Good Stuff

Good Stuff from the Comments:

I want to tip my hat to you folks, who have generated a fine discussion in not just one but several of the comment threads below. I'd like to draw attention to a few of the remarks.

Fiacha has some advice for wife-seekers:

An old man told me how to find a good woman, ask, Can she ride? Can she dance? Can she shoot? Sounds terribly sexist, I am afraid, but its not about her capabilities nor is it a vetting process so I find someone that enoys my hobbies.

A gun means many things to many people, to me it means the ability to stand up and protect,

A horse is a symbol of dealing wiht and utilizing that which can be both dangerous and intimidating but is very useful.

The ability to dance is about confidence and trust.

I'm not sure I can improve upon that. If any of you would like to try, however, have at it.

Meanwhile, The Lady of the Lake thread is still going on. Lumpenscholar and I had an exchange this morning that seems fruitful:

Well, I am late to this meeting of the Hall, it seems, and what a wonderful discussion it was to read.

In hopes someone is tending the coals, restless of mind, and may be around to listen, and I hope to reply ...

Regarding Jeff's argument:

Grim, when we have a code for men, but for women you say "One of the chief things to understand about chivalry (and courtly love) is how heavily women influenced the ethic to begin with", it does indeed make it sound like men are servants and women can do whatever they please.

When I enlisted in the military, I signed a contract. I knew what was expected of me (even if only in ideal terms at the time), and I knew what I could expect. When a knight swore fealty, he had that same assurance: he knew what he gave, and he knew what he received in return. In an age and nation when men are routinely taken advantage of, and in a society that sees that abuse as proper revenge for historical wrongs, it is hard to embrace a moral contract of service that does not come with some clearly defined expectations.

douglas speaks to this, and I hope he can in some way communicate how he handles this with his daughter.

My answer, as far as I've thought it out to date, is that it is a lady's responsibility to be worthy of any service she may require of a knight. Likewise, when the roles are reversed and it is the lady who renders service to a knight (as also happened in the old stories), the knight can do no less than ensure he is worthy of such service. Indeed, receiving such service can be a great motivator to be worthy.

At the same time, a knight and a lady are both free to ignore those they consider unworthy of service. Not all women in distress are ladies worth rescuing, and not all men in armor are knights worth guiding.

In that vein, Grim, you wrote: "We've discussed Eleanor of Aquitaine... She was accused of every sort of unchastity in her lifetime ... and never lacked for knights ready to declare themselves her willing servants and true lovers."

Setting aside the guilt or innocence of the lady, I think that pointing out an action and saying a knight did it does not make for a valid exemplar. There were Good knights and Evil knights, true knights and false. If chivalry is to mean anything, it must give us virtue, it must point out the actions of true, Good knights and give them honor, and it must also point out the actions of false, Evil knights and damn them. If it is the case that virtuous knights rose to her defense, then it tells us something indirectly about her. On the other hand, she was a powerful, beautiful woman and there were enticing, less-than-virtuous reasons for knights to come to her defense.

Not all those who bear arms are virtuous, and while it may be best for us to see our enemies as fellows in chivalry who have agreed to this bloody contract, it does not make it true.
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 12:08 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still reading.

As to your first point:

In a more recent post, we've been talking about oaths: the oath of enlistment, the pledge of alliegence. None of them posit what you are asking for here: none of them say, "I promise X, and in return, I realize I shall receive Y."

Rather, they say, "I promise X." Your reasons for taking the oath are in a sense your own: the oath is about service, though, not benefits.

Why do you take the pledge, or swear the oath of enlistment?

Why would you pledge love to a lady?

De Charny's response is excellent here. I mentioned it above, as re: marriage, but it applies to love of this chivalrous kind also.

De Charny says -- not just here, but throughout his work -- that there are many kinds of good men; but then he tries to separate out the good from the better, and the better from the best, and says consistently: "He who does best is most worthy."

So in marriage, he notes that there are those who enter into the oath of love in expectation, and that is fine; but these are unlikely to have happy marriages. Their reasons to serve are not really based in love, but in considerations of gain, and therefore they will be unhappy 'for the devils must be at their wedding.'

Then there are some who marry for children, or to have company in their age, or for other good reasons; and they will be happy, and are doing better.

But the best of all are those who with their wives "live joyfully and pleasantly."

If love is true, it seeks no reward but itself. There is no greater reward to be had.

Yet if love is true, it is rewarded. Though not sought, all these things that a man might seek do come: for a true lover will give not only generously, but even of her last penny of money and her last ounce of strength.

The place to focus your mind and heart, then, is not on the gains you expect or demand. It is on finding what you love.

To your second point:

De Charny agrees -- and so do I -- that bearing arms is not virtuous in itself. He devotes a page to "those unworthy to be men at arms," which include: those who wage war without a good reason; those who attack without warning; those who are dishonorable, or cowards; and those who allow men under their command to behave in such ways, even if they would not personally.

Eleanor of Aquitaine was accused of very many things. She never lacked for defenders, and perhaps some of them were like the suitors who marry for money or gain. Yet perhaps the charges were false, given by the sort of men who seek through slander to hurt those whom they cannot hope to best in any honorable contest.

The old way to deal with such claims was in trial by combat, "And may God defend the Right." We have other ways, though I sometimes wonder if we have better ones. We have a media that chases madly after slanders against Gov. Palin, excusing themselves by claiming that they have no choice given their refusal to chase after John Edwards. These things are tried in a court of media, with no final end to the claim possible -- you can still today read conspiracy theories about every politician and public figure of the last decade. The proven ones are still denied; the disproven ones are still believed.

Much is made of the fact that, under the old system, a strong man might spread lies and simply kill those who dared to challenge him. Yet not enough is made of the fact that such lies carried a price, and a danger. Now they are free, and as numerous as a plague of frogs. In Eleanor's day, at least there was a brake on the tongues of cowardly men.
Grim | 09.08.08 - 1:01 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In writing a draft of a post on this topic, I re-read Grim's original post. It seems he answered Jeff's concern and gave my own answer here:

The key things that matter are these: the lady is noble of spirit ... she is morally worthy of service ...
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 1:02 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite right. And if she is worthy of love, and you love her, you and she will find "joyful and pleasant" rewards. :)
Grim | 09.08.08 - 1:05 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much for your replies, Grim.

First, a point of disagreement. My point about Eleanor's defenders was simply that, unless we know why they defended her, we cannot say it was virtuous behavior. When you put them forth as an example, I took it to mean that because knights did it, it was chivalrous, which I disagree with. Although of course I might have misunderstood your example.

On to more profitable points.

If love is true, it seeks no reward but itself. There is no greater reward to be had.

But-but-but, that takes COURAGE!

:-D

I have to laugh at myself, else I'll soon call myself a coward.

Yet if love is true, it is rewarded.

And that takes faith, and hope, to go with the charity of seeking to love in the first place.

As the Go players say, "Victory lies in the attack," i.e., you can't win if you're focus is only on not losing.

Thank you for posting on this. It is exactly what I needed right now. It is late and I need to move on, but I will revisit this thread soon.

From Ecclesiastes 9:7-10: "Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun ... Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 2:46 am | #

This has been one of the finest discussions we've had, and I want to thank all of you for participating in it. There is much here to consider even yet.

Liking Althouse

I'm Beginning To Like Prof. Althouse:

This poll demands your attention.

I believe her when she says she's under a vow of "cruel neutrality." That's what makes it so funny.

On Shooting Short

On Shooting Short:

Information Operations, Texas Ranger style:



If you are fighting the right way, everything is part of your information operations. In this case, we have military deception (shooting short), which encourages the enemy to make a bad decision; and then a PSYOP, to make clear that the the Ranger can not only hit you, he can out-think you too.

The arms, by the way, are an 1860 Henry Rifle, a Sharps Rifle (which gave us the word "sharpshooter"), and a Walker Colt revolver.

The "Walker" was named for Sam Walker, one of the early famous Texas Rangers, who helped Col. Colt design it. He asked for a heavier ball than the .36 caliber ball used by the Patterson Colt, which the Texas Rangers had used successfully against the Commanche. The .44 caliber Walker model was huge -- later .44s were much smaller -- and prone to losing the lock on its reloading lever (see the video above, under "Walker Colt"), which slowed repeat shots.

As far as I know, it was not prone to the particular eccentricity attributed to it by Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. Blowing up in your hand was not to my knowledge "a failing common to the model." But since we are on the subject, here is a beautiful piece of music from that movie.



I trust you are having a fine weekend.

You have to watch the whole thing.



(via American Thinker Blog)

Awesome

Awesome:

This is one of those outstanding moments in life:

This morning, Republicans tell me that a worker at Invesco Field in Denver saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage. Guerrilla campaigning. They will use these flags at their own event today in Colorado Springs with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Before McCain speaks today, veterans will haul these garbage bags filled with flags out onto the stage — with dramatic effect, no doubt — and tell the story.

I suppose I should be embarrassed to admit that I have a few of those little, tiny flags that they distribute at the 4th of July around here. They're just made of very cheap cloth, but when they wear out and fall off the sticks, I have painstakingly folded them into tiny triangles and stored them until I could dispose of them properly. That day never comes, because it's a chore I continually forget, so I now have quite a few American flags to dispose of in the traditional fashion.

They are stored in the very top of my closet, on the top of my hat boxes, because I would never set anything on top of an American flag or a Bible. Why not? I really couldn't tell you why. It's just how I was raised.

I sympathize somewhat with the Obama supporters who are pulling their hair out over this story: 'Why can't we get past this kind of thing, and talk about what we think are the real issues facing the nation?' Substance is surely more important than symbol, yes. Yet there is a reason you can't 'get past' it, and that is this: you don't understand what these symbols mean to people.

Men are both rational and irrational. We have a part of our soul for each. The irrational part is not bad, and can be very good: it is what gives rise to love as well as hate, joy as well as sorrow. Even sorrow can be noble, when it points the way to the beautiful, for a man ought to be able to mourn the loss of something beautiful.

A man who wishes to lead must be the right kind of man: he has to win the loyalty and service of his fellows. This is the real meaning of the Marine Corps University motto, Ductus Exemplo, "Command by Example." It is not that you should set a good example in the hope that others will follow. It is that the example you set is what wins the right to command. Men follow you because their hearts tell them to do so.

Substance matters, no doubt about it. It is not enough alone, however: it never can be.

UPDATE: Think they found 12,000 people to give 'em to? Looks like it to me.

Hard to say for sure, though, since the NYT piece doesn't mention the flags. At all.

UPDATE: The NYT piece has now changed the picture, so it no longer shows the massive McCain-Palin rally. It now shows Sen. Obama standing in a small ring by himself.

PUMAs

PUMAs On The March:

I have a certain fondness for the PUMA movement, as someone who has also spent a certain part of his life as a Democrat trying to move the Democratic Party away from some of its dumber ideas. (As is Armed Liberal of Winds of Change: see here).

So, today I notice three important posts by PUMAs moving against the Obama campaign.

Drawing the Line:

From the NYTimes an hour ago, we have this, Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin.... This is a career ending move for Obama for countless reasons.

Hey, Precious! Fight Your Own Fights.

News last night from The NY Times, via Riverdaughter, that Obama has run home to Big Sister to plead with her to fight his battle with Saracuda Palin for him. Oh, the poor Precious! Can’t face a tough woman on his own, huh? What’s the matter Barack? Just tell Saracuda that she’s likable enough. Call her a Sweetie and tell the media that she gets moody and bitchy periodically when she’s feeling down. That oughtta work.

These ladies seem a little... bitter? How about some video?

PUMAs for McCain.

H/t to Southern Appeal and Hot Air.

UPDATE: Link fixed above. Meanwhile, this one is not by a PUMA but cites one of Sen. Clinton's female advisors.

McCain has a strong woman? Well, the Obama campaign wants voters to know they’ve got one, too, and they’re going to deploy her to crush the moose hunting hockey mom from Alaska. In a strange twist of logic, the Obama campaign is touting the woman they passed over as the woman they need to beat the woman the other guy picked....

So, let’s get this straight. They didn’t choose her and her 18 million voters to put on the ticket. They gave the VP spot to Joe Biden. But now that Sarah Palin has arrived on the political scene, they’re promoting Hillary as the female answer to the Republican VP nominee. Awkward, to say the least. And as one female democratic strategist tells me, don’t think that Hillary hasn’t noticed.

Yeah. Not good enough to be (even considered as!) my VP; good enough to save me from that evil Palin woman!

My favorite of the Sarah Palin "facts," by the way: "Sarah Palin is the reason compasses point north."

Oaths

A Man's Oath:

The latest discussion on chivalry has generated well over a hundred comments, plus now two poetic oaths from readers. Fiacha put forward this one:

Come dance with me...

Is it evil? For I believe in that which is better than I. Willing to strive for that which I cannot show proof. To suffer from a disease called faith. You say I am evil, for I have killed, I have caused harm, and I proclaim I will do so again, for I know the cost. You say I am a monster? Come dance with me...
I tell you this my soul is not beautiful, I carry shame for that I could not stop, guilt for the harm I have caused,and despair is burdan twists my spirit, I do not blame others for those things that I cannot change. I chose action instead of letting others carry the sword. I bring fire instead living in darkness. Come dance with me...

I have the tarnished and broken armor, and sword of one who works and builds and wants to selfishly protect what others have made. I gather to feed those I love, and to support the causes I believe. I am a monster because I am willing to make hard decisions and not expect others to do it for me. For those that call me monster, come dance with me...
Let me show you what truly is in a monsters heart, and learn about the darkness.
Please; you who call me monster bring me the key... for you are willing to sacrafice another, a child, while I am willing to sacrafice myself, and you call me monster? Come dance with me...

The lock and chains I wear are those I forge myself, off love, and friends, of hope, and faith, the codes and oaths and chants of old help me bind myself, so please bring me the key if a monster you wish to be...

For when I look into the lake, the reflection of a paladin is what I wish to see...

It's not that often, these days, that you see tough men moved to poetry. I write poems on rare occasion -- I wrote one on 9/11, for example, which will be reposted soon on the anniversary. It was once a man's business, poetry, and still today if you list the greatest poets, you'll go a long way down the list before you hit the first woman (Emily Dickinson? But how far below Homer and Shakespeare does she come?). We normally think of poetry as a female endeavor today, but that is really quite new.

I though Douglas had an insightful comment as well:

I'll have to work on this, but it will take time. We take many oaths, though- Wedding vows, Pledge of Allegiance, Boy Scout Oaths, Religious Creeds (the Apostle's Creed for me, as I'm Catholic). I always make an effort, any time I'm repeating one of those- like the pledge, or the creed, that I not simply repeat it from rote, but consider what it means, and mean what I say. I only wish others would give such oaths the reverence they deserve, along with the deep consideration they require.

The idea of the personal oath is an interesting one. It reminds me of the admonishment from an instructor in Architecture school that an artist should do a self-portrait at least once a year. The introspection required is a good excercise, and the product a good record of our growth (hopefully). This strikes me as another means of self-portrait. A useful exercise indeed.

I think I agree. And with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up fast, we have a proper occasion for swearing oaths, and rededicating ourselves to certain tasks.

So: what oaths can you think of that we should consider? Every man might well write his own, but many have come before us, and had good ideas to consider. One of my favorites is from the old Boy Scout Handbook, written by Sir Baden-Powell (a knight himself, note). As far as I know, it does not have the historical accuracy that the Boy Scouts claimed for it -- Baden-Powell had a right to write a "Knight's Code" on his own, being one, but there seems to be no one before him that used it. Aside from that -- and a clumsy last verse -- it has some good qualities.

The Knight's Code

BE ALWAYS READY with your armor on, except when you are taking your rest at night.
Defend the poor, and help them that cannot defend themselves.
Do nothing to hurt or offend anyone else.
Be prepared to fight in defense of your country.
At whatever you are working, try to win honor and a name for honesty.
Never break your promise.
Maintain the honor of your country with your life.
Rather die honestly than live shamelessly.
Chivalry requireth that youth should be trained to perform the most laborious and humble offices with cheerfulness and grace; and to do good unto others.

The odd clumsiness of the last verse does not detract from the truth of it. It is true that young men in training were asked to do a great deal of humble tasks, from helping their lords dress and arm, to serving them at table. This teaches the high truth, "Respect your elders," but it also does a great deal to undercut the false pride that comes of high birth.

This is as true today as ever: Americans are of "high birth," the very highest, because we are free men and because we are citizens with a vote in the running of the most powerful government on earth; and because we are powerfully rich. Just yesterday I got a toy catalog in the mail with any number of toys for children of all ages, many priced over a hundred dollars each, some priced several hundred dollars each, and my wife remarked: "How rich we are! People have that kind of money to spend on toys for their four year old!" And more yet when he's five -- well, I don't, but obviously quite a few people have.

So, engendering pride and an ethic of service in the young is a good thing. Most of what is phrased here are good things. I think "not offending" is more an English than an American value (or necessarily a chivalrous value -- D'Artagnan was advised to fight duels at the drop of a hat).

There's the oath of enlistment. What else should we look at?

Clothing

Politics and Clothing:

National Review has a piece on a certain article of Democratic Party clothing. The t-shirt is offensive, so please bear that in mind if you choose to click the link.

So I’ve been taking note of how many of those pro-Obama, anti-Hillary... t-shirts there are on the streets, and by my count the number is higher post-primary than before.

Today, a top Obama supporter and fundraiser declared that Gov. Palin 'should be home taking care of her kids.' So apparently this is a theme for Obama supporters.

A commenter at Hot Air notes:

Shouldn’t [Sen. Obama] be in Kenya to take care of his African grandma[?] Oh, just remember his grandma can’t vote so she’s ain’t helping Micheele [sic] and Barry’s kids. And neither can Barry’s half brother who’s living on a $1 per day budget.

A noteworthy observation, that.

"All's Hair"?

"All's Hair"?

I don't know what Deborah Tanen is talking about. This kind of article is purely evenhanded.

Yes, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has a lot on her plate: a pregnant teen daughter, a son on his way to Iraq, an infant with Down syndrome and a looming national election.

But must her hair suffer?

I'm sure we all remember the last time the media took to mocking a Republican figure over hair: John Bolton.



Totally evenhanded. Uh, well, they're both Republicans, but other than that.

Awesome

Sukiyaki Western Django:

This sounds like a highly memorable movie.

A lone gunslinger rides into town, ties his horse to the hitching post, and strides down the middle of Main Street. Two rival gangs come flooding out of their respective hideouts: the White Gang on one end of the street, the Reds on the other. There's a buried treasure hidden somewhere nearby, and everyone's crazy to find it, so the lone gunman stands between the two gangs and makes them an offer.

"Witch axe gonna by it. Marvy rose? What there—if tank glut treasure, no pain."

Welcome to Sukiyaki Western Django (First Look), the English-language Western by Japanese director Takashi Miike. The all-Japanese cast, augmented by Quentin Tarantino in two cameo roles, learned their English dialogue phonetically and attack their lines as if the words were small furry animals that need to be beaten into submission. The dialogue is crammed with weird, Christopher Walken-esque line readings and bizarre placement of emphases—phrases like "You old biddy," "Dang!" and "You reckon?" become hilariously divorced from meaning.

Now, by "memorable" I don't mean to imply "good." On the other hand, the director has quite a reputation, and the Japanese have already mined this ground with some profit. For example, the famous cult film Django's trailer will explain a mystery to anyone who saw Cowboy Bebop's mushroom episode on the Cartoon Network. The anime's makers apparently felt no explanation for the reference was necessary, suggesting their audience will be familiar with the Spaghetti Westerns -- and not just the Eastwood ones.



The film Django was also apparently inspirational to the director Robert Rodriguez, whose title character in El Mariachi uses a guitar case for the same purpose as the coffin. As I imagine most of you know, Rodriguez and Tarantino have since worked together on a number of cult-movie projects (mostly bad ones); and now Tarantino is hooking up with the Japanese effort here.

That makes it dangerously likely that the film will get lost in in-jokes; but I suspect, from the description, that it will be hard to forget in any case.

Comparison in Pictures

A Comparison in Pictures...

...and a few words. Well done.

(H/t: The Castle).

Shales

Tom Shales Speaks:

It is unfortunate, he says, that the media is being falsely portrayed as biased.

It's unfortunate considering the strong showing of Palin that the Republicans have again decided to run against "the media" as well as against the Democrats, and to portray themselves as poor, abused victims of media aggression. Giuliani, who has made a second career of courting the press, referred sneeringly to "the left-wing media." Mike Huckabee spoke of "the elite media." And a poorly made film about Ronald Reagan, shown to the delegates on Tuesday night, included the outright lie that "the media hated" Reagan, when just the opposite is closer to the truth.

Reagan's time in the White House was a virtual love affair with the press, whom he charmed as infectiously as he charmed the whole country.

!!!

Does he think none of us were alive in the 1980s?

The Palin Speech

The Palin Speech:

I stayed up too late last night so that I could watch this speech, and then read some of the early commentary.



The speech was good: a sketch of an introduction, a sketch of the line of attack she intends to pursue through the election, a sketch of a biography of John McCain for those Americans who still don't know his heroic story -- of which there remain a few who are unaware, a few more that are vaguely aware, and others who are aware of the story but not the powerful details. In and of itself, it was only a sketch of each of these positions, with the details to be filled in later: but that is important too.

This is why books have introductions: to take a moment to sketch the overall picture for you, before they delve into details that you might not understand without that framework. If she can fulfill the promise of the introduction, she should have no trouble with Obama and Biden.

Let's talk a moment about the importance of our reaction to Gov. Palin. For the last few days, we've been angry at her mistreatment by the press and Obama loyalists, and especially her family's. We've defended her, fought back a bit against the attacks, and praised Sen. Obama for taking a better road.

Last night, she seemed to show that she was capable of defending herself without such help. Yet look again, not just at her but at her family. They are smiling and proud, even Bristol, who was the target of the worst of the attacks.

That comes from this: from the tremendous support that they have received, and -- especially at the convention -- has let them understand the depth of conviction with which so many Americans are ready to fight alongside them. You can see that confidence in their faces. You can hear the reason for it in the wild cheers and applause. They have reason to be smiling, they have reason to be proud.

A few days ago I said I had never before seen the press try to destroy a candidate outright in her first week. Now we have all seen them try: and the wave has burst against the rock.

Smoke 'em.

As most of the on-air cable television personalities focus on the national politics of the Republicans' nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for vice president, stories and footage of clashes between the St. Paul police and protesters at the Republican National Convention are turning up on the internet.

The Uptake, an online citizen-journalism training outfit in Minneapolis, has been at the forefront of documenting much of the unfriendly interaction between the police and the protesters.

I wouldn't really call this a clash. But look at the crusties: First you got the tubby guy on the bike yelling sieg heil, and then the idiots advance on the police. What the hell did they think was going to happen?

Lenin would have been laughing at these amateurs. This is why I have such contempt for them. They're just playing around. They're not serious, they have no idea that they look both foolish and stupid. More bored, white-bread middle class kids. They have no idea how good they've got it.

The War Against What?

The War Against What?

Howard Kurtz titles his column of today, "The War Against the Press."

I've talked to many political professionals over the years who were mad at the media, or me in particular.

But I've never quite had a conversation like the one Tuesday night...

"The press" isn't the one having a war waged against it. Not yet. The war -- as is absolutely obvious to any observer -- is being waged against Governor Palin. It is that war in which we are called to enlist in the defense of the lady, and in seeing that she and her family are treated fairly. No one asks that she not be held to the same standard as other vice presidential candidates, like for example John Edwards ("there will be a glow").

Peggy Noonan, senior American female conservative journalist, was... rather strongly moved on the subject.

Fact and data are our product, we're putting everything into reporting, that's what we're selling, interpretation is the reader's job, and think pieces are for the edit page where we put the hardy, blabby hacks.

That was a long way of saying: Dig deep into Sarah Palin, get all you can, talk to everybody, get every vote, every quote, tell us of her career and life, she may be the next vice president. But don't play games. And leave her kid alone, bitch.

Now that's something I never thought to see.

It's no service to our country that we've come so far as to have to see it.

More on Chivalry

"This Man's Path" and Creeds:

Reader 21stCenturyMike posted the following in the comments below. I thought it merited its own post.

This mans path

I am a man that wishes to walk in peace, but prepares for war. It is my way, it was my father’s way, and it is my ancestral heritage to become the warrior when called. That warrior spirit has become restless and I now seek refuge in an old code. Ancient whispers call to me and I feel the grail I seek is near. The choice is mine and I can no longer ride between the many trails that life has presented me. Now I stand before two paths as I emerged from the wilderness of time. I have sought the spirit guides of old and felt the yearning power of both paths. I am a man of the sea and soil and before me lies the time to choose. I seek the righteous path, that path of honor and loyalty my heart aches to follow. Let me walk with you for a short time on this gloomy day as I seek the wind and sky above the ground I shall walk and defend as my own. I may never have need of the comfort I perceive in chivalry, but will have the joy of knowing a knightly existence. The human condition is warmed by the hearth shared with comrades in arms and friends well defended. Chivalry shall be the foundation of my hearth and home. Come, join me, teach me, and experience my joy as I learn how to follow this primordial calling.

If any of you have similar oaths you want to take or declarations to make, let us hear them.

In the meantime, "The Lady of the Lake" has hit 99 comments at this time. I believe that's far and away a record for the Hall.

A Fine Idea!

A Fine Idea!

Rand Simberg, via InstaPundit, has a poll on debates. Which debate would you most like to see?

One of the options is "Palin v. Obama." It is currently the runaway winner at 89%.

This would be a fine way to settle a certain question about experience and qualifications. The debate should be held! The challenge should be put forward in public, and as soon as possible.

The Less Respectable

The Less Respectable:

We have seen what even some who pretend to be respectable enough for public discourse have said and done to destroy Gov. Palin's candidacy through attacks on her family, in the post just below. At First Things, they have been watching the less respectable:

Film-maker Michael Moore has apparently praised the gulf weather for its chance of disrupting the Republican convention: “This hurricane is proof that there is a god in heaven.” Another low point in politics, though possibly one that could be passed off with a laugh—a partisan irony, rather than a serious derangement.

But over on the leftist Daily Kos website, there is a post that sinks much lower—so low that it caused many of the commentators to denounce it. Which led another commentator to make this remark:

I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to destroy the Republican Party as it exists today as well as everything it stands for.

If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I see that as a cheap trade.

Go talk about nobility of purpose to those 4,000+ dead American soldiers in Iraq.

Indeed, as another comment added:

This is about Power . . . How it is obtained—and how it is wielded in ways that affects all of us.

Are you telling me that you would not use character-destroying lies to ensure a war against Iran does not occur?

Are you telling me you would not spread lies about a man’s integrity, even if it defeated a candidate who take away the right to choose?

Are you telling me you would not destroy the love a family holds for one another, even if it meant letting someone who would destroy the constitution become president?

None of use would use these tactics in a perfect world. It is not a perfect world.

It is a fallen world. We have to judge costs and benefits, not moral absolutes. I know this is the way to fanaticism and destruction—believe me I do. But, when we face opponents such as the ones we face . . . what else is there for us to do?
What choice do we have? When faced with monsters, we have to be monstrous ourselves.

That is a kind of summons: Abyssus abyssum invocat! It is an evil magic, because it has the danger of summoning exactly what it imagines. Men are monsters, and the only thing that restrains them are the chains they lay on themselves: courtesy, chivalry, honor.

It is possible to fight monsters without becoming one, but it is not easy. St. George could fight the dragon without becoming a dragon, but only by becoming a saint. If he had set out to become a worse monster instead, we would have a different legend -- and a different world.

@#R#

A New Frontier, Indeed:

I'm a little bit astonished today.

At this:

The Politico has received an opposition research file from the Alaska Democrats. You can read it in PDF here.

In the file, the Democrats have released Sarah Palin's social security number minus the last four digits. Also tied to the information are her various home addresses.

Back in 2005, Democrats used Michael Steele's social security number to get his credit record.

It is atrocious that the Democrats would not only seek out Sarah Palin's social security number, but release it in opposition research to the press.

And the Drudge Report:

NY TIMES FEATURES 3 PAGE ONE STORIES ON PALIN'S TEEN DAUGHTER IN TUESDAY EDITIONS...

McCain campaign rips NYT reporter for factual errors...

Philadelphia Columnist Warns: 'If McCain wins, look for full-fledged race war'...

At this:

SCHULTZ: The facts are this. What kind of mother is she? Is she prepared to be the vice president? Is she going to be totally focused on the issues.

MOLINARI: Wow. You got to be…

SANCHEZ: Whoa, whoa, whoa.

SCHULTZ: There are questions.

MOLINARI: I bet you don’t have a lot of women listeners there, do you? If you do, you’re not going to have them tomorrow after…

SCHULTZ: Actually, today on my show, I took only phone calls…

MOLINARI: Oh my gosh.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

SCHULTZ: from women and they are not happy with them.

MOLINARI: So every — so every person out there who has an unwanted pregnancy in their family is a result of bad mothering? Wow. That’s really bold to say that.

SCHULTZ: Don’t tell me she’s a role model.

MOLINARI: Come on…

SCHULTZ: You know, most professional gardeners have a really nice yard, you know what I mean?

SANCHEZ: You know what, she’s…

SCHULTZ: Most professional gardeners cut their own lawn.

SANCHEZ: No, I’m thinking in all of our families…

SCHULTZ: It seems to me they have trouble in their backyard.

And this:

Video: “How can a woman run a state and bring up … five children at the same time?”

I've seen rough politics before, but they really came out swinging for the fences this time. I've seen the media try to deny air to a political campaign to kill it, and I've seen them run imbalanced coverage of the two sides (rember 'the glow about them' when it was Kerry/Edwards?).

I don't believe I've seen the media try to actually destroy a candidate in the first week before this.

Governor Palin is obviously terrifying to these folks, and it's not because she's 'inexperienced' or because she has a teenage daughter. She's running for VP, and has at least as much experience as Sen. Obama -- who is running for the top spot.

I will be steadfast in defense of this lady. Neither she nor her family deserves this. Entering the public eye has come to entail some rough-and-tumble treatment, but this is new. Releasing her social security number to the public? Three (!) front page stories on her daughter in one day?

And the attacks -- when we were talking about Senator Clinton, it was things like Senator Obama saying "the claws come out." They were small, belittling but each affront from any noteworthy individual too small to point to by itself. "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down," he said, and it could have been just an odd phrasing. You couldn't prove it was an attack on her as a woman. What was disturbing was the pattern, which grew ever larger, but the individual statements were never so blatant, neither from him nor those supporters who pretended to respectable behavior.

That standard has been abandoned entirely.

As Cassandra notes, it's not just us to notice.

It’s Over. We’ve lost.

September 2nd, 2008. The 2008 Election ended this morning as a vast cadre of liberals, progressives, Democrats and like minded journalists lifted the white flag and surrendered.

We surrendered something a whole lot more valuable than our vote. We surrendered our principles. We surrendered our core values.

We surrendered all hope. We surrendered our shared dreams that our daughters would inherit a better world, a world of promise, equality, justice, fairness and honor.
We had dreamed of a world where our 17 years old daughters wouldn’t be striped naked and raped on the front page of the New York Times, above the fold.

It's a good post. The language is rough, but I gather it is rough from righteous anger. They have a right to be angry, and so do we.

G'night, Jerry.

Good Night, Jerry:

A sad headline passed across the screen today, and with it, I knew that Jerry Reed had passed from the world.

He was one of Georgia's greats, a simple man with a long laugh. I guess most people know him best -- or only -- from his role as the Snowman, the outlaw truck driver in Smoky and the Bandit. He also wrote and sang the theme song, and indeed all the songs from that movie.



He had quite a talent, though, for jazz, blues, and rockabilly, as well as country music. If you were from the South in that time, you probably saw him far more often than that once. He and Chet Atkins did a large number of pieces together. Here they are playing our state's song.



You might have heard this song during the high gas prices of the summer:



Along with the Late, Great Lewis Grizzard, Jerry Reed was a pretty good icon for what Georgia was about in the 1970s and early 1980s. It's amazing how much the place has changed in so short a time.

Thanks, Jerry. Goodnight.

Hadron

Large Hadron Rap:

Via Shari, a remarkably coherent lesson in particle physics:



I wouldn't have thought that rap music would be an ideal teaching tool, but it certainly works here.

Bristol Palin

As Regards Young Bristol Palin:

I realize that this will be a topic for discussion in coming days. In order to ensure that the Hall's courtesy is in full force, we will treat the young lady as if she were a member of the Hall.

The regular courtesies will apply, as if she were here to listen to what you have to say. You may say what you want about her philosophy, if she has one you can find; but we will be respectful of her personally, as we are of each other. The normal ethic of the Hall is: 'Be nice to your neighbors, be hell to their ideas.' So: be nice to the lady, though we may debate the issues in terms that are not personal.

Comments in violation of this rule, as usual with comment violations, will be deleted. My co-bloggers, all of whom have access to the comment code, are invited to use their discretion in this matter. I will honor their judgment in cases of dispute.

In Praise of Sen. Obama II

A Good Word for Sen. Obama:

I once lauded Senator Obama's defense of his wife; let me now laud his defense of his mother, and by extension, the daughter of Gov. Palin. He said:

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama Monday afternoon issued a strong statement to "back off" reports of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, telling reporters families — and especially children — are off limits in this presidential campaign.

Mr. Obama, campaigning here, also noted that his own mother was 18 when she gave birth to him.

"People's families are off limits," he said. "People's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Let it be noticed here that the Senator is entirely correct on this occasion. Good for him.

FoF

From A Friend of a Friend:

I don't know anyone in Alaska to ask about Gov. Palin directly; but I do have a friend who has an old friend, known to him from Vietnam and elsewhere, who has a few things to say. He sent me this today. I have redacted personal information about the sender, as indicated by notes or ellipses.

I met and spoke with Sara Palin about two years ago at our downtown Park Strip. It is a place for walking, carnivals, political outdoor things and such. She was cooking hotdogs at a fund raiser and introducing herself to the public as a Governor hopeful. She came by and said the usual "Hi, I'm Sara Palin and I am running for Governor"...and I expected her to keep on to the next person but she asked me who I was and what I did in Alaska and we ended up talking for 15 minutes about me [personal details redacted, but you should know this is a pilot. -Grim]. She is a pilot (Super Cub) I'm told although all she told me about that was that she loved flying.

As I watched her over the next six months as she successfully ran for Governor I was really impressed. I was impressed greatly even before that after she resigned a good position (Alaska Gas and Oil Regulatory Commission) because a fellow Commission member (Chair of the Alaska Republican Party) misused their office and position. He was using the FAX, computers, printing room and all to promote the Republican endeavors while in a State job. That is a huge no-no in any government employment position. She resigned and made her point and within weeks Randy Ruderich (the above bad guy) found his ass out on the street and a subsequent investigation found him guilty and he was fined $12,000. Small change actually but a giant point was made.

Next she went after our most horrible Governor ever, Governor Murkowski, and damned if she didn't beat him! All of us here in Alaska, except the Democrats, are sick of our State's corruption. That fact was shouted to the heavens after she was elected with an overwhelming point spread. After she got into office she started after corrupt legislators and with the FBI's help we've put four of them in prison, indicted six more and the "Corrupt Bastard's Club" as they arrogantly called themselves (even had hats made with CBC on the front!) suddenly found it no fun anymore. Club membership is now in the toilet!!

The current flap which has cost her a ten point loss of popularity (she's still 82%!) was over firing a popular Commissioner of Public Safety who is responsible for our Alaska State Troopers. She fired him for no STATED reason which was her prerogative as the Gov. He served entirely at her option. She and her whole family had a bad, bad experience with a rogue Trooper who was married to Sara's sister. His name is Trooper Wooten. This dimwit Trooper had threatened Sara's father (death threat!), threatened Sara ("I'll get you too"), tasered his 12 year old stepson, drove drunk in his AST cruiser, got a pass by a fellow Trooper who stopped him for erratic driving a second time while in civvies and just a host of other things not yet released to the public. He got away with it and got another pass by the Commissioner's appointed AST Trooper Internal Affairs investigator with a tiny slap on the wrist. Five days off without pay to be exact!! This maverick Trooper is still on the payroll but only just. The Union intervening saved his malcontent ass. He'll yet get his I'm sure. Incredible heat is being heaped on the Troopers. Public heat, not the Governors office. The Democrats had the audacity to appoint a obviously biased investigator, Rep. "Gunny" French (so called because he lied about being in the USMC while running for the Legislature) is a staunch liberal and under the orders of Senate President Lyda Green who hates Sara. She hates Sara because after being elected Governor Sara told the whole Legislature in one of her first meetings with them that, quote; "All of you here need some Adult Supervision!!!". Sara was seriously pissed and not afraid of anyone there.

That played wonderfully well with Alaskan's after all of our corruption and after all of her successful battles against a seriously entrenched corrupt government here in Alaska. It pissed off the whole Legislature though! They have stayed pissed but also afraid of her because of her popularity. She reminds me personally of our Alaska wolverine which will fight anything in it's path if it see's fit to do so. No respect at all for size or position....

In closing I must tell you that she is the best, most moral and most focused leader I've seen since President Reagan. I feel, really strongly, that like Alaska the rest of our country will love her within a few weeks. Put simply, she represents middle America like NO leader we've ever had.

I think McCain made a totally brilliant move in choosing her. She's a maverick who is probably tougher and more focused than McCain himself....and she won't be a total "Yes Man" or more appropriately, woman. McCain will love her.

In 2012 she will be President.

My best to all of you in the hurricane belt....

Semper Fi

This is the first candidate we've had in the race to whom I've felt any personal sympathy. I was supporting the McCain ticket merely because it was the least-bad option; but I think I genuinely like this governor.

The Lady of the Lake

The Lady of the Lake:

This post is to follow upon this series from April, on how the ethics of chivalry may help repair our own culture's division between men and women.

A culture has powerful images, symbols that the people do not fully understand, may not fully be aware of knowing: but they are there, and echo in our lives. I wrote about the Paladin while I was in Iraq, and again a few weeks later. These were legends from Charlemagne and Arthur, that modern men were living out. And in a sense they knew it, as you can see from the name they chose for the artillery and the banner that marks Camp Slayer: but in a sense it travels below consciousness, as you can see from the heraldry that ties Sir Lancelot to the 3rd Division.

I'm going to quote a section from The Return of King Arthur: The Legend Through Victorian Eyes by Debra N. Mancoff. It is a beautiful book available here; though many of the paintings are also reproduced in this book by David Day, which is available used for less than two dollars.

The commentary, however, is Dr. Mancoff's.

In the early hours of the morning of 20 June 1837, William IV died in his bed in Windsor Castle. The lord chamberlain and the royal physician were dispatched to Kensington Palace in London, to convey the grave news to the duke Kent's widow, whose daughter, Alexandrina Victoria, was the next in the line of succession. Only nineteen years old, Princess Victoria was the new queen. She had been sleeping in her mother's bedchamber, a habit maintained from childhood, but when she received emissaries from Windsor she received them alone.

...

[H]er diminutive figure, swathed in the Parliament Robes of crimson velvet, trimmed with ermine and embellished with golden lace and tasseled cords, gave the crowds pause.... [She] stirred compassion as well as loyalty in the hearts of her subjects. As small as she was, she was ready to serve... The gentlemen knights of England now had their fair lady, and the new reign channeled romantic energy into practical service.

This is the beginning of the story of how Victorian England produced not only the greatest power ever known by the British Empire, but also a renaissance in art reviving one of the main themes of Medieval literature: the Arthurian epic. The story is fascinating and important in its own right, but I wish only to follow her this far for now.

The power of the thing lies in this phrase: "...their fair lady, and the new reign channeled romantic energy into practical service." It happens that the lady was young, and seemed to need protection; but the channeling of romantic love into practical service has a deep history in the West, one where often -- usually! -- the lady was more powerful than the knight offering his service. Maurice Keen, in Chivalry, explained how the Medieval ethic of courtly love allowed women to enter the power structure. A knight could be loyal to his lord in friendship, as brothers in arms, but this ethic allowed him to base his loyalty to his lady on that strongest foundation: love.

Her acceptance of her admirer's love (which meant her acceptance of his amorous service, not admission to her bed) was the laisser passer into the rich, secure world of the court of which she was mistress. The courtly literature of the troubadours encapsulated thus an amorous ethic of service to a lady which was essentially compatible to the ethic of faithful service to a lord: indeed, it borrowed not a little of the vocabulary from the legal vocabulary of lordship, fealty, and service.... Thus in courtly love female approbation offered a new, secular, and psychologically very powerful sanction to the secular conventions of the code of courtly virtue and martial honour. As Wolfram von Eschenbach's Willeham declared, in a great eve-of-battle speech to his knights, 'there are two rewards that await us, heaven and the recognition of noble women.'

The two were often combined in the Arthurian cycle, where the lady is sometimes a messenger of God as well as a lady of power -- whether courtly or, as these are romances, sorcerous. To continue with Dr. Keen (p. 81):

The right perspective on it is given in the wonderful passage in the romance of Lancelot in which the Lady of the Lake instructs her charge in the duties of knighthood and the significance of the knight's arms. All that she has to say is permeated with religious significance and symbolism.... But we have to remember too who is giving these instructions to young Lancelot -- a great lady of regal family and endowed with magical powers, not a priest.

Thus too, in Edmund Spenser's great epic poem, the Red Cross Knight -- none other than Saint George! -- is sworn to knight's service to the poem's namesake: The Faerie Queene. He is guided by a lady, Una, who keeps him on the right path and recovers him to it when he is lost. The concept of love and womankind and faith are so deeply intertwined by this point, which is less Medieval than Early Modern, that the audience is not at all bothered that Una is a symbol for the Anglican Church, and that the false lady competing for St. George's love is a symbol of a different Church (the Roman Catholic one, given the politics of the day), and that the marriage St. George gains to Una is therefore symbolic of eternal love through chastity rather than the marital release our own time would insist upon.

The key things that matter are these: the lady is noble of spirit; she, like the Lady of the Lake or Queen Victoria, has the power to bestow arms, or to approve of their use in her defense and interests; she is morally worthy of service; and she calls men to channel their feelings of admiration for her, even love for her, into practical service. Such love thus expressed is no danger to marriages -- rather, it reinforced feudal bonds by giving a useful channel to the sexual tension that might otherwise exist, and by giving the knights a way to serve the lady with as much intensity of feeling as they served their lord.

It also opened the way for women to occupy genuine positions of power in the Middle Ages, for just this reason: it diffused the tension. Even as late as Elizabeth I, a queen could be loved by many knights, though none of them were her king.

The channeling of romantic love into service takes advantage of the natural impulse of men to love more than one woman, without violating the strictures against adultery. Indeed, the romances are clear on one thing: the destructive nature of adultery, when even the greatest knights and noblest ladies should choose to give themselves to it. Arthur's infidelity leads to the birth of Modred, who slays him; Lancelot and Guinevere's, to the fall of Camelot.

We received this unconsciously, but powerfully. It is the ethic at work in Shane. He rides in as the cowboy version of a knight errant, and falls in love with the lady of the homestead. He renders what is nothing less than knight service against the raubritter, and then -- conscious that he cannot keep his love in proper limits, and feeling loyalty to the lord of the homestead as strongly as his love for his lady -- he rides off into the wilderness. Replace the hat and Colt with a sword and lance, and it could have been written in the 1400s.

For another such lady, the gentlemen of England raised their nation to heights even its proud history had not known before. Such an ethic of love and service may allow us to renew our society's connection between men and women, which we have seen strained: at least, for those who hear the call of these ancient things.

USCGE on Palin

Palin and Foreign Policy:

One of the groups I deal with occasionally is the US Center for Global Engagement, a nonpartisan center that shares my interest in ensuring that US civilian agencies are able to perform at the same level as DOD in foreign policy. They support SECDEF Gates' call, which originated with LTG Chiarelli's call, for a civilian expeditionary force that can support US military COIN operations -- or that can serve as the lead in some cases, with the military supporting them.

You've probably read my citations of them several times at BlackFive, so I won't go back through the whole thing. I got a letter from them today, however, which mentioned that they had done a backgrounder on Gov. Palin in response to her selection as a VP nominee.

You can read it for yourself; but it certainly presents a different picture than what we've seen so far.

Heh

"Maybe I Didn't Show You The Right Picture"



When these guys stick to their meat-and-potatoes issue of pretending to be authentic rednecks, they are really funny.

Oh, and here is another guy who -- just every once in a while -- knocks one clean out of the park.

Speak to me, O Muse, of this resourceful man
who strides so boldly upon the golden shrine at Invescos,
Between Ionic plywood columns, to the kleig light altar.
Fair Obamacles, favored of the gods, ascends to Olympus
Amidst lusty tributes and the strumming lyres of Media...

Just that one line there at the end justifies the whole project, for me.

Anyway, I hope you're having a fine Labor Day Weekend.

Curious

Now That's Curious:

I see via InstaPundit that there's some dirty-trickery at work from the Obama campaign. It reports a site that claims Palin is in favor of gay marriage.

Interesting. There’s nothing else on the page. This sure looks like the work of the dastardly right-wing anti-gay attack machine, doesn’t it?

But look who’s really behind this.

In the Linux console, if you enter the following commands, you can learn the secrets of a political dirty trick. First, look up the host of ‘sarahpalingayrights.com’ to get the site’s IP address.

host sarahpalingayrights.com
sarahpalingayrights.com has address 74.208.74.232

Then use the same command to look up the domain name pointer of that IP address.

host 74.208.74.232
232.74.208.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer obamadefense.com

Well, well. “Obamadefense.com,” eh?

And what happens if you enter obamadefense.com on your browser’s address line?

Why, you’re redirected to none other than FightTheSmears.com, the official Barack Obama site that’s supposed to be defending him against smears.

Looks like they may have a second purpose: to generate a few smears of their own.

Sloppy mistake, that.

What I find most interesting, though, is that the Obama campaign thinks it has more to gain by spreading that rumor than by spreading the truth. Palin is, as I gather from what I've read about her in the last day or so, actually strongly opposed to gay marriage (as are most Americans) but also to civil partnerships (which most Americans support). Obama himself took that very position in his recent speech: anti-marriage, pro-unions.

So why is it that his campaign is going to the trouble (and risk!) of running this attack, instead of just pointing out the truth? It's an odd thing to do, when they could presumably benefit with swing voters more by simply telling the truth.

ClintonDems2

Another Letter from the ClintonDems:

The Clinton Democrats have sent another letter. I assume that most of you are either Republicans, or non-Clinton Democrats, so you probably didn't get the letter. It's interesting reading, so I'll post it here.

Dear Clinton Dem, Hillary touched us all so much and, by example, showed us to look into ourselves and find a strength we never knew we had. We found the power of our voice, and the power of our votes. The suffragetes would be proud!

The selection of Senator Palin by McCain is bittersweet. Hillary was "The One". The choice of Palin just puts an exclamation point on the failures of the democratic party this election, and serves to highlight the ego-driven decision Barack Obama made to slight Hillary Clinton as his VP Choice. Had he joined forces with her right after the primaries, we may be looking at a whole different landscape, but the choice of Palin has irreversibly changed the scenery. John McCain put his ego aside and did what was best for his party -- and possibly his country.

Palin's policies are very different than some of ours, but she is a woman and a mother that has endured many of the same challenges we face every day. She has dealt with the same sexism and misogyny that Hillary has been pummeled with, and now we see Democrats in power treating Sarah much the same way they treated Hillary.

I am embarrased by the mean, small minded people that are the top of leadership in the so-called democratic party. The party of inclusion has become the party of exclusion and ridicule. Who has not been insulted by this campaign? Women have been abused, lower-income people (bitter, clinging to their guns & religion), we've been called "low-information voters", "uneducated", and "hags". African Americans that don't worship Obama are "Uncle Toms". Those that believe the right to privacy were sold down the river on FISA. "Freedom Cages" were built to prevent free speech. All true democrats were cheated by the handling of Michigan and Florida and the suppression of a free and fair roll call vote for president at the convention. Hillary supporters were insulted endlessly and still.

The party has lost it's way just as the Republican party seems to be reforming. It will be a difficult decision for Hillary supporters this year. Whoever you decide to vote for, please stay with us and help move the conversation forward. We are democracy. We are the one's we've been waiting for -- whoever we choose to vote for.

That was followed by a call for activism, and a link to this tribute video:



It's fairly obvious that, whoever else wins out this year, Sen. Clinton has done remarkably well for someone who lost. Though she won't be President -- not soon, at least -- she has bought herself a place at the center of the Party for years to come.

In Memoriam

In Memoriam:

Doc Russia's maternal grandfather has passed, and Doc has written a moving eulogy. I know, now, that all of you have interesting life stories: here was another man who did. You may wish to read of him, and express your condolences to our friend at this time.

The new Frontier.

DENVER - John McCain tapped little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate on Friday in a startling selection on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Holy Shiat, he did it. I didn't think he'd do it.

She's from Alaska, she hunts, her husband is a Eskimo, they have 5 kids---hell, she's a pioneer woman.

This is going to be an even more wild election than it already has been.

Ursa Major

Ursa Major:

An interesting symbolic aspect of Sen. McCain's choice for VP: the flag of Alaska has a constellation on it, normally called The Big Dipper, which points to the North Star.



The North Star is properly called Polaris, however; and the Big Dipper is properly Ursa Major, "the Big Bear," with the Latin taking the feminine form.

Whether or not Gov. Palin will live up to that symbolism remains to be seen. I note it now merely for interest's sake.

What Do You Want for a Daughter?

What Does a Father Want For His Daughter?

Ask John Wayne:



They take that oath a little more often, these days. But I don't think that would change how he felt one bit.

Rule 303.

Typically, nobody gets away with that in the US Army. Not that I expect the army to get any credit for policing its own, as it has done several times before in this conflict.

Fear

Fear:

I see that the Obama campaign has decided to attack a writer from National Review. His offense?

...the campaign's "Action Wire" has been waging large-scale campaigns against critics. That includes tens of thousands of e-mails to television stations running Harold Simmons' Bill Ayers ad, and to their advertisers — including a list of major automobile and telecommunications companies.

And tonight, the campaign launched a more specific campaign: an effort to disrupt the appearance by a writer for National Review, Stanley Kurtz, on a Chicago radio program. Kurtz has been writing about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, and has suggested that papers housed at the University of Illinois at Chicago would reveal new details of that relationship.

...

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," says the email, which picks up a form of pressure on the press pioneered by conservative talk radio hosts and activists in the 1990s, and since adopted by Media Matters and other liberal groups.

"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies," it continues.

The campaign mentions, and objects to, one specific claim of Kurtz's, for which I've never seen hard evidence:

Just last night on Fox News, Kurtz drastically exaggerated Barack's connection with Ayers by claiming Ayers had recruited Barack to the board of the Annenberg Challenge. That is completely false and has been disproved in numerous press accounts.

So: they don't dispute that they served on the board together? They don't dispute that the relationship was far deeper than Obama acknowledged in his 'just a guy who lives in my neighborhood' remarks? Yet Stanley Kurtz is a "slimy character assassin" because he says that Ayers recruited Obama onto the board of the Challenge? But that is the point at which Obama could reasonably claim ignorance of Ayers' history. That's no assassination: even if that claim were true, it wouldn't be damning, and if it's not true, it's not a heavy blow.

This campaign is deeply sensitive to the Ayers situation. They've actually tried to get the Justice Department to investigate a group running an ad about it, even though they apparently have no factual disputes with the ad.

They're afraid of this. Why? It's been in the public sphere for months.

At the Last

At The Last...

They decided not to count any of the votes.

Two Essays

Two Essays:

I would like to ask you to take time to read two modestly long pieces. I realize this is quite an imposition from a blogger, but there are some important issues here that I'd like to talk about; and as I look over the pieces to sort out how to approach it, I realize that we just really need the whole of them each.

The first one is by Connie du Toit, where she draws on her world travels to question some basic assumptions about whether American-style freedom is right for the world.

The second is by the historian John Lewis Gaddis, calling for America to rededicate herself to ending tyranny.

The second piece is the more important of the two if you have only a little while to devote to it (no offense to Mrs. du Toit, who has written a thoughtful and deeply-felt piece). If you can read them both together, however, I think you'll profit from it.

When you've done the reading you can afford, let's talk about the issues raised.

Frank Racism

Unions for McCain:

Dad29 says that there is some trouble among the unions for Sen. Obama:

A prominent union leader on Tuesday blamed racism for Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) failure to build a big lead over GOP rival Sen. John McCain.

Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said many workers are considering voting for McCain (R-Ariz.) because of his military service and status as a hero of the Vietnam War.

AFSCME is one of the strongest of the Democratic Party's support bases, because it's about public sector unions. Public sector unions are all about bigger government, so the establishment of new massive Federal bureaucracies to oversee health care or "a civilian national security corps" are right up their alley. If they're having trouble with the rank and file in AFSCME, they've got trouble indeed.

The early part of the story suggests that it's trouble that is coming from the fact that these blue collar gentlemen admire McCain -- and indeed, the unions draw heavily from veterans. Grim's Hall has long supported Helmets to Hardhats, which assists veterans in finding such jobs. It's not really shocking that veterans admire McCain and value the kind of leadership he showed during his military career.

However, "our members think McCain is just a really admirable guy" is not a sentiment that AFSCME's leadership can allow to go unanswered. McEntee blames his membership for being, well, racists:

McEntee said several union members had approached him, saying they could not vote for Obama because of his race. He also said some local union presidents have failed to support Obama out of fear.

“There are some local union presidents that are afraid — yes, that’s the word, afraid — to hand out literature for Barack Obama,” said McEntee.

Afraid? To say, "The boys downtown say we have to hand this stuff out"? Here's the question: are the union presidents claiming fear in order to resist HQ's demands that they hand out literature when they don't support Obama? Or is it possible that there really is such massive resistance to the guy that a union president would really be afraid to do it?

Hatred & Humor

Hatred & Humor in Gender Relations:

A couple of conservative ladies, Rachael Lucas and Cassy Fiano (not our own Cassidy), have been talking about a piece printed in Oprah's magazine. The piece is another of the genre I would describe as "wives mocking their husbands in major publications." There are a number of good reasons to disdain the trend, and I won't add to what the ladies have to say on the subject.

On the other hand, I would like to draw a distinction between such pieces and the pieces of crockery that Ms. Lucas was mocking last week. The two things are similar, but there is a signal difference between them: one is an example of mocking a particular person as an expression of anger, while the other is mocking a class of people as an expression of humor.

Lucas says that you couldn't replace "men" in the insults with any other group of people without raising an uproar. That's not quite true, though: there is one other group that could fit in the space, which is women. I can't count the number of bumperstickers I've seen for sale that said something to the effect of: "I miss my ex-wife; but my aim is getting better," or "My wife said to give up fishing or she'd leave; I sure will miss her." (There was a successful country music song about the last one.)

Moreover, I think this kind of humor is broadly good and healthy. As long as it remains nonspecific -- as long as you aren't using it to hurt someone in particular -- it is a useful way of dealing with the inevitable tensions between the sexes.

The fact that such tension exists is not evidence of hatred. It's normal for humankind. The Greeks confined women out of public life to keep such tensions down in an otherwise robust democracy. The Medievals had a number of mechanisms for resolving the tension, at least one of which -- the courtly love concept -- really needs another look from scholars, who have misread it as adulterous.

I think I can honestly state that I am a friend to women, and both respect and honor women. I still enjoy humor of this sort -- and I enjoy it regardless of which sex is being mocked. One of my favorite examples is a song by The Merry Wives of Windsor:

Oh, how can I say that I'll miss him,
If he won't oblige me and leave?
If he'd do what was right,
He would die in a fight --
If he loved me at all, he would die in a brawl --
I pray to the Lord that he'll fall on his sword! --
And I'll sing of sadness and grief!

Or, if you would like, consider this collection of bawdy songs. Close to the front of the podcast are a pair of these songs: "Beer is Better than Women" by Axel the Sot, and "The Cucumber Song" (which I will not quote at all -- if you want the lyrics, you'll have to dig them out yourself) by Iris and Rose-Wild and Thorny. Neither of them are at all clean, and if you took the lyrics at face value, they'd both qualify as "hate speech."

But they're not hate speech. When Axel the Sot is singing the chorus with the audience, and says, "Now, just the ladies!" everyone -- man and woman -- bursts out laughing.

It's inevitable that human sexuality produces irrational tensions in our lives that we have to deal with some way. Humor is one of the better ways.

Certainly, there are rules. It should never be used to hurt or to mock any particular person, but "men" and "women" are both fair targets. That means you shouldn't mock a man or a woman, but you can mock "wives" or "ex-wives" or "husbands."

We do have to remember to keep it in its proper setting. It may be fit only for the tavern and never for the office; for private play among friends, or for obviously over-the-top shows like the old Married with Children.

It's not hate speech, though, and it's not bad. In its proper place, resolving these tensions is part of keeping life merry.

BWAHAHAAHAHA!

The Best Convention Ever:

I have never enjoyed a political convention as much as I've been enjoying this one in Denver. Wizard-hat (fails) to levitate the Denver Mint! Fellow activists, chanting "Love, Peace, Justice," turn into a lynch mob! Obama to accept from a mini-Greek temple! Fireworks! Hillary Clinton fans fighting with Obama fans on the floor! Bill Clinton "hypothetically" asking why you'd vote for someone who can't deliver because of inexperience! Hillary herself giving a test-run speech that doesn't name Obama!

And that's not even to mention good old Charlie Wilson:

"We should be led by Osama bin Laden," he said, then quickly corrected himself. "I mean Obama and Biden."

Honestly, this is the best convention anyone has ever had. The Republicans don't have a chance of topping this.

UPDATE: I'm staying up to watch Sen. Clinton. The "no Obama" practice speech was obviously just to mess with him.

She isn't much of a speaker, but tends to boilerplate delivered as boilerplate. Only one thing she said got my attention, really, aside from her underground railway metaphor: "Putin in Georgia, Iran in Iraq"? This is the issue she wants to raise? Getting Iran out of Iraq? Getting Putin out of Georgia? Obama would do that how? All the rest she says about Iraq, or foreign policy, is about getting the troops home so we can provide them with health care.

I will say this, though: the lady sure can hit when she wants to. Her "my mother / my daughter / Harriet Tubman" piece was the best I've ever seen her. She's tough. The Democrats will miss her after tonight.

Totten in Georgia

Michael Totten in Georgia:

I met Michael Totten in Iraq. He's a good guy, an adventurer who has wandered across Turkey into Kurdistan, through Lebanon, and now is traveling in the Republic of Georgia. He has a report on the recent conflict.

Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

Read the whole thing. It's possible that Totten is being fed a line by his hosts: but having met him, I'd expect him to see through it if such a thing were attempted.

16 Pints

Sixteen Pints and Seventy Percent:

So you have a couple acres, hate to mow, and are looking to cut down your food expenses somewhat? Buy a cow -- a minicow.

For between £200 and £2,000, people can buy a cow that stands no taller than a large German shepherd dog, gives 16 pints of milk a day that can be drunk unpasteurised, keeps the grass “mown” and will be a family pet for years before ending up in the freezer.

The Dexter, a mountain breed from Ireland, is perfect for cattle-keeping on a small scale, but other breeds are being artificially created to compete with it, including the Mini-Hereford and the Lowline Angus, which has been developed by the Australian government to stand no more than 39in high but produce 70% of the steak of a cow twice its size.

Hmm...

Social Gathering

Céilidh:

In one of the posts below, I asked Elise to tell us a bit about herself -- she's become a regular in our discussions only recently, and so we don't know her as well as many of us know each other.

It occurs to me, however, that she doesn't know all of us either; and there are some of you who read the page regularly but only occasionally comment, who might want a chance just to say hello.

So: this post is just for everyone to take a moment in the comments and post a brief introduction. You can tell us whatever you like, and leave out whatever you like -- but feel welcome to tell us all you want about yourself, your upbringing, your philosophy and your religious sentiment if you like, major influences, whatever comes to mind.

No one has to do so, of course; but I expect it might be interesting.

For Good October Ale

For Good October Ale:

August, of course, is the eighth month -- and so "October" beer is due starting about now. It's been a Grim's Hall tradition to celebrate the coming of Good October almost since our founding. Here is the 2004 post, for example.

In my mind, the coming of October beer always brings to mind the tales of Robin Hood, and merry making in the greenwood. We had a fine hike to the headwaters of the Amicalola today, and a feast roasted over a fire of hardwood. Here is a traditional ballad recalling the forest outlaws of those days, "The Lincolnshire Poacher."

Well, I was bound apprentice in famous Lincolnshire
And well I served my master for more than seven years
Till I took upon poaching, as you shall quickly hear
Oh, 'tis my delight on a shiny night in the season of the year.

As me and my companions was setting out a snare
'Twas then we spied the gamekeeper, for him we didn't care
For we can wrestle and fight, my boys, and jump from anywhere
Oh, 'tis my delight on a shiny night in the season of the year.

As me and my companions was setting four or five
And taking them all up again, we caught a hare alive
We caught a hare alive, my boys, and homeward we did steer
Oh, 'tis my delight on a shiny night in the season of the year.

We threw him over my shoulder, boys, and then we trudged home
We took him to a neighbour's house and sold him for a crown
We sold him for a crown, my boys, but I dare not tell you where
Oh, 'tis my delight on a shiny night in the season of the year.

Good luck to every gentleman that lives in Lincolnshire
Good luck to every poacher that wants to sell a hare
Bad luck to every gamekeeper that will not sell his deer
Oh, 'tis my delight on a shiny night in the season of the year.

I trust you're a merry folk tonight; and tomorrow we'll be sober, as the song says.

By the way: the song is not of purely academic interest. The tune can be found here, starting at 0:23.



You might want to read through the comments of this, and other allied videos. It's a little piece of... arcana.

That Won't Do

That Won't Do:

I almost never write about abortion. In reference to Peggy Noonan's column of today, though, I think I have to do so this once.

The Rick Warren debate mattered. Why? It took place at exactly the moment America was starting to pay attention. This is what it looked like by the end of the night: Mr. McCain, normal. Mr. Obama, not normal. You've seen this discussed elsewhere. Mr. McCain was direct and clear, Mr. Obama both more careful and more scattered. But on abortion in particular, Mr. McCain seemed old-time conservative, which is something we all understand, whether we like such a stance or not, and Mr. Obama seemed either radical or dodgy. He is "in favor . . . of limits" on late-term abortions, though some would consider those limits "inadequate." (In the past week much legal parsing on emanations of penumbras as to the viability of Roe v. Wade followed.)

As I watched I thought: How about "Let the baby live"? Don't parse it. Just "Let the baby live."

That won't do. You can't "let" a baby live. A baby will not live if you do not care for it. At that moment -- the one being discussed, when a baby has survived an abortion attempt and is now delivered and alive -- we must make a decision. We must accept the child into the human community and care for it, or let the baby die.



Which is it, Senator? That was the question: that is what he is trying to talk around. But there is no talking around it. You care for the child, or you choose to let the baby die.

The Romans did. The Vikings did. And so do we.

If that is what you want, swear to it.

Early

Isn't It Still Early For This?

Slate Magazine: "Racism is the only reason Obama might lose."

I suppose we all knew this was coming, but somehow, I thought we might get a little closer to November before all opposition to Obama was officially racist.