Economics

Dear Mr. Obama, II:

I don't know if this guy is a vet like in the original, but the fellow's got the concept down.



H/t: Miss Ladybug.

I made what was essentially this point in my first BlackFive piece, "Red State, Blue Collar." I included a link to that in my recent "Cowboys and Liberals" piece at Winds of Change, and got this insightful comment:

The barter arrangement you described in your Blackfive post also has one issue that nobody discussed, but that any bureaucrat would spot in their sleep: there's a bunch of imputed taxes and regulations being avoided and bypassed by such arrangements.

In a fully taxed and regulated world, the work you did for your landlord as imputed rent payment would have to be declared as self-employment income, subject to 15.7% self-employment tax as well as ordinary income tax. There may also be sales taxes involved, as well as numerous worksite regulations and insurance issues and even possible "without-a-license" violations, depending on the type of work you did.

He goes on from there to indicate how common such 'off books' arrangements are. The point is well taken, though: taxes are already strangling the economy. Regulations are already strangling initiative. Setting out to start up a business is an act of tremendous risk, but now it is also probably a felony -- that is, the regulations with prison time as a remedy have expanded so fast, you are likely committing a serious crime without knowing it.

Indeed, even if you hire a lawyer to advise you and do your best not to commit a crime, you may well be committing one. Even the lawyers can't keep up with all the new regulations and laws. The famous legal saying is, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but that depends on the law being something a reasonable person can expect to know. We've passed that point, and entered territory where the law changes so quickly and at such depth that good faith efforts are not enough to ensure that you don't violate some regulation.

That seems to me to be a very serious problem. It is surely one that acts as a brake on economic growth, both by increasing the setup costs for a business (those good-faith legal efforts) and by looping up at least some of these businesses in court. (Criminal court!)

Several of you have pointed to the entitlements collapse as a more serious economic problem than anything else. I agree, but the government doesn't. Last year, we talked about how very serious it might be, and the government's attitude:

The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

...

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities.

So why don't we change to the corporate-style accounting method?

The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them.

Right.

They're already telling you that they have no intention of making these payments. They are "not true liabilities." The government can "cancel or cut them."

Economics 101? The whole government needs that lesson.

UPDATE:

Obama has received almost $400,000 from Lehman employees in his three-plus years in the Senate. McCain has gotten less than $150,000 from them since 1989. Certainly both have benefited from Lehman’s largess, and simply taking donations doesn’t prove any kind of corruption. But a hundred k a year certainly cuts into Obama’s message of “change.” “Hope,” too.

In fact, of the nearly three million dollars Lehman employees and PAC distributed in the last 19 years, just two senators — Obama and Clinton — received more than a quarter of the total, split nearly evenly. McCain got about five percent.

Grim's Buffalo Chili

[UPDATE from 2023: This is an early chili made in the manner that my father preferred. He was from Tennessee, somewhere between the Texas Red chili tradition and the midwestern 'Cincinatti' chili traditions. Appalachia is also poor country, so this version has a lot of beans which are cheaper protein than meat; Texas chili doesn't use beans because beef was plentiful there. My later chili recipes use fewer or no beans, and not canned ingredients as a rule. -Grim]

Cassidy, often inspitorial in her posts, has a piece on comfort food. This convinces me to share my recipe for chili. You may want to serve this with tamales or Southern style cornbread; or just by itself. It does go well with beer. Start with a double-fistful of fresh-chopped jalapenos (or hotter, if you prefer). Do not core and seed them first: include the whole pepper except the stem. In a hot dutch oven or black-iron pan of at least several quarts' size, sautee these in beer (preferably Murphy's Irish Stout; Guinness will also do; failing that, any beer). Use no more than half a pint of the beer, reserving the rest for the cook. Once it is simmering, add one pound ground buffalo. Lean ground beef can be substituted. Once this is browned, and you have cut it apart into small chunks while stirring it, add enough chili powder* to make the whole thing a threatening color, much darker than the chili you want to eat (as you expect to add more ingredients, which will lighten it). Add three freshly chopped tomatoes (or one can of minced tomatoes, or one can of tomato sauce) once the peppers begin to soften. At the same time, add one chopped medium red onion, as much chopped cilantro as you expect to want, and simmer more. Add as much minced garlic as you expect to want. At last, add two normal-sized cans each light red kidney beans and Bush's best chili beans; or one large can each. Salt to taste, but you may not need much b/c of the canned beans. If you taste it and it doesn't have enough chili powder, add more; you can also add dried, ground ancho or chipotle peper at this stage if you desire. Allow to cook through. It'll be better tomorrow, but good enough tonight. Finish with shredded cheddar, diced onions, and jalapenos. Serve with cornbread, over tamales, or straight up. Serve with habenero pepper sauce, since this is a toned-down version of the chili suitable for the whole family. If your wife whines about her mouth being on fire "after just the first bite!", you've done it correctly. Her response should look something like this: When you get there, you're done. Add the pepper sauce to your own, and eat with good cheer.

* Update from 2024: In later years I learned that chili powder is entirely inferior to using whole dried chiles. I learned chili from Dad, who was from Tennessee although we had family in Texas. I was greatly surprised to learn how much difference it makes to use whole dried chilies that you roast in black iron until shiny, boil until soft, and then puree with the other spices and herbs, tomatoes and a little fresh water (not the water the chiles were boiled in, which can make things bitter). Try it that way instead, and it's at least twice the chili that the chili powder version is.

Op Rabbit

Operation Rabbit:

Sarah Palin v. the Coyote, via Iowahawk.

Good afternoon, madam. Allow me to introduce myself: my name is Wile E. Reporter, investigative correspondent for an international network news gathering organization. No doubt you may have seen my award-winning coverage, assuming your igloo is equipped with a satellite dish. No, I am not selling anything nor am I working my way through college, so let's get down to cases.

You are a Republican candidate, and I am going to eat you alive. Now don't try to get away! I am more educated, more cunning, faster, and larger than you are... and I'm a genius. In fact, I have not one, but two diplomas from the Acme Correspondence School of Journalism. And you? Why, you could hardly pass the entrance examinations to kindergarten, let alone the vice presidency of a major western democracy....

If this leaves you nostalgic, here's what you're looking for:

Fundamentals

Fundamentals:

Are the "fundamentals of our economy sound"? That's the question of the day, and it's a fairly interesting one. It starts with this question: just what are the fundamentals of the economy?

If you come up with the banking system, the housing sector, and the strength or weakness of the dollar, then the fundamentals are not looking very good. I think a lot of people look at those as being what "economics" are all about, and from that perspective, the economy looks shaky.

Yet if you look at the infrastructure of the country, the availability of capital for new ventures (even during a financial crisis!), the education of the population, and the availability of raw materials, the fundamentals are not just sound. They are rock solid.

To some degree this is the difference between a short and long term approach. Are you asking, "Is it possible that we will have a quarter or three of negative growth?" Or are you asking, "Is the economy going to survive and grow in the long term?"

What we have going on right now is the destruction of a massive amount of fairy gold. This happens from time to time: the banking sector builds up a vast store of imaginary wealth, and then it goes away. This has repercussions throughout the real economy, and people's real lives, but those arise mostly within the human mind: we believe that some massive amount of wealth has been created and destroyed, and so we act as if it has, and so the economy contracts.

In fact, the money never really existed at all. This is like housing bubble: is your house worth a million dollars? It is if someone will pay you that for it: that is, it is because they believe it is. But is it really? How much labor went into it? What did the materials cost? What is the land worth, in terms of expected revenue from where you are located v. the place where you want to do business?

There is a thinker in statistics for whom I have a great deal of sympathy, because he and I both tilt at windmills. His is financial markets, and mine is psychology, and the two sectors make up the great bedrock of modern American and European life. Both sectors are all about speculation, and he and I keep trying to make the same point: the methodology that underlies the whole field is worthless.

His name is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, and I've mentioned him several times before. This is a good occasion, though, to focus on what he's trying to tell you about the limits of human knowledge and understanding.

I start with my old crusade against "quants" (people like me who do mathematical work in finance), economists, and bank risk managers, my prime perpetrators of iatrogenic risks (the healer killing the patient). Why iatrogenic risks? Because, not only have economists been unable to prove that their models work, but no one managed to prove that the use of a model that does not work is neutral, that it does not increase blind risk taking, hence the accumulation of hidden risks.

Figure 1 My classical metaphor: A Turkey is fed for a 1000 days—every days confirms to its statistical department that the human race cares about its welfare "with increased statistical significance". On the 1001st day, the turkey has a surprise.

Figure 2 The graph above shows the fate of close to 1000 financial institutions (includes busts such as FNMA, Bear Stearns, Northern Rock, Lehman Brothers, etc.). The banking system (betting AGAINST rare events) just lost > 1 Trillion dollars (so far) on a single error, more than was ever earned in the history of banking. Yet bankers kept their previous bonuses and it looks like citizens have to foot the bills. And one Professor Ben Bernanke pronounced right before the blowup that we live in an era of stability and "great moderation" (he is now piloting a plane and we all are passengers on it).

Readers will recognize this form of argument, because it's just the one I field against psychology: the models cannot be proven and they cannot be disproven. They are not therefore neutral, though, because they leave people with the belief that they may be able to know (and control!) things that they really can have no certain knowledge of, and no control over. You can't even know if the model is correct.

Now you would think that people would buy my arguments about lack of knowledge and accept unpredictability. But many kept asking me "now that you say that our measures are wrong, do you have anything better?"

I used to give the same mathematical finance lectures for both graduate students and practitioners before giving up on academic students and grade-seekers. Students cannot understand the value of "this is what we don't know"—they think it is not information, that they are learning nothing. Practitioners on the other hand value it immensely. Likewise with statisticians: I never had a disagreement with statisticians (who build the field)—only with users of statistical methods.

Spyros Makridakis and I are editors of a special issue of a decision science journal, The International Journal of Forecasting. The issue is about "What to do in an environment of low predictability". We received tons of papers, but guess what? Very few addressed the point: they mostly focused on showing us that they predict better (on paper). This convinced me to engage in my new project: "how to live in a world we don't understand".

That is a noble project, and he has much to say about it. I suppose, in a very real sense, it is also the subject of much of my own work in philosophy rather than statistics.

Are the fundamentals of the economy sound? How would you know? What are they, really? And who are the experts you can trust to help you learn, the ones who really know? The same ones who just ran it up on the rocks?

Toast to Petraeus

Ladies and Gentlemen, Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno:

The TOA of MNF-I has occurred, with General Odierno taking command. As a Lieutenant General, GEN Odierno commanded III Corps. III Corps served as MNC-I until last winter, when they returned home and XVIII Airborne Corps took over MNC-I's responsibilities. Now GEN Odierno is back to command MNF-I as a whole, and GEN Petraeus is going to become the combatant commander of US Central Command.

The headline of this article tells an important story, though: GEN Petraeus' tour as head of MNF-I was twenty months. The Surge units of the Army did fifteen months each, a grueling stint away from home and family. GEN Petraeus did what an officer is supposed to do: he asked nothing of them he did not do himself, and in fact did more.

His command of MNF-I will be remembered in history books as the time when we got the focus right, and began to reverse the chaos that had been rising in Iraq until his tenure. He leaves Iraq in a far better state than he found it.

At the appropriate hour, whenever that is for you, I suggest a toast to the gentlemen. In fact, I suggest three: one to their health, one in honor of their last assignment, and a last to hope for success in their next.

Fine

Historical Accuracy, Eh?

Since we're getting complaints about the historical accuracy of the Old Guard's band, try the 7th Cavalry Drum and Bugle Corps on for size (sample viewer comment: 'Is the drum major sober?').



The 'Indian maidens' remind me of something...

Tax Cuts

Tax Cuts:

Looks like FOX News called out a McCain supporter for claiming Obama would raise taxes on the middle class. In fact, he has campaigned for cutting taxes on the middle class. He said:

I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy and a long-term fairness strategy, which is part of getting this country going again.

Oh, wait, no. That was Bill Clinton who said that, before he was elected and enacted massive tax increases on the middle class (and everyone else).

Look, we go through this every time. Kerry said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class. Gore said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class. Bill Clinton said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class in 1992, and this year Hillary Clinton and Obama have said it too.

The other thing all of these candidates have done is propose massive new spending, as for example on universal health insurance plans. When that gets crossways with the 'middle-class tax cut', which one do you think is going to give?

Me, too.

This puts us in a difficult position. On the one hand, you want to be fair to people -- even politicians -- and take them at their word when you can. On the other hand, I believe that there is close to 100% certainty that, if elected, President Obama would push through tax increases on the middle class and the rich, just as Clinton did.

Of course, Obama could be the one guy who means it, and he could be the one guy who -- when his pet programs turn out to cost too much -- chooses to cut taxes and forgo his desired reforms instead. My belief on the point aside, there's really no way to know for sure until and unless he does one or the other.

Still, surely it's fair to point out that the track record is not so good, the expected new spending is going to require more taxes, and I think they care much more about the new programs than they care about tax cuts.

When the McCain campaign says, "Barack Obama will raise middle class taxes," I think they're speaking the truth as a matter of fact -- I absolutely believe that he will, if elected. Yet it is necessary to make some nod to his claim to the contrary, since (unlike President Clinton) he hasn't proven himself false on the point. Not doing so is not playing fair, even if they believe -- as I do -- that they're right.

Justifying the Sacrifice

Justifying the Sacrifice:

In the film Little Big Man, there is a scene where the Seventh Cavalry destroys a peaceful indian village to the sound of the Garryowen. The music is beautiful, and the carnage horrible. The movie uses the disparity to lay a charge of hypocrisy at the feet of the US military, both historic and -- as this was a Vietnam-era movie -- contemporary.

The charge is that the beauty is a false overlay on something wicked. The truth, I think, is precisely the opposite: that the beauty is real, and the thing that has to be defended. It is not to make you feel better about the cruel reality of war; it is to remind you of why you thought to fight at all.



The Old Guard here captures the objective beauty missing in so much of our modern culture. It reminds us of the achievement of the West, and why we might fight for her.

The world is as we inherited it, both the good parts and the bad. We can neither claim credit for the good that came before us, nor can we suffer blame for the awful truths about the basic nature of our world. It is not our fault that life must feed on other life: we did not make the rules.

What we can do is recognize the beautiful, and defend it.

Et qui non habet, vendat tunicam suam et emat gladium:

Luke 22:36, as lived today.

A man who threatened to behead two women because they were Christians was attacked in self-defense early Saturday and injured so severely, police say, that his eye was to be removed.

Russell Bowman, who called himself an atheist, showed up with a large knife at the women's apartment in the 700 block of Tia Juana Street about 3:15 a.m., police said.

Another resident grabbed a shotgun and ordered him to put the knife down. When Bowman refused and began approaching, the person hit him with the butt end of the weapon, police said.

Indonesia? Colorado.

offsite

Cowboys & Liberals:

I wrote a post at Winds of Change on the subject.

What could it be?

Oh, Worry, What Could It Be?

Like all right-thinking people, I love the Fail Blog.



These folks would be proud.

Heh

Cookware?

Prof. Reynolds has a poll on Gov. Palin as a cookware line.

Which kind of cookware is Sarah Palin?

* All-Clad: Its tough, riveted construction matches her personality.

* Cuisinart Nonstick: Because so far attacks have slid off of her with no residue remaining.

I'm afraid he's more of a gourmet than I am, as I wasn't familiar with either of those lines, but I did enjoy the joke. If I may venture an alternate opinion, I would suggest she is best symbolized by Lodge Cast Iron Cookware.

That is to say: a time-tested formula that succeeded well on America's frontier, is so well-made that it has the potential to last forever, and one that continues to be valued in homes across rural America.

In some parts of America, cooking on black iron today seems hopelessly old-fashioned. Still, if you learn how to do it right, it makes food that is just better than food made any other way.

UPDATE: By comparison, Sen. Obama would be Pioneer enameled cookware. It's a lightweight, with a smooth exterior; but it scratches up quickly and will scorch food if heat is applied to it too fast.

Thinking on Texas

Thinking of Texas:

Since we are thinking of Texas tonight, and those who are riding out a potentially deadly assault, let us remember the Alamo.



Once you get past the initial music, it's a black and white film of John Wayne talking about David Crockett. I have another reason to be interested in that tonight, but it matters here too.

"I hope you'll do the best you can. I'll do the same. Don't be uneasy about me. I'm with my friends."

High level Iraq update

High Level Iraq Update:

I've written a top-down view, from a number of recent interviews. It's at BLACKFIVE.

Oh, and if you're coming to Vegas next week? Join us at the Penthouse Club.



Those pictures of me are from Baghdad. The baby picture is obviously fake. :)

Matagorda

Matagorda:

The night was still and the air seemed close; there was something in the atmosphere that made animals restless and men irritable. There lay over the town and the flatlands beyond a breathless hush that seemed like a warning.

The truth of the matter was that Indianola had not long to live.

-"Matagorda," by Louis L'amour.

I don't believe I recall reading a government warning quite like this one.

PERSONS NOT HEEDING EVACUATION ORDERS IN SINGLE FAMILY ONE OR TWO STORY HOMES MAY FACE CERTAIN DEATH.

MANY RESIDENCES OF AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION DIRECTLY ON THE COAST WILL BE DESTROYED. WIDESPREAD AND DEVASTATING PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE IS LIKELY ELSEWHERE. VEHICLES LEFT BEHIND WILL LIKELY BE SWEPT AWAY.

I've had to evacuate from hurricanes myself, and I've ridden out some lesser ones. Grim's Hall has some several Texas readers: those of you down Houston way, when you get to shelter, let us know if there's anything you need.

Chesterton

Chesterton:

From The Ballad of the White Horse:

"One man shall drive a hundred,
As the dead kings drave;
Before me rocking hosts be riven,
And battering cohorts backwards driven,
For I am the first king known of Heaven
That has been struck like a slave."

...

Roaring they went o'er the Roman wall,
And roaring up the lane,
Their torches tossed a ladder of fire,
Higher their hymn was heard and higher,
More sweet for hate and for heart's desire,
And up in the northern scrub and brier,
They fell upon the Dane.

And so did we, not so long ago. Like Geraint, struck with no just cause. So we rode to Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the corners of the world.

One man can drive a hundred, we have learned. The 'sweet hymns of hate' have faded with the years, and now we look upon an Iraq made freer and finer than it ever dared dream; but an Afghanistan in many ways little better than it was, for all we have done.

No longer full of wrath, where to from here? Is it enough? Russia is resurgent, strikes down our allies, sends heavy bombers into the Western hemisphere for the first time in history -- but her demographics fail. The Islamic world rises, but that is hope as much as peril. Iraq is surely a great hope; and yet we look at Pakistan, and Africa, and Iran, again at Russia.

And each with a small, far, bird-like sight
Saw the high folly of the fight;
And though strange joys had grown in the night,
Despair grew with the day.

And when white dawn crawled through the wood,
Like cold foam of a flood,
Then weakened every warrior's mood,
In hope, though not in hardihood;
And each man sorrowed as he stood
In the fashion of his blood.

For the Saxon Franklin sorrowed
For the things that had been fair;
For the dear dead woman, crimson-clad,
And the great feasts and the friends he had;
But the Celtic prince's soul was sad
For the things that never were.
...

Then Eldred of the idle farm
Leaned on his ancient sword,
As fell his heavy words and few;
And his eyes were of such alien blue
As gleams where the Northman saileth new
Into an unknown fiord.

"I was a fool and wasted ale--
My slaves found it sweet;
I was a fool and wasted bread,
And the birds had bread to eat.

"The kings go up and the kings go down,
And who knows who shall rule;
Next night a king may starve or sleep,
But men and birds and beasts shall weep
At the burial of a fool.

"O, drunkards in my cellar,
Boys in my apple tree,
The world grows stern and strange and new,
And wise men shall govern you,
And you shall weep for me.

"But yoke me my own oxen,
Down to my own farm;
My own dog will whine for me,
My own friends will bend the knee,
And the foes I slew openly
Have never wished me harm."

...

But Colan.... said, "And when did Britain
Become your burying-yard?

"Before the Romans lit the land,
When schools and monks were none,
We reared such stones to the sun-god
As might put out the sun.

"The tall trees of Britain
We worshipped and were wise,
But you shall raid the whole land through
And never a tree shall talk to you,
Though every leaf is a tongue taught true
And the forest is full of eyes.

"On one round hill to the seaward
The trees grow tall and grey
And the trees talk together
When all men are away.

"O'er a few round hills forgotten
The trees grow tall in rings,
And the trees talk together
Of many pagan things.

"Yet I could lie and listen
With a cross upon my clay,
And hear unhurt for ever
What the trees of Britain say."

The fools and the cheerful mad have the better part of this world. Perhaps the best thing is to resolve to be one or the other, and lay aside all fear. If the other choice is 'the despair that grows with the day,' then surely this is best. Hope and faith may sometimes seem like little more than foolishness or madness, but these are two of the best of things.

Seven Years: Enid & Geraint

This is a poem I wrote seven years ago today, when I could no longer stand to watch the replayed news on television. I went out into the forest, down to the creek that ran through the woods. I crossed it halfway onto an island, and sat among the stones and wrote this. It may be one of the oldest 9/11 poems, as I wrote it around three in the afternoon on the very day. It draws, of course, on Tennyson, but it is not blank verse. Rather, it is in the old alliterative style of the Beowulf.

It happens to touch on a great deal we have been discussing lately, so it is even more appropriate to repost it today -- as I do every year on September 11.

Enid & Geraint

Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.

And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.

They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.

At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.

And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.

By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.

End cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.

Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.

Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.

And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.

And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.

His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.

And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.

Earmark Generosity

Earmark Generosity:

Gov. Palin went after Sen. Obama on earmarks today.



One of the things she said was, "In just three years, our opponent has requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks, and that’s about a million dollars every working day."

This is the first thing Gov. Palin has said that suggests to me that she really doesn't have enough experience to understand Washington.



You need to recalculate that average. :)

Wow

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel on Sarah Palin:

He was also a former Democratic candidate for President this year, and a committed liberal (who says he left the Democratic Party because 'it is a party of war!'). He's here appearing on a left-wing radio show.



Major points:

* Gravel says Gov. Palin is a great choice in spite of his ideological differences with her, and someone he respects;

* That she went up against the Republican establishment with courage, and has "put the people and integrity above party";

* That she has more experience than Obama, especially executive experience;

* That she hasn't been corrupted by the partisan process in Washington;

* That she was right on Troopergate, and showed strength in going up against the entrenched unions, just as she had gone up against the oil companies;

* And... well, listen for yourself.

He finishes up by noting that, while he won't vote for McCain, he won't be voting for Obama either.

H/t: Hot Air.

Oh, Son!

Oh, Son!

The worst thing for Sen. Obama about this comment is that there is no way to claim it wasn't scripted. It was a planned response by an Obama spokesman. There is no walking away from it.

Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why.

Son!

A man who has never fought for anything wants to call out a warrior on honor?

I can see why they were hoping McCain would define it for them. Plainly, they have no concept of what the concept might mean.

Here's a hint. If you look at the Wikipedia entry, don't focus too much on the words. Focus on the picture to the side. What's that doing there?

PUMAs Live

PUMAs Live!

Gallup today:

In fact, Republicans didn’t shift much at all, trans-convention. Most of the bounce came from “pure” independents, whose support almost doubled from 20% to 39% in a week. McCain has opened a 15-point gap among independents overall, by far the widest gap in the race to this point. In contrast, the Democratic convention only provoked a small bump in this demographic for Obama, one that quickly evaporated.

McCain also scored among Democrats. Overall, he increased his draw by more than half, from 9% to 14%. Most of that came from conservative, “Blue Dog” Democrats, where McCain gained 10 points from 15% to 25%. Even his support among self-described “moderate” Democrats increased by five points, from 11% to 16%. Gallup even showed a two-point gain among liberal Democrats, but going from 2% to 4% probably is more polling noise than a real move.

The Washington Post poll, though, paints a different picture:

A Washington Post/ABC News survey published on Tuesday found most of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention was due to a big shift in support among white women voters.

One way to reconcile these findings? PUMAs live. In spite of assurances that they were a fake movement, or falling in line, they seem to be a real trend.

Hehehehe

In Which Grim Attempts To Refrain From Bursting Out In Laughter:

Ahem.

No, I can do this. Ahem. Today, we'll... discuss... this article.

I rarely remember my dreams, but for the past week, GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has been haunting me. Night after night, she appears in my dreams, always as a scolding, ominous figure.

When I mentioned my Palin dreams to Slate colleagues, they volunteered their own. One Obama-supporting colleague dreamed she had urged her young son to kill Palin with a string bean. Another dreamed she was at a fashion show and Palin served her crème fraîche on little scooped corn chips. A third says, "In the Sarah Palin dream I keep having, she has superhuman powers but is not really a person at all. In fact, she is more like the weather with glasses and an up-do, pushing clouds around and pitching lightning bolts."

I suspect we are not unusual.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

OK, I made it up until that last line. That was too much, though. You got me fair and square.

UPDATE: Matt Yglesias says:

I didn’t want to mention that I had a dream about Sarah Palin (she was driving a piece of farm equipment back and forth on the football field of the high school catty-corner to my house, laughing maniacally and I was trying desperately to install some kind of codec on my laptop so they could capture it on video) because it just seemed to weird and creepy. But according to David Plotz, Palin-related dreams are a growing national trend...

No, I think your first instinct was correct, son.

OK, reader poll: Have any of you ever had a dream featuring anyone from the realm of politics? I don't remember my dreams very well, but of all the ones I can recall, never has there been a political figure in any of them. I mean, politics is serious business, but not that serious. Friends, family, loved ones turn up in dreams. Politicians?

Never for me. If your experience is different, though, shout out.

Criteria

Criteria:

Richard Cohen notices that Obama won't fight, not for anything at all:

Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism, her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood, and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated. This much is certain: Obama could never do it.

Cohen isn't the first to notice this about Obama -- Maureen Dowd called him "a weak sister." I had forgotten how much Cohen's ilk hates "provincials" who don't have the good taste to wish they lived in some big city instead, and how irritating they would find it.

Still, Cohen's conceit that she is "exploit[ing her] mommyhood" is echoed on the Right, as well. Kay Hymowitz, who shares Cohen's big-city roots, worries about reinvigorating feminism's claim that women are in some sense better:

[C]entral to Palin’s red-state appeal is her earthy embrace of motherhood. She differs from mainstream feminists in that her sexuality and fecundity are not in tension with her achievement and power. If anything, they rise out of them. Instead of holding her back, her five children embody her energy, competence, authority, and optimism.

...

Still, whatever the appeal of red-state feminism, it should bring no comfort to anyone in favor of a more mature political culture. Red staters share with their blue-state counterparts a tendency to sentimentalize and trivialize politics. They heighten the salience of Lifetime Television–style personal stories and gossip. They reduce candidates to personalities, lifestyles, and gonads. Some blue staters got behind Clinton because she was a woman; red staters want to vote for Palin because she’s a mom. Both positions are misguided.

There's a signal difference between getting "behind Clinton because she was a woman," and getting behind Palin in part "because she's a mom." The embrace of motherhood is about choices and values: the embrace of womanhood is not. You are born male or female, but you choose to become a mother -- and if you have five children, it is because you chose to embrace motherhood.

That's not an accident of birth, but a choice that tells us a great deal about who you are and what you value.

I am someone who believes that sex is a tremendously important factor in a person's life, perhaps the single most important biological factor -- though even so it is less important than some cultural factors. If you are going to do business with someone you've never met before, it is more important to know their nationality than it is to know their sex.

Edward Abbey said that he had once harbored dreams of becoming a great man; later, just a good man; and finally, had found it challenge and honor enough simply to be A MAN. There's a lot of truth to that: and it's a lesson Sen. Obama could stand to learn.

Gov. Palin is A WOMAN, whether she is a good woman or a great woman. She's made a lot of decisions and choices, and they look like good decisions and choices for the most part. There's much in that fact. Character counts, and Gov. Palin's embrace of motherhood is an important part of her character.

We used to say that nobody would run against motherhood or apple pie. The Left, this year, looks ready to do just that. The right shouldn't join them. Motherhood is a wonderful thing, and deserves its place of honor in our culture.

Scary:

Scary:

They’re going to try to make me into a scary guy. They’re even trying to make Michelle into a scary person.

-Sen. Obama

Ed Koch is in the news today.

"The designation of Palin to be vice president," he said. "She's scary."

By 'scary,' he means that when she was mayor she asked the librarian what the policy was on banning books. The town notes that no books were banned, and Gov. Palin says that she never intended to ban any -- she just wanted to know what the policy was.

Why would a mayor ask such a question? Well, two good reasons: first, "banning" books is one of the most contentious issues in small-town America. Second, every library has a policy on how they deal with requests from patrons to remove items from the shelves. If any of you are mayors or county commissioners and don't know what that policy is where you are, you had better find out.

It may never come up, but if it does, it's going to touch a dangerous nerve in the American psyche. We as a people are opposed to banning books, or any restrictions on the quest for knowledge. At the same time, however, there are certain topics that strike us as inappropriate for the public space. Pornography and incitement to violence are likely to come to mind, but the real danger spot is children. We believe it is proper to shelter children from certain things, until they are ready. When the child is "ready" differs from family to family and from child to child. As a result, childrens' books that treat troublesome subjects will sometimes cause conflicts in small-town society.

Such conflicts are the more explosive because all sides believe they are acting out of the morally right position. The ones protecting the children don't feel they are doing anything wrong by protecting the children, and they point out correctly that their request in no way limits adult liberty (including the liberty to buy the book for your own kids if you really feel that it's appropriate for them). The ones against removing books from the shelves point to the importance of the First Amendment, and a basic shared understanding that Americans don't ban books.

Having a good procedure means that insures all sides are treated with respect, and given a chance to see that the other side aren't "scary book-banners" or evil people who hate children. The exact nature of that policy may differ depending on the makeup and location of the community, but that is the goal.

The actual disposition of the book is really a small matter, since the library isn't really "banning" the book: it will still be available privately. Whether it stays or goes from the public shelves isn't as important as coming to a solution that the whole community can accept: if they decide to put it behind the desk, available only on adult requests, that's fine. If the community decides to remove it, that's fine. If parents who are troubled can be convinced to spend time reading every book before they hand them over to their children, that's fine too. What matters is that the community comes to the decision, and in a way that increases its members' respect for each other.

Still, it is an explosive issue, as anyone who has seen their community go around on it can attest. It's a wise mayor who wants to know just exactly what to expect, should the issue come up.

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.