else can be said about Senator McCain, we know who he is.
Krauthammer
"Who Are You?"
I can forgive the man's own sense of entitlement or arrogance or whatever it is: the world has been handed to him on a platter at every moment. He's never done anything, but he's never had to do anything. For whatever reason, people have rushed to him to lay flowers at his feet. He's 28 years old, doesn't grasp what an opportunity he's being given in being offered a contract with Simon & Schuster, blows his deadline, and then turns in a memoir instead of the work he promised to produce? Hey, no problem -- here's forty grand.
He hasn't updated his awareness on Iraq in two years, and so at the last minute he goes out with a Congressional Delegation to meet with some of the generals he's never talked to as a Senator? Every network sends their anchor along to cover the historic trip. McCain -- a long-term Senator and veteran, and the guy who made the Surge -- goes out while the war is still hot, and walks the Iskandariyah market without body armor? The wire services don't even send anyone. The only photos of the trip are from military public affairs.
His wife gets her salary tripled after he wins election to the Senate, and shortly thereafter he earmarks her employer a million dollars? Hey, now, so what? That's the politics of hate, man. The hospital says she deserved it, so obviously it's just what's fair. We all know how it works. Grim's Hall readers are smart and work hard. Some of you got a 300% raise that year, right? No? Ever?
You're getting your start as a mere "community organizer." Your chief initiative is to get better housing for your constituents. The housing is underbuilt and has to be condemned, and your chosen vendor goes to prison on Federal corruption charges. This is seen in no way as a disqualifying factor to your pursuit of higher office. Really, it's not interesting. Especially not when taken together with that earmark thing. Oh, and the guy who went to prison helped you buy your house. And donated to your campaign. All of your campaigns.
I had the same sense when President Bush proposed Julie Myers as the head of ICE, when she was manifestly unqualified -- but related to a key Bush supporter. (Some of you will remember me ranting about that repeatedly and at length.) Myers, though, was clearly a Bush powerplay: the Republicans protested loudly, but finally fell in line. They had used up their political capital killing his SCOTUS nomination.
In the case of Senator Obama, the whole world seems to be in on the game. It's one thing for a Senator or a Presidential candidate to have high and low moments, pluses and drawbacks. That's normal. It's astonishing to watch someone who, since he was a man of 28 and even younger, has been given everything: whose failures have been rewarded with cash advances, praise, adulation, and higher office.
I realize that this is an ad hominem rather than a cogent argument. Still, since I've spent the entire weekend defending Senator Obama's right to defend his wife -- and the basic nobility of such a defense -- I think I can take a moment to point to something that really bothers me about the man.
[W]hat exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 — who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap — called “a Europe whole and free”?...That last bit is probably fair, in spite of his more recent work: but it is all the more astonishing given that he was allowed to write a memoir instead of the book he was contracted to produce, which was to be a book on race relations. He was permitted to write the memoir at the age of 28. For which memoir he was given an advance of $40,000. After he missed his deadline. Oh, and he took five years to finish the memoir of a 28 year-long life, but they never asked for the money back.
Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
I can forgive the man's own sense of entitlement or arrogance or whatever it is: the world has been handed to him on a platter at every moment. He's never done anything, but he's never had to do anything. For whatever reason, people have rushed to him to lay flowers at his feet. He's 28 years old, doesn't grasp what an opportunity he's being given in being offered a contract with Simon & Schuster, blows his deadline, and then turns in a memoir instead of the work he promised to produce? Hey, no problem -- here's forty grand.
He hasn't updated his awareness on Iraq in two years, and so at the last minute he goes out with a Congressional Delegation to meet with some of the generals he's never talked to as a Senator? Every network sends their anchor along to cover the historic trip. McCain -- a long-term Senator and veteran, and the guy who made the Surge -- goes out while the war is still hot, and walks the Iskandariyah market without body armor? The wire services don't even send anyone. The only photos of the trip are from military public affairs.
His wife gets her salary tripled after he wins election to the Senate, and shortly thereafter he earmarks her employer a million dollars? Hey, now, so what? That's the politics of hate, man. The hospital says she deserved it, so obviously it's just what's fair. We all know how it works. Grim's Hall readers are smart and work hard. Some of you got a 300% raise that year, right? No? Ever?
You're getting your start as a mere "community organizer." Your chief initiative is to get better housing for your constituents. The housing is underbuilt and has to be condemned, and your chosen vendor goes to prison on Federal corruption charges. This is seen in no way as a disqualifying factor to your pursuit of higher office. Really, it's not interesting. Especially not when taken together with that earmark thing. Oh, and the guy who went to prison helped you buy your house. And donated to your campaign. All of your campaigns.
I had the same sense when President Bush proposed Julie Myers as the head of ICE, when she was manifestly unqualified -- but related to a key Bush supporter. (Some of you will remember me ranting about that repeatedly and at length.) Myers, though, was clearly a Bush powerplay: the Republicans protested loudly, but finally fell in line. They had used up their political capital killing his SCOTUS nomination.
In the case of Senator Obama, the whole world seems to be in on the game. It's one thing for a Senator or a Presidential candidate to have high and low moments, pluses and drawbacks. That's normal. It's astonishing to watch someone who, since he was a man of 28 and even younger, has been given everything: whose failures have been rewarded with cash advances, praise, adulation, and higher office.
Homer
Homer:
The Claremont Institute reviews a book on Homer, remarking that Alcibiades once slapped a grammar school teacher for not having a copy on hand for his students. He then compares two famous translations into English, Robert Fagles' and Alexander Pope's:
Prince Achilles, ranging his ranks of Myrmidons,My favorite is the Fitzgerald.
arrayed them along the shelters, all in armor.
Hungry as wolves that rend and bolt raw flesh,
hearts filled with battle-frenzy that never dies—
off of the cliffs, ripping apart some big antlered stag
they gorge on the kill till all their jaws drip red with blood,
then down in a pack they lope to a pooling, dark spring,
their lean sharp tongues lapping the water's surface,
belching bloody meat, but the fury, never shaken,
builds inside their chests though their glutted bellies burst—
so wild the Myrmidon captains, Myrmidon field commanders
swarming round Achilles' dauntless friend-in-arms
♣
Achilles speeds from tent to tent, and warms
His hardy Myrmidons to blood and arms.
All breathing death, around their chief they stand,
A grim, terrific, formidable band:
Grim as voracious wolves that seek the springs
When scalding thirst their burning bowels wrings
(When some tall stag, fresh-slaughtered in the wood,
Has drenched their wide, insatiate throats with blood)
To the black fount they rush, a hideous throng,
With paunch distended, and with lolling tongue,
Fire fills their eye, their black jaws belch the gore,
And gorged with slaughter, still they thirst for more.
Like furious rushed the Myrmidonian crew,
Such their dread strength, and such their deathful view.
Akhilleus put the Myrmidons in arms,
the whole detachment near the hut. Like wolves,
carnivorous and fierce and tireless,
who rend a great stag on the mountainside
and feed on him, their jaws reddened with blood,
loping in a pack to drink springwater,
lapping the dark rim up with slender tongues,
their chops a-drip with fresh blood, their hearts
unshaken ever, and their bellies glutted:
Such were the Myrmidons and their officers,
running to form up round Akhilleus' brave
companion-in-arms.
Cost of Gov't Day
Cost of Government Day:
The Whited Sepulchre celebrates "Cost of Government Day," the day when you've finally paid off what you owe the several governments who tax you. He details his celebrations, in honor of the example set by the gov't.
* I went to Starbucks and took up a collection for orphans in Burma, to be paid when the orphans retire at age 65. If it appears that the orphans will live past 65 and the funds are running low, I can always push back the retirement age.Our correspondent has been watching too much C-SPAN. He needs to get out and do like the rest of us: try to forget the government exists as much as possible. It's the only way to be happy. :)
* I took part of the orphan money and bought a double espresso. I paid $25 for it, which some of you might think is too much. That's none of your business. Starbucks was a major contributor to my Burmese orphan fundraiser, and this is how I give back to the community. Plus, I have to protect American jobs by paying too much. To do less would be unpatriotic.
* Since I work in the transportation industry, I have a vested interest in keeping the cost of fuel as low as possible. I purchased several farms worth of wheat, and converted the wheat to ethanol. Not only is this bad for the environment (which gives me an opportunity to set up more programs to protect the environment), but when I convert food to fuel it also helps create more orphans in places like Burma ! More orphans = more fundraisers !
...
*Shortly before lunchtime on COGD, I used Eminent Domain legislation to tear down a Burmese orphanage and put a Wal-Mart in its place. We'll see a huge increase in tax revenue from this move. This will allow us to spend more than ever.
Demographics
Anti-Declinism:
This article makes some very good points against what has become a sort-of 'conventional wisdom' that the US is in decline, at least relative to other powers. As the author points out, there is much to doubt in some of the trend analysis. For example, his point about the reserves China holds is correct: China's economic expansion is deeply tied to exports to the US. China, because of where its demographics are right now, needs to expand or else it will collapse. If it were to undercut America's economy, it would be cutting its own throat. We, being vastly richer, might survive, but there is no reason to believe that they would.
A further point to be made is that the demographics don't favor many of these trends continuing. The EU's demographics are much discussed, and need to be remembered here also. As the aging EU population is replaced by immigrants, internal stresses will only increase. How to formulate a common foreign policy between several nations when each is struggling with such internal difficulties? One can easily imagine a case in the not-too-distant future in which some of these nations where the demographic trends are strongest begin to agitate against the nations where they are weakest.
China also has a major demographic disruption on the horizon, due to the one-child policy. There will be a massive depopulation, and aging of the populace there also. It's already happened -- we cannot now have more children for the years they passed under one-child -- and we are only waiting for the problem to ripen. China's interest is in stability and continued growth, to help it pull past the demographic collapse.
Japan? The demographic collapse is even worse. Russia? Same.
Of them all, India is the only one that is likely to push forward without a massive adjustment. India and the United States are both maintaining natural growth, without suffering economic collapse. China may recover: Russia and Japan will not, and the EU's future is hard to predict at this time.
If I were betting on the future, I'd bet that the US will continue to lead the world. An Indian-American or Chinese-American alliance will develop, as we have many common interests with both.
In fact, it's possible we may have an alliance with both. They border each other, and will rub against each other as they grow. They may prove to need us more than ever as a balancing actor between the two.
Cut it Out
Cut it Out:
I've made this same mistake myself in conversation, and I'm rather younger than either Senators Nunn or McCain. Czechoslovakia was such a wonderful name, it sticks in the brain. If we're going to talk about what people have forgotten, both these men have forgotten more about the region and its history than certain persons have ever had occasion to learn.
Gates Speaks
SECDEF Gates & DOS/USAID:
The problem hasn't just been underfunding, however. This is a market-driven solution, so to speak: the reason the military has been taking over intelligence and even diplomacy is that it has done a better job. The reason it has done a better job -- aside from the military's culture of honor, which has salutory effects on human behavior -- is that the military is the only part of the government that doesn't regard war as a failure to be avoided, but rather as a tool to be used.
The civilian agencies don't just need more money. They need a change in mindset. They need -- State especially -- to reconsider diplomacy's relationship to war.
The view of diplomacy that has come to dominate the West is one of quasi-law: the point of negotiations is to create regulations and bodies to enforce those regulations. That mindset has an honorable history, and attempts to mitigate the worst tragedies in human history; but it also creates new problems.
For one thing, it should be obvious at this point that the international "enforcement" mechanisms are broken -- or, rather, that they were always illusions. The legalist model tries to treat relations between states as we treat relations between people within a state, but that concept cannot work. There is no similar way to punish a state, as our systems of law punish individuals.
If a man defies the law, we can fine him, or put him in prison: we don't necessarily have to kill him. If a nation defies its treaty obligations, however, fines don't work: the various 'sanctions'-style regimes end up being shrugged off by governments, the costs pushed down onto the people. The experience in dealing with North Korea should show that you can push sanctions to the point of absolute, grinding poverty, and still not force the rogue state to change.
Nor can we put nations in prison. We can only make them into prisons.
That, too, punishes not the nation but the poor people of that nation. Within those prisons, the leadership remains free to do what it will.
The traditional "enforcement mechanism" in international relations was war. This is not because our ancestors were barbarians, but because it is the only system that works. Engagement and diplomacy are good things, but they must always be braided together with the threat of war if agreements are not kept. Similarly, failing states and rogue states can be addressed better using civilian means much of the time -- so long as the military means are kept plainly in sight, to ensure that a proper understanding exists between us and the people with whom we negotiate.
Modern civilian agencies do need to become more central, and more important. They do need more funding.
They also need to rethink their relationship with their brothers in uniform. They should see each others as partners in the greater cause of national security, and the interests of human liberty. We should not punish the people of rogue states, but seek to help them. If that means we punish their governments, so be it: but methods that punish only the people are unfit for a nation such as ours. We should always be on the side of human liberty and happiness: always on the side of the people, even when we are opposed to their government.
USAID, USDA, State -- they can be a very positive part of making that a reality. They have to recognize, though, what works and what never works: and rethink their relationship to war.
It is not that war is desirable: it is not. But it is also not the thing to be avoided. Diplomacy does not exist to prevent war. It exists to expand the space for human freedom, and to protect the interests of our civilization. Diplomacy and war are not opposed, but are the twin tools available to us. We -- our civilian and our military officers -- must be ready to use whichever one is necessary at the given moment.
Secretary Gates reiterates the point that LTG Chiarelli was making.
"America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long -- relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world," Gates said at a dinner organized by the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, according to prepared remarks of his speech.The American Enterprise Institute has also written on this, and challenged the Country Teams to take the lead in dealing with counterinsurgency (COIN) and stabilization efforts worldwide. They are not the only ones to feel that the Country Team -- an interagency group that reports to the ambassador, but involves both military and civilian advsiors -- should be the focus of leadership in any COIN or Foreign Internal Defense (FID) efforts. It's an existing solution, but it needs a change in focus from our goverment.
Over the next 20 years, Gates predicted, "the most persistent and potentially dangerous threats will come less from emerging ambitious states, than from failing ones that cannot meet the basic needs -- much less the aspirations -- of their people."
The problem hasn't just been underfunding, however. This is a market-driven solution, so to speak: the reason the military has been taking over intelligence and even diplomacy is that it has done a better job. The reason it has done a better job -- aside from the military's culture of honor, which has salutory effects on human behavior -- is that the military is the only part of the government that doesn't regard war as a failure to be avoided, but rather as a tool to be used.
The civilian agencies don't just need more money. They need a change in mindset. They need -- State especially -- to reconsider diplomacy's relationship to war.
The view of diplomacy that has come to dominate the West is one of quasi-law: the point of negotiations is to create regulations and bodies to enforce those regulations. That mindset has an honorable history, and attempts to mitigate the worst tragedies in human history; but it also creates new problems.
For one thing, it should be obvious at this point that the international "enforcement" mechanisms are broken -- or, rather, that they were always illusions. The legalist model tries to treat relations between states as we treat relations between people within a state, but that concept cannot work. There is no similar way to punish a state, as our systems of law punish individuals.
If a man defies the law, we can fine him, or put him in prison: we don't necessarily have to kill him. If a nation defies its treaty obligations, however, fines don't work: the various 'sanctions'-style regimes end up being shrugged off by governments, the costs pushed down onto the people. The experience in dealing with North Korea should show that you can push sanctions to the point of absolute, grinding poverty, and still not force the rogue state to change.
Nor can we put nations in prison. We can only make them into prisons.
That, too, punishes not the nation but the poor people of that nation. Within those prisons, the leadership remains free to do what it will.
The traditional "enforcement mechanism" in international relations was war. This is not because our ancestors were barbarians, but because it is the only system that works. Engagement and diplomacy are good things, but they must always be braided together with the threat of war if agreements are not kept. Similarly, failing states and rogue states can be addressed better using civilian means much of the time -- so long as the military means are kept plainly in sight, to ensure that a proper understanding exists between us and the people with whom we negotiate.
Modern civilian agencies do need to become more central, and more important. They do need more funding.
They also need to rethink their relationship with their brothers in uniform. They should see each others as partners in the greater cause of national security, and the interests of human liberty. We should not punish the people of rogue states, but seek to help them. If that means we punish their governments, so be it: but methods that punish only the people are unfit for a nation such as ours. We should always be on the side of human liberty and happiness: always on the side of the people, even when we are opposed to their government.
USAID, USDA, State -- they can be a very positive part of making that a reality. They have to recognize, though, what works and what never works: and rethink their relationship to war.
It is not that war is desirable: it is not. But it is also not the thing to be avoided. Diplomacy does not exist to prevent war. It exists to expand the space for human freedom, and to protect the interests of our civilization. Diplomacy and war are not opposed, but are the twin tools available to us. We -- our civilian and our military officers -- must be ready to use whichever one is necessary at the given moment.
Friends & Enemies
Friends Like These:
This is the number one story on Memeorandum today.
I would like to say -- it would suit my temperment -- that this story was a waste of air and that we should be reading Obama's new plan for Iraq instead. However, he has demonstrated such a disloyalty to his own statements that I see no reason to bother with anything he says or writes at this point. I think we can say with some certainty that anything he says is designed for political advantage in the moment, and will not be considered binding in any way in the future.
So, since the discussion I'd prefer to have is really off the table -- it's bootless to argue about where his plan is wise (though I like the focus on nonmilitary assistance that he's been mentioning lately; a more complete reading on the subject, from people who can be relied upon to mean what they say, is LTG Chiarelli and MAJ Smith's paper from the Combined Arms Center), or where it is foolish. His word, he has demonstrated, is irrelevant.
Thus, the popular opinion -- that the New Yorker story is actually more important than Obama's stated plan on Iraq -- is actually, sadly, tragically correct. "With friends like these," folks; though I suppose, given Obama's record on loyalty to his friends, that one reaps as one sows.
Still, I don't really want to talk about the New Yorker. Maybe we could talk about Chiarelli instead -- it's the one point from Obama's piece that I think is strongly correct, and a worthy idea that deserves wider consideration and awareness. On the chance that Obama might not reverse himself, then, let's read the Chiarelli piece and talk about it.
Buckaroo
The Hound of the Hall:
I mentioned a while ago that the 20th of June is a major celebration around here, for various reasons. This year, my wife decided to get me a dog. We haven't had a pet in years, due to lease restrictions -- we move so often that we've just rented and not owned a house. While I was in Iraq, however, she convinced our landlord that she needed a dog for protection, and they altered the lease to permit one dog. However, she never actually got around to getting one.
It took almost a month, but we found the right one after much searching at area shelters. His name is Buck -- short for Buckaroo -- and I see no reason to change it.
I think he'll be happy here.
Eucharist Desecration
Freedom At Work:
If a student of ethics says something foolish, then, cut him some slack. If a professor of ethics says something horrible in class, he is probably trying to challenge the students in the other direction -- to challenge the principles they hold true, to force them to find a way to defend them. That, also, leads to a deeper understanding of the principles.
A professor of biology will have a harder time justifying himself.
So, let's do ethics here. What is the ethical principle the professor is using to justify his behavior? Can it, in fact, be justified? Are the Catholics wrong to respond as they are doing, by trying to get him fired for this behavior? If so, why? If not, why not?
UPDATE: There appears to be some confusion about the server's ownership: I'm now seeing reports that actually it's a private server, to which the University's webpages simply link. Does that change the moral issues at work? Is it wrong to try to fire the man his private conduct? Is the fact that the University links to the blog (assuming it proves out that it is privately owned) important, or irrelevant?
Cassandra is doing ethics today. I love ethics -- it is one of the most interesting branches of philosophy. Studying it, though, does require that you spend a few hours, or years, challenging things that might otherwise be bedrock principles of your life:
Well, in fairness, if you put people into an ethics class, you are asking them to try using their minds to challenge ethical teachings. The concept is to reaffirm ethics by teaching them not just what is wrong, but why it is wrong.Still, as the discussion shows, the momentary idiocy kept in the class can lead to a better, truer understanding of ethics to guide you through the rest of your life. That's the whole point of teaching the class.
That means they have to pose challenges to the principles. You're supposed to try to see if there are ways around the principle at work: then, if there aren't, you've found something solid.
A lot of students grasp that they're supposed to try to challenge the principles -- that's the point of the class -- but lack the background or understanding to pose a real challenge. They end up sounding like idiots, but they really are doing what students are supposed to do.
This is the work of philosophy, though, which can lead you to refine what you had thought was a precisely formulated ethical principle.
If a student of ethics says something foolish, then, cut him some slack. If a professor of ethics says something horrible in class, he is probably trying to challenge the students in the other direction -- to challenge the principles they hold true, to force them to find a way to defend them. That, also, leads to a deeper understanding of the principles.
A professor of biology will have a harder time justifying himself.
Here is an excerpt of his July 8 post, “It’s a Frackin’ Cracker!”:I gather from his reply (at the link) that he considers himself a sort of counter-Crusader, boldly standing against religion in the... well, against religion. He objects to Catholics trying to get him fired for using a University-owned computer and server to try and organize an attack on their faith. (Actually, being only an associate professor, he's probably in some real danger of getting fired over the matter.)“Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?” Myers continued by saying, “if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”
So, let's do ethics here. What is the ethical principle the professor is using to justify his behavior? Can it, in fact, be justified? Are the Catholics wrong to respond as they are doing, by trying to get him fired for this behavior? If so, why? If not, why not?
UPDATE: There appears to be some confusion about the server's ownership: I'm now seeing reports that actually it's a private server, to which the University's webpages simply link. Does that change the moral issues at work? Is it wrong to try to fire the man his private conduct? Is the fact that the University links to the blog (assuming it proves out that it is privately owned) important, or irrelevant?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)