A re-enactor does a 1926 piece on debt, government spending, and so forth.
The Pecan Tree
The Pecan Tree:
The pillar is now blank. The plaque is gone. There is a giant stump where once the pecan tree stood.
Chesterton:
If you come to the Natchez Trace State Park in Tennessee, you will find a document that reads precisely as this webpage:
Perhaps the most unique feature of the Natchez Trace State Park is that it is the home of the third largest pecan tree in the world. In the 1930's the following plaque was erected at the Pecan Tree by the John McCall Chapter of the D.A.R. "Accepted tradition says that this tree had grown from a pecan given to Sukey Morris by one of Jackson's men as they traveled homeward after the Battle of New Orleans." It is difficult to say whether this legend is true or not. It is known that four companies of General John Coffee's Tennessee Militia used the western branch of the Natchez Trace which passes by the Pecan Tree to return home from the Battle of New Orleans in April of 1815.I am the sort of man who will travel a long way out of his way to see such a tree. If you do the same, on the road to Shiloh, you will find deep in the heart of the state forest a place set aside for the tree. It has split-rail fences, and a pillar set for a plaque to describe the tree's history.
The pillar is now blank. The plaque is gone. There is a giant stump where once the pecan tree stood.
Chesterton:
All things achieved and chosen pass,
As the White Horse fades in the grass
No work of Christian men.
Civilian Scouts and the Medal of Honor
Civilian Scouts:
The two famous "Bills" of the Old West period in American history -- "Wild Bill" Hickok and "Buffalo Bill" Cody -- shared at least one distinction besides their name. They both served as civilian scouts for the US Army.
The position is remarkably similar to the job I do currently in Iraq: riding out with the Army on patrols, to advise them on how to leverage the tribal networks to solidify the peace and ensure the development of the nation. Sometimes the patrol is for my benefit, so that I can meet with tribal leaders in outlying areas in order to map the networks and develop strategies for the brigade to consider. One of the challenges is trying to explain the work to the bureaucracy, and I found that "civilian scout" was a model that was immediately understandable to soldiers. They remember their history very well, as you expect of an institution of warriors, and this explanation made sense to them.
I even have a few "name tapes" with the title, on my armor and also my gear:
It's a useful position, and a concept that probably needs to be restored. One of the problems with the Human Terrain Teams -- I speak as a strong supporter of the concept of the HTS and the HTTs -- is that the "social scientist" often fails to understand what the Army expects them to do. The most important figure on an HTT is their "social scientist."
(An aside -- Readers know I detest the term, as the whole concept of a 'social science' is bad philosophy. Science requires detachment, but the arts require just the opposite. To pursue an art faithfully requires love.)
The analysts are to bring them data; the team leader is to formulate their findings into milspeak. The social scientist is the heart of the HTT, though, and needs to understand not only the local culture, but what strategic effects the military wants to achieve. They need, for that matter, to understand that it is their job to produce strategic effects -- which means they need to understand just what is meant by the term "strategic effect."
The civilian scout is just what is wanted here. Not only does it have a resonant history, but it is a title that clearly explains the mission.
Piercello
"Applied Human Nature":
This tendency becomes even more dangerous when we deal with things that cannot be seen or measured with any final accuracy (like emotions). Even if the model finally proves to be tremendously useful in a predictive capacity, don't confuse that utility with truth value. Preserve the sense of mystery in your conceptions, and always work on recognizing the limits of your model.
The other advantage offered by the model is that it is simple, and therefore elegant -- "just three factors." This is an advantage with a proud history in Western thought, most famously cited in Occam's Razor.
Remember here, though, that Occam's Razor is a tool for gamblers, not a divining rod that points to truth. It is good for getting a sense of what is most likely. It cannot tell you what is.
They key to the arts is not to mistake them for sciences. When "social scientists" do otherwise, even the dismal ones, the practical consequences of their bad philosophy may be severe.
Our friend and commenter Piercello has started a blog for his thesis regarding human nature. It's an early stage work yet, but one that I think will interest a number of you.
It's an interesting concept, and I will start the discussion with a word of warning to the author. The thesis is phrased in terms of utility: there are "advantages" to us in understanding human nature as you propose. Especially,
This definition allows the vast internal complexity of human emotional life to be comprehensively mapped using just three factors[.]The question of whether a model is useful is entirely separate from the question of whether or not it is true. We know the ancient Greeks built remarkable machines based on epicycles, which used that approach to predict the movement of stars in the sky. This was extraordinarily useful, especially in naval navigation. Yet it wasn't also a true model of how the stars actually move.
This tendency becomes even more dangerous when we deal with things that cannot be seen or measured with any final accuracy (like emotions). Even if the model finally proves to be tremendously useful in a predictive capacity, don't confuse that utility with truth value. Preserve the sense of mystery in your conceptions, and always work on recognizing the limits of your model.
The other advantage offered by the model is that it is simple, and therefore elegant -- "just three factors." This is an advantage with a proud history in Western thought, most famously cited in Occam's Razor.
Remember here, though, that Occam's Razor is a tool for gamblers, not a divining rod that points to truth. It is good for getting a sense of what is most likely. It cannot tell you what is.
They key to the arts is not to mistake them for sciences. When "social scientists" do otherwise, even the dismal ones, the practical consequences of their bad philosophy may be severe.
On Revolution
On Revolution:
3) The fact that, though the impending collapse has been evident for some time, even today the political class simply refuses to admit and plan for the reality. Neither Congress nor the President, this year or in the previous few, is doing anything to mitigate the collapse.
4) Indeed, they are doing the opposite: vastly increasing spending and debt, much of it on frivolities, while promising that there is nothing to fear. Indeed, they are promising that we can further expand government entitlements! The increases in spending speed the arrival of the moment of crisis; the promises will deepen the shock when it does arrive.
5) The fact that we are entering this period inside of a recession is likewise troubling.
The admission of the problem would be a positive first step, but the scale of the problem makes it hard to address even in an honest environment. The USA Today article points out that liabilities are such that we could cover them by paying an extra eleven thousand dollars per household in taxes starting this year, but that repaying debt over time is more expensive: "Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to [meet these debts over] 75 years." The same year the article was written, 2007, median household income was about $50,000.
This may be academic since we aren't going to be making an effort to resolve these problems anyway, but are instead going to carry on with new spending up until it all falls apart. So, let's talk about what the period of instability might look like, drawing on the piece below (about forging new coalitions) and this article on the 1848 revolutions, which has some interesting parallels. Consider:
This suggests a period of social turmoil. In 1848 the competitor with the traditional social systems was liberal republicanism; today it must be said to be relative authoritarianism. I say "relative" for this reason: the house of the competing model is probably China, with Russia, Iran, and Venezuela as regional advocates. Though less free than America or Europe, all of these places house relatively free populations who are met with authoritarian responses only if they try to interact with the political system. If they are willing to keep their heads down and do what they are told, most of the time they are left alone. This is a softer sort of authoritarianism than that used by the Soviet Union, old Communist China, or the facist states. There are already some movements within the United States that point to these other states as models, particularly Venezuela (and Cuba); and they are likewise aligned, as in 1848, with certain urban elites whose interests are advanced by the alliance (although currently only through normal electoral politics -- these elites use the alliance to muster voting blocs of relatively poor and alienated voters, not for any dishonorable purpose).
Now, what of this question of ethnicity as a barrier to revolution? I think it also holds, though it will appear at first not to do so. Garibaldi would find today that the rural areas are the remaining hotbeds of nationalism. Yet I think in a very real sense that nationalism is the old ethnic sentiment: for the ethnicity is now "American," rather than Italian or whatever. Nationalism among Americans is almost precisely a display of ethnic tribalism. I mean, in modern America, nationalism is now firing along the same circuits of the brain that were occupied by "Serb" or "Italian," etc., in 1848 Europe.
Assuming that model for a moment, what can we say about the road forward? Specifically, if conflict should break out along these rough lines, does it not harmonize neatly with the political coalition suggested by Murray below? Such a conflict would be a civil war based on insurgent models, which means that counterinsurgents will require a political model in order to rebuild the authority of the government. I think Murray's model, with a few tweaks, suggets a very stable coalition that could arise out of the conflict. It would restore the government's authority by rebuilding the republic along more traditional constitutional lines; taking advantage of the nationalism that is now a form of "ethnicity," and thus enjoys a very natural form of authority. It would also put the future government on a more sustainable and responsible model of governance, and one that is closer to the republic that the Founders envisioned.
You might reasonably say: instead of planning for the war, why not plan how to avoid it? Indeed, that's a reasonable question, but a troubling one. As in 1848, there is insufficient political flexibility to make the changes we'd need to make to avoid the collapse. It's not clear that, even if the President and Congress were united on admitting the problem and fixing it, there is a way to do so without fundamental disruption -- and although now would be far better than later, the President and Congress are not so united. The 2010 elections may provide a new Congress, but not a new President; and so the effort among the government to address this basic fiscal problem will be divided at best through 2013, unless President Obama is sufficiently flexible to recognize the failure of his basic ideological model and move strongly in the direction of repairing the government's standing. It would be remarkable if he were -- if any many were -- quite so flexible as that.
The probability of severe social turmoil in the United States seems to me to be quite high over the next few years. I would mark the important factors as:
1) The most important factor is the impending collapse of the US Federal government's ability to pay its bills. In 2007, before the last two years of orgy-like spending, USA Today reported:
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.2) While in a sense all debts are promises, there is a significant difference in debts from one institution to another, and debts between the government and a vast array of individuals and families. This betrayal will be fundamentally destabilizing.
Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities.
3) The fact that, though the impending collapse has been evident for some time, even today the political class simply refuses to admit and plan for the reality. Neither Congress nor the President, this year or in the previous few, is doing anything to mitigate the collapse.
4) Indeed, they are doing the opposite: vastly increasing spending and debt, much of it on frivolities, while promising that there is nothing to fear. Indeed, they are promising that we can further expand government entitlements! The increases in spending speed the arrival of the moment of crisis; the promises will deepen the shock when it does arrive.
5) The fact that we are entering this period inside of a recession is likewise troubling.
The admission of the problem would be a positive first step, but the scale of the problem makes it hard to address even in an honest environment. The USA Today article points out that liabilities are such that we could cover them by paying an extra eleven thousand dollars per household in taxes starting this year, but that repaying debt over time is more expensive: "Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to [meet these debts over] 75 years." The same year the article was written, 2007, median household income was about $50,000.
This may be academic since we aren't going to be making an effort to resolve these problems anyway, but are instead going to carry on with new spending up until it all falls apart. So, let's talk about what the period of instability might look like, drawing on the piece below (about forging new coalitions) and this article on the 1848 revolutions, which has some interesting parallels. Consider:
Dramatic changes over the early 19th century and the long shadow of the French Revolution set the context for 1848. The system established after Napoleon's defeat sought above all to prevent general wars among states and revolutions within them, but the means of achieving the latter made for inflexible politics. Particularly in France, barriers to political office and professional advancement left talented, ambitious young men alienated from a regime dominated by their elders. Abrupt economic cycles brought periodic unemployment, which in turn sparked acute social tension. But governments lacked the resources to handle the pressures generated by population growth and industrialization. Britain had faced the problem in the decade after Waterloo, but the problem spread across Europe more acutely in the "hungry forties."How much does this resemble the upcoming period? There are apt to be severe economic shocks associated with the government's final admission -- whether in advance or, as seems more likely, when the fact can simply no longer be denied -- that it cannot pay its bills. Older people who have been basing their plans for retirement on the question will be furious. Younger people, asked to pay tax increases and largely abandon the hope of retirement, will be furious. Poor people, in the face of serious cutbacks to services, will be furious. Richer people, in the face of confiscatory taxes, will be furious. The world economic system, so long reliant on the United States as a rock of relative stability, will be shaken.
Social conditions by 1848 had piled up tinder for a conflagration. Resentments over everything from unemployment and taxes to labor demands on peasants -- not to mention the aspirations among regional elites for greater autonomy -- had rallied support for revolution. But transforming myriad grievances into positive program proved difficult. Tocqueville saw France drifting in June from political struggle to a social war of proletariat against the propertied classes. The specter of social revolution turned many toward accommodation with governments that, however imperfect, would at least provide security.
Many older accounts of 1848 depict the year's events as a flowering of liberal nationalism crushed by the forces of order. A.J.P. Taylor described abortive revolution in Germany as a turning point that failed to turn, thereby directing Germany on a separate path -- toward authoritarianism rather than liberal democracy. In "1848," Mike Rapport sympathizes with European liberals but nonetheless offers a fully nuanced portrait of a tumultuous year. Ethnic conflict and deep social tensions, he notes, complicated the task of constructing liberal, constitutional regimes. Different interests had their own agenda, and Otto von Bismarck, the German statesman, grasped an essential point when he argued that liberalism appealed only to the urban middle classes. That fact gave the revolution a narrower foundation than its architects had expected.
Ethnic conflict had a major role in the events of 1848 because nationalism served to exclude as well as unite. Liberal nationalists were caught in a now familiar dilemma: whether citizenship would rest on pluralism or require the assimilation of ethnic and religious minorities. Smaller nationalities looked suspiciously at German and Hungarian aspirations, especially when nationalist leaders spoke of Slavs with disdain. The Czech liberal Frantisek Palacky argued that Austria protected the Slavonic peoples from both internal strife and Russian domination. Localism, and loyalty to the Catholic Church, remained a strong counterweight to nationalism in Italy. Even Giuseppe Garibaldi came to see "how little the national cause inspired the local inhabitants of the countryside."
This suggests a period of social turmoil. In 1848 the competitor with the traditional social systems was liberal republicanism; today it must be said to be relative authoritarianism. I say "relative" for this reason: the house of the competing model is probably China, with Russia, Iran, and Venezuela as regional advocates. Though less free than America or Europe, all of these places house relatively free populations who are met with authoritarian responses only if they try to interact with the political system. If they are willing to keep their heads down and do what they are told, most of the time they are left alone. This is a softer sort of authoritarianism than that used by the Soviet Union, old Communist China, or the facist states. There are already some movements within the United States that point to these other states as models, particularly Venezuela (and Cuba); and they are likewise aligned, as in 1848, with certain urban elites whose interests are advanced by the alliance (although currently only through normal electoral politics -- these elites use the alliance to muster voting blocs of relatively poor and alienated voters, not for any dishonorable purpose).
Now, what of this question of ethnicity as a barrier to revolution? I think it also holds, though it will appear at first not to do so. Garibaldi would find today that the rural areas are the remaining hotbeds of nationalism. Yet I think in a very real sense that nationalism is the old ethnic sentiment: for the ethnicity is now "American," rather than Italian or whatever. Nationalism among Americans is almost precisely a display of ethnic tribalism. I mean, in modern America, nationalism is now firing along the same circuits of the brain that were occupied by "Serb" or "Italian," etc., in 1848 Europe.
Assuming that model for a moment, what can we say about the road forward? Specifically, if conflict should break out along these rough lines, does it not harmonize neatly with the political coalition suggested by Murray below? Such a conflict would be a civil war based on insurgent models, which means that counterinsurgents will require a political model in order to rebuild the authority of the government. I think Murray's model, with a few tweaks, suggets a very stable coalition that could arise out of the conflict. It would restore the government's authority by rebuilding the republic along more traditional constitutional lines; taking advantage of the nationalism that is now a form of "ethnicity," and thus enjoys a very natural form of authority. It would also put the future government on a more sustainable and responsible model of governance, and one that is closer to the republic that the Founders envisioned.
You might reasonably say: instead of planning for the war, why not plan how to avoid it? Indeed, that's a reasonable question, but a troubling one. As in 1848, there is insufficient political flexibility to make the changes we'd need to make to avoid the collapse. It's not clear that, even if the President and Congress were united on admitting the problem and fixing it, there is a way to do so without fundamental disruption -- and although now would be far better than later, the President and Congress are not so united. The 2010 elections may provide a new Congress, but not a new President; and so the effort among the government to address this basic fiscal problem will be divided at best through 2013, unless President Obama is sufficiently flexible to recognize the failure of his basic ideological model and move strongly in the direction of repairing the government's standing. It would be remarkable if he were -- if any many were -- quite so flexible as that.
Charles Murray / Exceptionalism
Conservatism Without a Net:
And yet he is right to say they are not adequately welcome within the society. In many respects the world of Iraq is as much home as this world; for there one still puts on armor and 'rides out,' and does the kinds of things that make you feel like you are living the kind of life a man should live. This is what Murray was talking about: vital experiences, extraordinary ones, that are the reason that men exist at all. A society that limits these experiences is indeed unsatisfying in very many respects. This too has a strong advocate in American history: Teddy Roosevelt, whose advocacy of "the strenuous life" is still highly resonant today.
I think that Murray is on weaker ground in asserting that these four categories are the only ones that exist for providing this kind of happiness. I've already noted his use of "community" apparently to cover both local government and volunteer organizations; there is no reason it could not cover government at any level. I expect that President Obama felt quite fulfilled as he pondered his new authority, and planned how he would use it to reshape the world according to his image. (I don't know if he is enjoying the power as much now that he has it! Many's the fantasy, however treasured, that may be better not acted out.) It is possible that "vocation" could also cover government action: thus, for those who make the laws, and for liberals who spend their time in advocacy for the laws, this kind of meddling is exactly the kind of satisfaction they are looking for. It only hurts the rest of us: to them, it feels like they are doing the right thing.
There is also the question of whether certain physical pleasures might not, for some people, rise to the level of deep meaning: indeed, it's dangerous to assert that they cannot. To the degree that the argument is accepted, you increase the pressure to have such pleasures 'cross the line' into one of the four categories. The obvious example here is the pressure to redefine what is meant by "family," and especially, by "marriage." You aren't reinforcing the family as an institution by increasing the pressure on people to assert that they are really 'a sort of family,' thereby bending the thing entirely out of its original shape.
These three key challenges notwithstanding, it has the potential to be an important argument. It remains to be seen how and if it spreads. There is quite a lot there, and it artfully divides the electorate in a way that could establish a new coalition with adequate popularity to govern. This it could do, I say, if it is accepted: and for that to happen, it will need to be tightened up a bit here and there.
Charles Murray of AEI has quite an interesting argument in The American. It's remarkable in several ways. Let me start by sketching what he says.
1) The American and European models are fundamentally different in that the American model creates greater genuine human happiness.
2) This is because true happiness arises from only a few particular lines of endeavor -- he names family, vocation, religion, and community.
3) The European model weakens all of them precisely by supporting them too much with state power. This causes the older institutions to wither, as they are no longer needed as much.
4) This leaves people living lives with less meaning, as the vital experiences are weakened. All that remains is being nursed along by the state, but less and less of the real challenge that makes life worth living.
5) An aside, added in expectation of a challenge: furthermore, the state does a worse job of most of these things than the traditional institutions. Thus, before state support, the family did its job better than the state+family now does it.
What's interesting about this argument isn't so much the argument itself. It's the strategy behind the argument. This is a rather artful position.
In the America of the Founders' day, "liberal" and "conservative" meant entirely different things than they mean today. Liberals -- what we now call "classical liberals" -- believed in freedom from government interference in their lives, the ability to form local communities that would exercise a great deal of autonomy (and which were small enough that you could easily move to another one if you didn't like the changes), and strict limits on Federal power. "Conservatives" -- or, if you like, "traditional conservatives" -- argued that human nature needed to be trained by strong institutions. They named family, faith, and the state as the three key ones. These institutions should have great power in order to produce the best kind of person.
There are still a few of these folks running around, but neither now occupies the original term. The great majority of "conservatives" today have adopted something relatively close to the classical liberal tradition. These "independent conservatives" are chiefly interested in maintaining liberty from state interference, in order to maximize human happiness. The classical liberal is divided from the independent conservative in that the classical liberal is willing to use quite a bit of government power to reshape communities along the lines of liberty; but it wants localized power, to maximize individual choice in which model it prefers. The independent conservative wants minimal government power, out of a belief that government is a necessary evil that must be chained.
The traditional conservative, remember, believes that it is men who are evil and must be chained -- and the government is necessary as one of those chains! He is not close to either of these middle positions.
The liberals of today descend from FDR, but also from Europe's tradition of democratic socialism. This was not an offshoot of Marxism precisely, as is commonly believed, but an attempt to take the fire out of Marxist revolutionary sentiment by compromising with some of its demands in order to avoid riots and rebellions, always more common in Europe's 19th and 20th centuries. Thus, it was a movement that believed in using the power of the state to effect social changes.
Thus, the liberals are closer to the traditional conservatives in being willing to use the state to force things on the populace that the populace may not want. They likewise believe they are doing it for the populaces' own good. They merely differ on just what things need to be done: the traditional conservative wants to strengthen God, King, and Country, while the liberal wants to undermine just those things to strengthen Unions, minority rights, and intellectuals.
What Murray has done here is to adopt a position that appears to synthesize the claims of three of these four groups: traditional conservatives, independent conservatives, and classical liberals. In theory, such a position could build a significant coalition.
In laying out how the coalition functions, let's use TC for "traditional conservative," IC for "independent conservative," CL for "classical liberal," and L for "liberal."
Murray argues that these four institutions are the key institutions to living the good life as defined by happiness. Happiness in turn is defined as meeting challenges within these good institutions -- very close to Aristotle's definition, and very close to the way that Aristotle also put happiness as the goal of his ethics (and therefore his politics). (TC)
However, the ability of these institutions to provide happiness is sapped by the use of goverment to perform the same functions. This drains the total level of happiness available to society, and is therefore a great wrong. (TC -- because we are still strengthening these key traditional institutions -- but also IC, in that it is about limiting the size and scope of government power).
Notice that he defines "community" as one of the opposing concepts to government. ('Communities respond to neighbors' needs,' etc.) This elides purely voluntary organizations with local community governments, both of which do that in the absence of Federal authority. This would appear to synthesize the IC and CL positions: the IC will hear "church and volunteer groups" while the CL will hear communities to mean "organizations small enough where everyone knows each other, like a town council." ICs tend to have less problem with smaller governments anyway, as less powerful governments are also less dangerous (recall Newt Gingrich's push for "devolution" and block grants to the states).
Thus, you end up with a position that advocates for reinforcing traditional institutions at the expense of the state. This should be satisfying to most TCs, who may accept a weaker chain on humans from the government if they believe that the other chains will be reinforced in exchange. It is satisfying to ICs and CLs as well, both of whom are suspicious of Federal (or concentrated) power.
So, it's a highly artful argument. Now, does it hold water?
I think we can start by asserting with confidence that it is going to be mocked by liberals. They will say, "So you are telling me that you will 'strengthen' my family by letting it go bankrupt? That you will strengthen my community by denying it Federal resources? And that we should feel good about this because all this extra hardship and work will deepen our experience, and thus make us happier?"
Rephrased in those hostile terms, the argument sounds pretty silly. Yet it really isn't silly; it's just not fully satisfying. There is quite a bit of truth to what he is saying.
Just a few days before 9/11, John Derbyshire wrote a piece entitled "It's a Woman's World," which spoke to some of these issues. 9/11 showed that there was still quite a bit of the man's world out there! But it's a good piece for examining the 9/10 sentiment, which harmonized in a lot of ways with the Euro ethic that Murray is describing (in far kinder terms than Derbyshire!).
It is notorious that men misbehave much more than women: 90 per cent of U.S. jail inmates are men, as are 90 per cent of murderers and 80 per cent of drunk drivers. Men are also of declining economic importance: male participation in the civilian labor force has dropped from 86 to 75 per cent since 1950, while the female rate has risen from 34 to over 60 per cent...Mr. Derbyshire would probably revise and extend his remarks if he chose to revist them today, nearly eight years later; there has proven to be plenty more war and adventure, and I've had occasion to see a bit of it myself. The masculine virtues are still deeply necessary to our society.
The more boisterous manifestations of masculinity — physical courage, danger-seeking, the honor principle, belligerence, chivalry, endurance, small-group loyalty — which were once accessible to all men, in episodes of war or exploration if not in everyday life, have now been leached out to the extremes of our society — to small minorities of, at one extreme, super-rich sports and entertainment stars, and at the other, underclass desperadoes. There is no place now for a brilliant misfit like the Victorian explorer Sir Richard Burton, whose love of danger and of alien cultures led him to be the first, and quite probably the only, non-Moslem ever to penetrate the holiest sanctuary of Islam, the Ka'aba in Mecca — he even had the audacity to make a surreptitious sketch of the place while he was supposed to be praying. (Burton, by the way, was a holy terror as a boy — would be a sure candidate for heavy Ritalin treatment nowadays.)
Even war, that most quintessential of masculine activities, is probably a thing of the past. For war you need a large supply of young men. With the great demographic collapse of modern times, that supply is drying up. Soft, feminized, over-civilized, under-militarized societies of the past were likely to be jolted back into vigor, or just overrun, by warriors from the wild places. Now there are no more wild places. While one should never be complacent about these things, and it is possible that a starship fleet of unwashed plunderers, cutlasses in their teeth and knives in their boots, is on its way from Alpha Centauri even as I write, the odds are good that the human race ain't gonna study war no more.
And yet he is right to say they are not adequately welcome within the society. In many respects the world of Iraq is as much home as this world; for there one still puts on armor and 'rides out,' and does the kinds of things that make you feel like you are living the kind of life a man should live. This is what Murray was talking about: vital experiences, extraordinary ones, that are the reason that men exist at all. A society that limits these experiences is indeed unsatisfying in very many respects. This too has a strong advocate in American history: Teddy Roosevelt, whose advocacy of "the strenuous life" is still highly resonant today.
I think that Murray is on weaker ground in asserting that these four categories are the only ones that exist for providing this kind of happiness. I've already noted his use of "community" apparently to cover both local government and volunteer organizations; there is no reason it could not cover government at any level. I expect that President Obama felt quite fulfilled as he pondered his new authority, and planned how he would use it to reshape the world according to his image. (I don't know if he is enjoying the power as much now that he has it! Many's the fantasy, however treasured, that may be better not acted out.) It is possible that "vocation" could also cover government action: thus, for those who make the laws, and for liberals who spend their time in advocacy for the laws, this kind of meddling is exactly the kind of satisfaction they are looking for. It only hurts the rest of us: to them, it feels like they are doing the right thing.
There is also the question of whether certain physical pleasures might not, for some people, rise to the level of deep meaning: indeed, it's dangerous to assert that they cannot. To the degree that the argument is accepted, you increase the pressure to have such pleasures 'cross the line' into one of the four categories. The obvious example here is the pressure to redefine what is meant by "family," and especially, by "marriage." You aren't reinforcing the family as an institution by increasing the pressure on people to assert that they are really 'a sort of family,' thereby bending the thing entirely out of its original shape.
These three key challenges notwithstanding, it has the potential to be an important argument. It remains to be seen how and if it spreads. There is quite a lot there, and it artfully divides the electorate in a way that could establish a new coalition with adequate popularity to govern. This it could do, I say, if it is accepted: and for that to happen, it will need to be tightened up a bit here and there.
Six Years and Counting:
Congratulations to the Mudville Gazette, now on year seven. Greyhawk lists his favorite post, and other highlights.
It occurred to me when I read that to wonder how long I've been writing here. I went back and checked, and it turns out that it is also six years, today.
I couldn't say that I had a favorite post. I will say, however, that the one I get asked about most often is this one. I've had a number of requests to reprint it in various newsletters and other venues, which I always am pleased to grant.
St Patrick's Day
Happy St. Patrick's Day:
Today was Gene Easley's birthday. I owe him for the hand of a lovely daughter, and remember him with great kindness and friendship.
Have a merry day.
UPDATE: Cassidy has quite a collection of Irish jokes. I hadn't heard most of them. The one about the painting, for instance...
Progressive?
How Progressive Are You?
The Center for American Progress suggests that the mean score is over 200 on their quiz, with "conservative Republicans" sitting around 160. Our friend Feddie at Southern Appeal reports having scored 141; I scored 114, which is probably downright shocking.
It would be, at least, if you trust the methodology. I'm not at all confident that I'm more "conservative" than Feddie, having spoken to him and read his works often over the years; in fact, I'd guess I'm rather less so. I'm also not confident that the average American is quite as "progressive" as suggested by their mean; when you write the questions and cast judgment on the answers, you get to define the landscape to a large degree.
That said, there's no doubt that the average American wants the government to do more for him or her than is worthy of a good man to desire. John Kennedy said something on that score; but if "progressive" has a center, it is the concept that government should do more for everyone. It is not a question of what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you, and everyone else.
Frankly, that whole concept strikes me as a moral failing. I suspect it would have struck Socrates as a failing too: and he was ready, if Plato is an honest guide, to concede to the government a tyrannical status in its relation with the citizen. A man owed everything to the government, because the city-state gave him the stability on which his whole live was based. That was without the city-state actually being devoted to the service of the individual; it was just the byproduct of the city-state's normal operations, which involved compulsory military service and a host of other demands.
Now, so many want government to do everything and give everything in return for no service at all, beyond the taxes of those who happen to make money. Not, as someone recently mentioned, those who have money -- 'it is an income tax, not a wealth tax.'
Having spent a fair amount of time lately in an environment in which government gives all, of such quality as it knows how to give, let me assure you that we can do better. And that is an environment of service. Imagine how well you will be rewarded not as honored servants of the nation, but as a despised class: and guess whether you shall be despised more if you belong to the class of beggars, or the class of creditors.
If I were the sort of man to offer investment advice in this environment, I think I would suggest going long in rifles. All signs point to that commodity having been undervalued for too long.
Honest?
A Shocking Revelation:
Yesterday my wife sent me this article via email.
LONDON – An academic says he's found evidence that Britain's legendary outlaw Robin Hood wasn't as popular as folklore suggests."Ancient history"? Anyway, the historian knows his business even if the journalist doesn't:
Julian Luxford says a note discovered in the margins of an ancient history book contains rare criticism of the supposedly benevolent bandit. According to legend, Robin Hood roamed 13th-century Britain from a base in central England's Sherwood Forest, plundering from the rich to give to the poor.
But Luxford, an art history lecturer at Scotland's University of St. Andrews, says a 23-word inscription in the margins of a history book, written in Latin by a medieval monk around 1460, casts the outlaw as a persistent thief.
Luxford, an expert in medieval manuscripts, said the find "contains a uniquely negative assessment of the outlaw, and provides rare evidence for monastic attitudes towards him."Just so.
He said it was not entirely surprising that monks, as part of England's clerical establishment, harbored negative feelings about the bandit.
Luxford said Robin Hood stories from the Middle Ages paint him as an ally of "good knights and yeomen — salt-of-the-earth type people. But they are not so positive about his relationship with the clergy."
Others they may tell you of bold Robin Hood,As usual, the myth, the folk tale, and the childrens' song are a good guide to the truth of the matter.
Derry, derry, down!
Or else of the barons bold,
But I'll tell you how they served the Bishop,
When they robbed him of his gold.
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
Robin Hood, he dressed him in shepherd's attire,
Derry, derry, down!
And six of his men also,
And, when the Bishop he did come by,
They around the fire did go.
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
'We are but poor shepherds' quoth bold Robin Hood,
Derry, derry, down!
'And keep sheep all the year,
But we've resolved to taste to-day
Of the best of our King's deer.'
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
'Thou'rt a merry fellow;' the old Bishop said,
Derry, derry, down!
'The King of thy deeds shall know;
Therefore make haste, come along with me,
For before the King shalt go!'
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
Robin Hood he set then his back to an oak,
Derry, derry, down!
His foot against a thorn,
And underneath from his shepherd's cloak
Pulled out a bugle horn.
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
Robin put the small end against his lips,
Derry, deny, down!
And loudly a blast did blow,
Till full six score of his trusty men
Came a-running on a row.
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
'What's the matter, master?' says Little John,
Derry, derry, down!
'You call us so hastily.'
'Oh! here's the Bishop of Hereford,
For to-day he passes by.'
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
Robin Hood he took then the old Bishop's hand,
Derry, derry, down!
And led him to gay Barnsdale,
And made him sup at his board that night,
Where they drank wine, beer, and ale.
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
'Call me in the reck'ning' the Bishop then said,
Derry, derry, down!
'I'm sure it's growing high:'
'Lend me your purse, Sir' said Little John,
"And I'll tell you by and bye:'
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
Little John he took then the old Bishop's cloak,
Derry, derry, down!
And spread it upon the ground,
And from the Bishop his portmanteau
He told five hundred pound.
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
Little John he took then the old Bishop's hand,
Derry, derry, down!
And called for the pipes to play,
And made the Bishop to dance in his boots;
He went gladly so his way.
Derry down! Hey! Derry, derry, down!
Felafel:
The puppy's name -- for those of us who cared to give her a name -- is "Felafel." She lives at a patrol base we've handed over; I'm not sure what the Iraqis call it now. They don't call the puppy anything at all, but she comes running when she sees an American hummer.
The Iraqis are skeptical of the American love of dogs. "You should not touch dogs," they tell us. "Dogs are filthy."
"Yes, she is!" we reply, crouching down to rub her belly. "You're a filthy girl!" Dust pours off her when you rub her belly, and she is very grateful.
I recall the look from our Iraqi hosts, which I suppose I would describe as frustration. They're trying to make a point, and we seem to be agreeing with them, and yet are enthusiastically doing the opposite of what they advise.
The Wisdom of Jim Bowie:
Our chaplain had a few free classic TV DVDs, including a selection of a show about Jim Bowie from the 1950s. The hymn-like music is risible, but there's a bit of honest folk wisdom to be had.
"I don't know which is the bigger nuisance to the world, the tight fisted money-grabber, or the dreamy-eyed rainbow-chaser."
The shopkeeper's sneer at Jim Bowie strikes a bit too close to home, too: "And you're home about two weeks out'n the year..."
*Cough!* I feel just that way when I talk to folks back here, sometimes.
The Finest Words:
If you've another suggestion, post it below. Yet beware: What can match it? Here is a recognition that what you have is won by right, given by men of equal standing. We are Americans, after all: this admission is granted freely, by free men. What matches it?
Rolled under a young buckskin's side he had started to train;The finest words in the English language are, I am convinced: "You've earned it."
Slipped under his side in the mud and the September rain;And she'd sing: "Rowls that ring like bells in the night;
Silver spurs flashing in the Utah moonlight;
Hoofbeats that echo out over the hills;
Songs and stars and a memory that thrills
My heart, my heart, my heart,
Like the ring of his spurs...The last words that he whispered to me as I knelt by his side;
'You know Jack, I'd give anything just to see my boy ride;'
These were your father's, you've earned them, and now son they're yours;
As he took from his heels and handed me these silver spurs.
If you've another suggestion, post it below. Yet beware: What can match it? Here is a recognition that what you have is won by right, given by men of equal standing. We are Americans, after all: this admission is granted freely, by free men. What matches it?
Religious Flexibility
Islamic Mortgages and Religious Flexibility -
In Wednesday's Best of the Web, James Taranto blogs about "Islamic mortgages" in Minnesota (scroll to "very interesting"). He opines that the method used to get around the Koranic prohibition of interest is just a "loophole" - and intelligently compares it to Jewish techniques for getting around the prohibition on leavened bread at Passover (simple: sell it to a Gentile, leave it physically where it is, and buy it back when it's over). This is of course a commonplace in religious history. If you read even John Robinson's Dungeon, Fire and Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades, you'll read many examples: medieval Catholicism opposed usury quite strictly, but the Templars provided financial services suspiciously like banking. No interest, of course, but the beneficiary would make a donation to the holy Order...In another part of the book, Frederick II is leading a Crusading army that wants to follow him, but technically they can't listen to him because his excommunication hasn't been lifted; he gets around it by issuing all orders "in the name of Jesus Christ" (it was his crusade, after all) - quite good enough.
Mr. Taranto expresses the humane hope that "if Islam can adapt so that Muslims can get mortgages, perhaps the more invidious elements of Shariah are open to reinterpretation as well." He doesn't seem aware that this already happens all the time. See the scholarly Islamic side of this debate with the anti-Islamic fanatic Ali Sina. The good professors squarely face the more brutal verses you know - smite the unbelievers' fingertips off, fight them until they convert "or, with willing hands, pay the jizya, and feel themselves utterly subdued," etc. etc. They argue, as many of the Muslims called moderate do, that those verses were only for that time (lawyers call it "limiting the case to its facts"). They argue that whoever lived at the time of Mohammed could see his Godly nature and had no excuse to deny it; but men ever since have only hearsay, and can't be held so strictly liable. Moreover, and this fascinates me, they take this doctrine as obvious and self-evident. Theologians can do to the plainest scripture what the Supreme Court did to the Commerce Clause, or the Ninth Circuit to the Second Amendment - and often they do this in a way that accomodates a stark doctrine to Life as we live it on the Earth, and makes it more humane. You know what Jesus said about divorce; perhaps you've read what Milton did with it?
In Wednesday's Best of the Web, James Taranto blogs about "Islamic mortgages" in Minnesota (scroll to "very interesting"). He opines that the method used to get around the Koranic prohibition of interest is just a "loophole" - and intelligently compares it to Jewish techniques for getting around the prohibition on leavened bread at Passover (simple: sell it to a Gentile, leave it physically where it is, and buy it back when it's over). This is of course a commonplace in religious history. If you read even John Robinson's Dungeon, Fire and Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades, you'll read many examples: medieval Catholicism opposed usury quite strictly, but the Templars provided financial services suspiciously like banking. No interest, of course, but the beneficiary would make a donation to the holy Order...In another part of the book, Frederick II is leading a Crusading army that wants to follow him, but technically they can't listen to him because his excommunication hasn't been lifted; he gets around it by issuing all orders "in the name of Jesus Christ" (it was his crusade, after all) - quite good enough.
Mr. Taranto expresses the humane hope that "if Islam can adapt so that Muslims can get mortgages, perhaps the more invidious elements of Shariah are open to reinterpretation as well." He doesn't seem aware that this already happens all the time. See the scholarly Islamic side of this debate with the anti-Islamic fanatic Ali Sina. The good professors squarely face the more brutal verses you know - smite the unbelievers' fingertips off, fight them until they convert "or, with willing hands, pay the jizya, and feel themselves utterly subdued," etc. etc. They argue, as many of the Muslims called moderate do, that those verses were only for that time (lawyers call it "limiting the case to its facts"). They argue that whoever lived at the time of Mohammed could see his Godly nature and had no excuse to deny it; but men ever since have only hearsay, and can't be held so strictly liable. Moreover, and this fascinates me, they take this doctrine as obvious and self-evident. Theologians can do to the plainest scripture what the Supreme Court did to the Commerce Clause, or the Ninth Circuit to the Second Amendment - and often they do this in a way that accomodates a stark doctrine to Life as we live it on the Earth, and makes it more humane. You know what Jesus said about divorce; perhaps you've read what Milton did with it?
A Soldier of the 9th Iraqi Army Division:
The uniform variations are endlessly hilarious to US soldiers. Our XO said that a good unit of the IA will have at least nine different kinds of uniforms, none of which will be worn to standard; and our HTT leader once said that he was going to just start calling them "polyforms."
On the other hand, note the correct eyepro, the soldierly bearing, and the fact that somebody thought enough of him that they gave him a combat patch (even if he is wearing it with a Marine Corps uniform). That's not too surprising. The 9th IA, under staff Major General Qassim, is pretty squared up. Someday this will all be theirs... someday soon, as likely as not.
Dreamtime
Dreamtime:
The discussion I was having with our captain in the Civil Military Operations section pertained to a labor dispute that had reached the point of absolute crisis. We were rushing to prepare a plan of action when the alarm went off, letting me know that I was late to... ...No, that was not it at all. I wasn't late. I was waking up, in Georgia, on leave. It was the strangest sensation, and clear proof that my mind had not -- has not yet -- adjusted to being home.
It is a strange thing to come back from that world to this one. They would be hard-pressed to be less similar. The world in Iraq is a world of work: from the time you wake until the time you lie down is uninterrupted labor. Thirteen hour days are normal, fifteen not unusual, longer yet not shocking. There is no weekend, though you may be given a few hours of Sunday morning for worship services if you like. There is otherwise no rest of any kind. Every moment is employed.
It is also a world of crisis. The war has reached the point at which it is, frankly, no longer a war at all: it is now what is properly called a Foreign Internal Defense mission. The war is over. Yet the crises continue, because now there are new problems -- like how to reduce forces. The brigade I work with is now occupying the space of what was, a year ago, four brigades' space -- a division. When it arrived, it had one brigade's space, then three (as it replaced a brigade that had already assumed a second brigade's battlespace), then four. The operating environment has constantly expanded as it has taken over land where other brigades were leaving and not being backfilled. The planning and logistical and operational challenges of that kind of continual movement and expansion are not small.
It is also a world without tenderness, although there is plenty of companionship between comrades. At home, when you grow tired or sad or any of a host of other things, there is a wife or a loved-one to comfort you. At least there is a dog or a cat! Not so in Iraq, where there is no whining permitted. Drive on.
This is a major gear shift when you come home suddenly on leave, as I have just done. The travel home provides no opportunity to begin the mental transition, as it is itself a grueling ordeal of paperwork and lines and multiple flights on military and civilian aircraft. Then, suddenly, it is over. The birds are singing, and you have nothing to do. You are home, for a while.
Hospitality and Politeness
Hospitality and Politeness -
Michael Totten writes of "the personal and political in the Middle East." He opens thusly:
But what I like is the`way Mr. Totten illustrates the larger point - in a time of topsy-turvy manners, it's important to draw the distinction between good manners and substantive agreement. In some parts of the world, even this online world, there are those who can only be civil if you don't disagree with their cherished views - in others, like the houses Mr. Cohen visited in Iran, and Grim's Hall for that matter, the contrary is true. But if you are used to the former, you may conclude too much from your host's kindness when you're in the latter.
I remember, in rude boyhood, thinking that manners and "etiquette" were barriers to honesty, but now think quite the opposite. We are biased and emotional creatures, and find it hard anytime to listen aright (and thus to answer straight) to a truly opposing argument. But it is harder still when the opponent is rude, and the harder argument over facts can be replaced with a scolding about tone. And this to me is the most hateful thing about PC: It takes the perfectly natural and legitimate desire not to be personally offensive, and distorts it into a creed to stifle subtantive ideas.
Michael Totten writes of "the personal and political in the Middle East." He opens thusly:
Roger Cohen is taking heavy criticism for a piece he recently wrote in the New York Times in which he said the “annihilationist” anti-Semitic rhetoric of the Iranian regime tells us less about Iran than the fact that he, an American Jew, was treated with “consistent warmth” on his trip to Tehran and Isfahan. I can’t say I agree, but I sympathize to an extent with what he’s saying because I've had similar surprises in the Middle East, happening upon hospitality instead of expected hostility.It fits right in with Theodore Dalrymple's first experience with Afghans ("Even their hospitality was fierce...You knew that they would defend you to the death, if necessary—or cut your throat like a chicken’s, if necessary. Honor among them was all."), and, for that matter, Genesis 19:8.
Arabs, Persians, and Kurds are so well-known for their considerate treatment of guests it has become a guidebook cliché.
But what I like is the`way Mr. Totten illustrates the larger point - in a time of topsy-turvy manners, it's important to draw the distinction between good manners and substantive agreement. In some parts of the world, even this online world, there are those who can only be civil if you don't disagree with their cherished views - in others, like the houses Mr. Cohen visited in Iran, and Grim's Hall for that matter, the contrary is true. But if you are used to the former, you may conclude too much from your host's kindness when you're in the latter.
I remember, in rude boyhood, thinking that manners and "etiquette" were barriers to honesty, but now think quite the opposite. We are biased and emotional creatures, and find it hard anytime to listen aright (and thus to answer straight) to a truly opposing argument. But it is harder still when the opponent is rude, and the harder argument over facts can be replaced with a scolding about tone. And this to me is the most hateful thing about PC: It takes the perfectly natural and legitimate desire not to be personally offensive, and distorts it into a creed to stifle subtantive ideas.
I am almost certain that this is Swiftian satire, but hey, discuss anyway.
(via Instapundit)
NEWTON'S OPTIC: THE ANSWER to all our problems is staring us in the face. It may even be quite literally staring at you, right now, across the breakfast table.
So put the paper down, stare back and ask yourself a selfless question.
Does the woman in your life really need a job?
(via Instapundit)
Suicide Bomber Motivations
Suicide Bomber Motivation -
Not Exactly Rocket Science (I'll have to update my favorites list soon, and this site's going on) reports a study of support for suicide attacks among Palestinians and Jews, and finds that support does not correlate strongly with "religious devotion" per se, but does correlate somewhat with "frequent attendance at religious services." (The author suggests that it is the collective "us against them" mentality, reinforced by communal devotions, rather than the religion itself that contributes the most.)
Some years ago, Robert Pape came out with Dying to Win, arguing that the presence of foreigners on home territory was the stronger motive ("The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism, not religion.") I didn't agree after I read chapter 2 of this CTC study, because while most AQIZ members were native Iraqis, most of their suicide bombers appeared to be non-Iraqis motivated by religion. Anyway, here is another piece of the puzzle.
Not Exactly Rocket Science (I'll have to update my favorites list soon, and this site's going on) reports a study of support for suicide attacks among Palestinians and Jews, and finds that support does not correlate strongly with "religious devotion" per se, but does correlate somewhat with "frequent attendance at religious services." (The author suggests that it is the collective "us against them" mentality, reinforced by communal devotions, rather than the religion itself that contributes the most.)
Some years ago, Robert Pape came out with Dying to Win, arguing that the presence of foreigners on home territory was the stronger motive ("The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism, not religion.") I didn't agree after I read chapter 2 of this CTC study, because while most AQIZ members were native Iraqis, most of their suicide bombers appeared to be non-Iraqis motivated by religion. Anyway, here is another piece of the puzzle.
Birth of Ganesha puppet show
One Night in Bangkok --
And the world's your oyster. This is about the best cultural experience I've had here so far - traditional Thai puppetry at the Joe Louis Theatre.
Interesting name - indirectly related to my fellow Alabamian. The man who was responsible for the revival of traditional Thai puppetry was born Sut Sakorn, but he was a sickly child. By ancient Thai custom, you can protect a child from illness and misfortune by having him ceremonially "adopted" by some admired personage - a monk, a friendly spirit, even a Buddha statue (I am indebted to Thai Ways by Denis Segaller - an experienced expat - for the snippets I've learned about traditional Thai culture). The family chose a monk, and the monk renamed the child "Lhiew." When the boy was a teenager in the 1930's, he got the nickname "Joe Louis," and there you have it.
Anyway, the show starts with the National Anthem (as all theatrical performances here do - sometimes they use the Royal Anthem instead), and the performers take a few minutes to ritually thank their teachers - then it begins.
Thai puppetry is gloriously inefficient. The puppeteers are darkly dressed and out there on the stage, manipulating the puppets. There are generally three dancers per puppet (always of the same sex as the character - which in some cases is very helpful to me, in telling the characters apart), and the manipulations follow classical dance moves for expressing emotions. The puppeteers are themselves skilled dancers, and while they use their arms to manipulate the puppet, all three are moving their heads and legs in exactly the same way as the puppet is. There's also a traditional orchestra (most distinctive - a sort of wooden xylophone) and a few singers who sing or chant narrative and dialogue.
The performance isn't 100% traditional - they use modern lighting, dry ice, one moment of projection onto the back screen, and a couple of shadow puppets partway through. And I say they are right - I don't think ancient arts were designed with "purity" in mind, but rather to tell magnificent tales in a compelling way with the tools they had available, and if new tools are available now, why not use them? And magnificent tales they are! The preferred subject is the Ramakien, which is simply a Thai translation of the Ramayana.
(Aside: Indian mythology is to Thailand as Greek mythology was to later Rome, or post-Renaissance Europe - the Ramakien, in particular, is taught to all schoolchildren from an early age, and two versions were composed by kings of the current dynasty, all of whom bear the throne-name "Rama." Thai religion is apparently eclectic; practically everyone is Buddhist, but they see no contradiction in addressing prayers to Hindu gods, friendly spirits - former humans or spirits associated with a specific place - or even national heroes; which answers my earlier question about the shrine to King Naresuan.)
The story we heard was not from the Ramakien, but was the Birth of Ganesha (Ganesha is an elephant-headed god I sometimes see in shrines here - and his head appears on the Thai airborne badge; according to this, they pray to him before jumps; according to an informant of mine, the Thai airborne school is near a mountain sacred to him). And here is the tale as our program summarized it (with comments by me):
And the world's your oyster. This is about the best cultural experience I've had here so far - traditional Thai puppetry at the Joe Louis Theatre.
Interesting name - indirectly related to my fellow Alabamian. The man who was responsible for the revival of traditional Thai puppetry was born Sut Sakorn, but he was a sickly child. By ancient Thai custom, you can protect a child from illness and misfortune by having him ceremonially "adopted" by some admired personage - a monk, a friendly spirit, even a Buddha statue (I am indebted to Thai Ways by Denis Segaller - an experienced expat - for the snippets I've learned about traditional Thai culture). The family chose a monk, and the monk renamed the child "Lhiew." When the boy was a teenager in the 1930's, he got the nickname "Joe Louis," and there you have it.
Anyway, the show starts with the National Anthem (as all theatrical performances here do - sometimes they use the Royal Anthem instead), and the performers take a few minutes to ritually thank their teachers - then it begins.
Thai puppetry is gloriously inefficient. The puppeteers are darkly dressed and out there on the stage, manipulating the puppets. There are generally three dancers per puppet (always of the same sex as the character - which in some cases is very helpful to me, in telling the characters apart), and the manipulations follow classical dance moves for expressing emotions. The puppeteers are themselves skilled dancers, and while they use their arms to manipulate the puppet, all three are moving their heads and legs in exactly the same way as the puppet is. There's also a traditional orchestra (most distinctive - a sort of wooden xylophone) and a few singers who sing or chant narrative and dialogue.
The performance isn't 100% traditional - they use modern lighting, dry ice, one moment of projection onto the back screen, and a couple of shadow puppets partway through. And I say they are right - I don't think ancient arts were designed with "purity" in mind, but rather to tell magnificent tales in a compelling way with the tools they had available, and if new tools are available now, why not use them? And magnificent tales they are! The preferred subject is the Ramakien, which is simply a Thai translation of the Ramayana.
(Aside: Indian mythology is to Thailand as Greek mythology was to later Rome, or post-Renaissance Europe - the Ramakien, in particular, is taught to all schoolchildren from an early age, and two versions were composed by kings of the current dynasty, all of whom bear the throne-name "Rama." Thai religion is apparently eclectic; practically everyone is Buddhist, but they see no contradiction in addressing prayers to Hindu gods, friendly spirits - former humans or spirits associated with a specific place - or even national heroes; which answers my earlier question about the shrine to King Naresuan.)
The story we heard was not from the Ramakien, but was the Birth of Ganesha (Ganesha is an elephant-headed god I sometimes see in shrines here - and his head appears on the Thai airborne badge; according to this, they pray to him before jumps; according to an informant of mine, the Thai airborne school is near a mountain sacred to him). And here is the tale as our program summarized it (with comments by me):
Isuan is in deep mourning for the loss of his consort, Satee. He becomes a recluse and an ascetic. The demon, Taraka, sees Isuan incapacitated by grief and wickedly plans to dislodge him as master of the universe. He asks Brahma to make him invincible and, seeing that Isuan has become an ascetic, concedes that the only person who would have the power to kill him would be Isuan’s son. Brahma grants him is wish.I'm not really clear why he would do that, but in the Ramakien, Isuan himself agrees to have the demon king's city repaired, in part to maintain the balance of power between Rama and the demon king, so the higher gods seem to have at least some neutrality.
This shot is shown by a film projection behind the stage, a striking contrast to the rest of the show; the subsequent love scene is by shadow puppets.Upon obtaining his powers, he invades heaven with an army of demons. Taraka takes on Indra, but the gods are unsuccessful in their defence of heaven. Indra flees the battle and goes to Brahma to tell him what has happened. Brahma commands Karmasut, the god of love, to shoot his arrow at Isuan to make him fall in love with Uma, his late consort’s reincarnation, so that he will have a child with her who will kill Taraka.
The scene changes. Isuan, who has denied himself the pleasures of this world, is seated on a rock. Uma approaches and offers him a garland. Karmasut, the god of love, fires his arrow (in fact, flowers). Isuan and Uma's eyes meet and they instantly fall in love.
For this part, the lights go dim, and the five-headed spear flies across the stage and severs Kumarn's head - I believe one of the three dancers simply carries it across at a run.The scene changes. Isuan has gone on a retreat. Uma is fast asleep. Seated next to her is Vichaya, her lady-in-waiting. Loud noises are heard. Uma awakes and asks Vichaya what is the cause of the noises. Vichaya says the noises are caused by the invasion of heaven by demons led by Taraka. She advises Uma to have her door guarded. Uma withdraws into her boudoir and, from the perspiration of her body, she creates a child whilst being blessed with water from Kongka, the goddess of the waters. The resulting child – a large child – is Kumarn. Uma then tells Kumarn to guard the palace door.
The scene changes. Isuan, returning from his retreat, arrives at the palace door with Visukam. They are prevented from entering the palace by Kumarn. Isuan is angry. He orders Visukam to kill Kumarn. However, Visukam is defeated so Isuan throws his trident at Kumarn and severs his head.
At that moment, Uma arrives and is horrified. She weeps abjectly. When Isuan asks, she tells him that the person whose head he has just severed is their son. Isuan is now horrified, too. He orders Visukam to go in a westerly direction to find the boy’s head. Visukam leaves.According to Segaller, West and the setting sun are traditionally associated with death (he reports a similar version of the legend, in which the head must be taken from the first animal found asleep with its head facing west).
During the fight, the demon transforms - the puppet is replaced by a live, human-sized dancer, in the appropriate mask, so the puppet has to fight it out with the larger opponent.The scene changes. Visukam hands Isuan the severed head of an elephant, the only head he was able to find. By magic, Isuan moves the head and connects it with Kumarn’s body. Kumarn comes back to life. Isuan names him Ganesha. Indra tells Isuan to send Ganesha to destroy the demons who are invading heaven. Indra and Ganesha leave.
The scene changes. Battle between the gods and the demons. First Indra then Ganesha arrive and join the fight. When the demons are vanquished, the senior demon Taraka appears. Taraka and Ganesha engage in a war of words during which Taraka tries to find out who Ganesha is. When Ganesha tells him he is the son of Isuan and Uma, he does not believe him: after all, Isuan had become an ascetic and would therefore not have a child! Taraka and Ganesha fight.
If you're ever in Bangkok and you love such tales, as I do, I highly recommend an evening at this theater.Ganesha orders Buangbat – a giant serpent – to coil itself around Taraka and beats him to death with his club.
The final scene is of Ganesha seated on the great serpent and all gather around him to pay homage. Ganesha is venerated as the god of success and the patron of learning.
Why Buddhism Never Caught On in Greece
Why Buddhism Never Caught On in Greece -
All right, you've read the Phaedo - Socrates was halfway to Buddhism on his deathbed (philosophy as a means of "getting off the earth" - ghosts were perhaps men who were too attached to this existence) - so you've been wondering, why didn't the Buddhists take Greece by storm?
A few weeks ago, one of my relatives accidentally offended a customer. She showed she understood his order by flashing the "OK" sign. Only this customer was just off the boat from Greece, and in his native country, that sign means "You are an a*****e." The symbolism is straightforwardly geometrical, as befits the people of Euclid.
Well, when Mrs. W. and I visited the ancient Thai capital at Ayutthaya, we found a museum with many Buddha images, displaying the various appropriate mudras, including the one for "preaching." And, well, you've guessed already:
All right, you've read the Phaedo - Socrates was halfway to Buddhism on his deathbed (philosophy as a means of "getting off the earth" - ghosts were perhaps men who were too attached to this existence) - so you've been wondering, why didn't the Buddhists take Greece by storm?
A few weeks ago, one of my relatives accidentally offended a customer. She showed she understood his order by flashing the "OK" sign. Only this customer was just off the boat from Greece, and in his native country, that sign means "You are an a*****e." The symbolism is straightforwardly geometrical, as befits the people of Euclid.
Well, when Mrs. W. and I visited the ancient Thai capital at Ayutthaya, we found a museum with many Buddha images, displaying the various appropriate mudras, including the one for "preaching." And, well, you've guessed already:
King Naresuan
Single Combat Between Kings -
Alexander very much saw himself as a Homeric leader, and a front-line fighter, but the Oriental despots he fought were not the type to oblige him with a single combat. William, I read, challenged Harold to single combat for the kingdom (I don't know if he had any epic inspirations - the Song of Roland is of course full of single combats, but I don't know if any early versions reached William). Shakespeare was fond of having the warring kings and princes or usurpers cross swords - the stage directions require Henry V to fight and defeat the Dauphin himself, and Henry Tudor has to do the same to Richard III. There may be some truth in that - as far as we can tell, Richard really did charge a knot of soldiers around Henry in the hopes of ending the battle by killing him. I don't know if he was influenced by Arthurian heroics or not (Caxton's printing of Mallory was the year of Bosworth Field). (Incidentally, Laurence Olivier's film version tracks the climax of the battle reasonably well, given the requirements of the poetry and the smallish cast of extras.)
Well, I'm currently in Thailand as part of athinly veiled vacation at taxpayer expense vital military exercise with a long-standing ally, and found one example in sober history. King Naresuan of Ayuthaya (a predecessor kingdom to Thailand), who'd been raised as a hostage in the Burmese court (and apparently had led Burmese troops against rebels while he was there), ended a Burmese invasion by single combat against the Burmese crown prince. According to this account from the Thai Ministry of Culture, the Thai troops were in the midst of a feigned retreat, hotly pursued by the Burmese, and
(photo by Mrs. W., who is a picture-taking fiend. The building is surrounded by scores of sculpted roosters, but I do not know the symbolism. We had to take our shoes off, as we did at Buddhist temples, and there were locals praying in front - I can't tell you whether to him, for him, or something else.)
I know very little Asian military history and found the story interesting on several points. I don't know much about the heroic culture of Naresuan's court, but he may have been influenced by the Ramayana (which the Thais accept as a national epic; I saw many painted scenes from it in the old Royal Palace in Bangkok, and "Rama" is apparently a popular throne name). Rama, on the verge of inheriting the throne of his kingdom, defeats the king of the Rakshasas with his own arrow. (The description of the fight - reducing the description to a pair of decisive blows - reminds me also of the Song of Roland, but some readers here may better be able to judge how realistic it is.)
Also, this was the only time I'd read about elephants being used like horses - as a platform for a couple of humans to fight each other. From classical sources, I'd gotten used to thinking of elephants as a form of artillery - launched at the beginning of a battle, to break up enemy formations and disrupt their morale - rather than cavalry. Just clicking through the Wikipedia battles involving war elephants, I didn't see a lot to modify my earlier thinking, so this may have been a one-off.
There's a lot to be said about military leaders risking themselves at the front, but as John Keegan said most of it in The Mask of Command, I can't say I have anything to add. In any case, if the Ministry's version is right, this wasn't deliberate risk-taking by the King, but the display of a core military skill known as making the best of a bad situation.
Alexander very much saw himself as a Homeric leader, and a front-line fighter, but the Oriental despots he fought were not the type to oblige him with a single combat. William, I read, challenged Harold to single combat for the kingdom (I don't know if he had any epic inspirations - the Song of Roland is of course full of single combats, but I don't know if any early versions reached William). Shakespeare was fond of having the warring kings and princes or usurpers cross swords - the stage directions require Henry V to fight and defeat the Dauphin himself, and Henry Tudor has to do the same to Richard III. There may be some truth in that - as far as we can tell, Richard really did charge a knot of soldiers around Henry in the hopes of ending the battle by killing him. I don't know if he was influenced by Arthurian heroics or not (Caxton's printing of Mallory was the year of Bosworth Field). (Incidentally, Laurence Olivier's film version tracks the climax of the battle reasonably well, given the requirements of the poetry and the smallish cast of extras.)
Well, I'm currently in Thailand as part of a
The two Siamese Princes found the whole Burmese army advancing against the Thai troops in haste and disorder. At that time, both Prince Naresuan’s elephant, Phraya Chaiyanuphab, and Prince Ekatotsarot’s elephant, Phraya Prabtraichakra, happened to be in musk. Thus, when the two animals saw their rivals, they gave chase furiously, taking the two Princes, accompanied only by their immediate attendants, into the midst of the Burmese army.In Ayuthaya itself, there's a large pagoda said to have been built by him in commemoration of this victory, and here's a statute of the king himself nearby -
To his surprise, Prince Naresuan saw the Burmese Maha Uparaja whom he had known well during childhood, close by him, also mounted on an elephant. Undeterred by his own disadvantage, Prince Naresuan called out, "Brother Prince, leave the shelter of that tree. Come out and fight with me, for the honour of our names and the wonder of future ages."
In fact, at that time Naresuan, the beloved Prince of Ayutthaya, was in the midst of the enemy. If the Burmese Maha Uparaja had given a word, the two Siamese Princes would have been either killed or captured, and Ayutthaya would have been easily subdued.
Thinking of his royal dignity and his own acquaintance with the Siamese Prince, Maha Uparaja accepted the challenge and drove his elephant by name of Phatthakor toward Naresuan’s elephant. Phraya Chaiyanuphab, in a period of musk, immediately attacked his approaching rival furiously, and thus put his master into a disadvantageous position. The Burmese Prince dealt a fierce blow with his halberd at Naresuan’s head. Fortunately, Naresuan bent in time to avoid the blow, but his leather cap was cut through. When the elephants broke away, Prince Naresuan at once dealt a blow with his halberd at the right shoulder of the Burmese Prince. The ill-fated Prince fell dead on his own elephant’s neck.
At the same time, Prince Ekatotsarot himself had engaged in single combat with the prince of Zaparo, whom he also slew on his elephant’s neck. When the Burmese troops realised that their Princes were dead, they fiercely attacked the Siamese Princes. Prince Naresuan was wounded in the hand from a gun shot. By that time, a large Siamese army had managed to force their way through the Burmese ranks, the two Princes were rescued, and the Burmese had to retire.
The halberd used that day was later named the "Halberd Defeating all Enemies," while the leather cap was named the "Cut through Cap." The victorious elephant was given the name, "Conqueror of Hongsawadi."
(photo by Mrs. W., who is a picture-taking fiend. The building is surrounded by scores of sculpted roosters, but I do not know the symbolism. We had to take our shoes off, as we did at Buddhist temples, and there were locals praying in front - I can't tell you whether to him, for him, or something else.)
I know very little Asian military history and found the story interesting on several points. I don't know much about the heroic culture of Naresuan's court, but he may have been influenced by the Ramayana (which the Thais accept as a national epic; I saw many painted scenes from it in the old Royal Palace in Bangkok, and "Rama" is apparently a popular throne name). Rama, on the verge of inheriting the throne of his kingdom, defeats the king of the Rakshasas with his own arrow. (The description of the fight - reducing the description to a pair of decisive blows - reminds me also of the Song of Roland, but some readers here may better be able to judge how realistic it is.)
Also, this was the only time I'd read about elephants being used like horses - as a platform for a couple of humans to fight each other. From classical sources, I'd gotten used to thinking of elephants as a form of artillery - launched at the beginning of a battle, to break up enemy formations and disrupt their morale - rather than cavalry. Just clicking through the Wikipedia battles involving war elephants, I didn't see a lot to modify my earlier thinking, so this may have been a one-off.
There's a lot to be said about military leaders risking themselves at the front, but as John Keegan said most of it in The Mask of Command, I can't say I have anything to add. In any case, if the Ministry's version is right, this wasn't deliberate risk-taking by the King, but the display of a core military skill known as making the best of a bad situation.
"We have decided to wait until the Russians send the money."
This makes me laugh.
BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan (AP) — Kyrgyzstan's parliament will delay a vote on expelling U.S. troops from an important base there until it receives $450 million in aid and loans promised by Russia, a lawmaker said Monday.
This makes me laugh.
Fringe
Fringes:
Not too long ago I went by the MWR and saw a soldier playing one of the Grand Theft Auto games. It involved carjacking and robbery, murder not just cold-blooded but entirely random (and highly frequent), gang membership, thuggery of every sort, but also just outright reckless driving of an extreme sort that would be certain to get a bunch of people killed.
The soldier playing it was (I surmise from his rank and position) a responsible man who has consistently demonstrated leadership and military virtue over the course of several years. He will by now be on at least his second deployment. Yet the "fringe" behaviors depicted here are are apparently appealing to him -- at least, to his imagination.
More, the game series is (I have been told) one of the highest selling in the history of the video game industry. It has only gotten more violent and extravagant as years have passed. This indicates that the fringe desires here are, frankly, not fringe at all -- they are appealing to a large number of people. We can point to the obvious popularity of a large number of other things (such as Superbowl commercials) as evidence that this may be true more often than that a genuinely "fringe" behavior is at fault.
The danger is that the impulses are not fringe. They are not perversions of human nature. Rather, they are highly common and powerful desires with very bad practical consequences. For some they are a morass, for others a precipice. Not everyone is equally imperiled -- most of us are simply not tempted by at least one if not several of the vices, though suceptible to others.
Some of us become highly skilled at navigation and rock-climbing, and during periods of strength can explore in relative safety. (Although saying that may mark the sin of pride, which is the worst sin of all.) Yet it is discipline that enables such exploration to occur without disaster, discipline gained only through time and experience (and not without a few scars).
That is another reason why places where children may be present ought to be kept clean of certain things. It isn't that the behavior is necessarily fringe. In fact, one of the best reasons to clean it up can be that it isn't a fringe desire at all. Children need time to learn and to develop the inner discipline that will let them navigate these perils. These pleasures and vices are called "adult" not as a euphamism, but because adults are the ones who may (sometimes!) have the proper strength to handle them.
Of course, we have defined down what is meant by the term "adult" as well; so perhaps that too is no fit place to hang our sign. That, though, is another conversation.
Cassandra has a post on the Superbowl commercials -- which I will not see until starting 1800 tomorrow, which is 1000 your time, so please recall that in your discussion in case I happen to have time to get to a computer between now and then.
The topic is public v. private behavior, and the importance of maintaining a public space that is acceptable and comfortable to everyone. This is familiar ground for all of you who read her site and mine, as it is a point of commonality (more or less) in our philosophies.
In the comments, though, she says something that strikes me as worth a reply.
I also don't want to have to stop and constantly explain to my kids or grandkids that certain things are not right just because fringe behavior is thrust in my face when I least expect it.It's the phrase "fringe behavior" that I find interesting here.
Not too long ago I went by the MWR and saw a soldier playing one of the Grand Theft Auto games. It involved carjacking and robbery, murder not just cold-blooded but entirely random (and highly frequent), gang membership, thuggery of every sort, but also just outright reckless driving of an extreme sort that would be certain to get a bunch of people killed.
The soldier playing it was (I surmise from his rank and position) a responsible man who has consistently demonstrated leadership and military virtue over the course of several years. He will by now be on at least his second deployment. Yet the "fringe" behaviors depicted here are are apparently appealing to him -- at least, to his imagination.
More, the game series is (I have been told) one of the highest selling in the history of the video game industry. It has only gotten more violent and extravagant as years have passed. This indicates that the fringe desires here are, frankly, not fringe at all -- they are appealing to a large number of people. We can point to the obvious popularity of a large number of other things (such as Superbowl commercials) as evidence that this may be true more often than that a genuinely "fringe" behavior is at fault.
The danger is that the impulses are not fringe. They are not perversions of human nature. Rather, they are highly common and powerful desires with very bad practical consequences. For some they are a morass, for others a precipice. Not everyone is equally imperiled -- most of us are simply not tempted by at least one if not several of the vices, though suceptible to others.
Some of us become highly skilled at navigation and rock-climbing, and during periods of strength can explore in relative safety. (Although saying that may mark the sin of pride, which is the worst sin of all.) Yet it is discipline that enables such exploration to occur without disaster, discipline gained only through time and experience (and not without a few scars).
That is another reason why places where children may be present ought to be kept clean of certain things. It isn't that the behavior is necessarily fringe. In fact, one of the best reasons to clean it up can be that it isn't a fringe desire at all. Children need time to learn and to develop the inner discipline that will let them navigate these perils. These pleasures and vices are called "adult" not as a euphamism, but because adults are the ones who may (sometimes!) have the proper strength to handle them.
Of course, we have defined down what is meant by the term "adult" as well; so perhaps that too is no fit place to hang our sign. That, though, is another conversation.
Iraq Elections
Congratulations to the People of Iraq:
Today's elections will, I expect, go largely unnoticed back home. In a way that is a mark of the success of the Iraqi nation and our servicemembers.
Speaking only for myself, I was up at 0445 this morning. I spent the day at headquarters, to advise the command staff in case of difficulty across our operating environment. As a show of honor to the Iraqis who stood forth to vote, we began the morning with a playing of the Iraqi national anthem in the TOC. No Iraqis were there to know, but it was for them all the same. All of us know many Iraqis, work with them, eat with them in their homes.
This is their victory, but I cannot help but feel like a small stakeholder in it -- I suppose it is how you would feel if you purchased a few early shares in a company that grew strong. My part in it is negligible, but in small ways it is my fault: I supported the war before it began, and for what I thought and still think were just reasons. I have been here for certain parts of it, and contributed according to my limited powers as well as I can.
In the sense that I supported the war, I must of course accept that a part of the blood shed is my fault. Indeed, in a sense, all of it is at least partially my responsibility: it is the magic of guilt that it can be divided without being lessened.
There is a similar magic at work here, though it is not so powerful as guilt's. Credit must be lessened if divided, and I will claim no part of it. What I do feel a stake in is the pride, and something of the joy, that must attend those people who are voting for the first time not to establish a government but to change one.
Good work, Iraq. Bravo Zulu to the ISF. Thank you, to all who did more than me. It was a pleasure to see it up close.
I'll bet this is a lot funnier to me than to others around here.
I read "The Savage Sword of Conan" pretty religiously.
Heh.
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama expressed frustration Wednesday after members of his cabinet failed to recognize his allusion to the 24th issue of the comic series Savage Sword Of Conan during their first major meeting together.
I read "The Savage Sword of Conan" pretty religiously.
Added the president, "For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?"
Heh.
An Article to Discuss:
How can you learn to fight like Odysseus or Musashi? Not by studying how they fought alone, nor by reading their words or only words about them: you must also actually fight. How can you learn to think like Aquinas? Not by reading only Aquinas -- but by learning to fight like Aquinas, which means learning to understand his foes as well as himself. It is the battles he fought that gave rise to the spirit of the argument.
If you want the spirit of the man, you must preserve more than the man. You must also preserve his foes.
I wish I had time to engage this article as fully as I would like.
Hutchins’s models of a collegiate education were the medieval Trivium — rhetoric, grammar, and logic — and Quadrivium — arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. Technical knowledge was to be strenuously avoided: “Facts are the core of an anti-intellectual curriculum,” he observed. “Facts do not solve problems. . . . The gadgeteers and the data collectors have threatened to become the supreme chieftains of the scholarly world.” The true stewards of the university, said the career administrator, should be those who deal with the most fundamental problems: metaphysicians.A worthy concept, with a noble history. What was the problem?
Only St. John’s College maintains a curriculum built exclusively around the Great Books. Every student takes at least two years of ancient Greek, two of French, four of math, and three of laboratory science, the last taught not through textbooks but through primary works like Copernicus’s On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres and Lavoisier’s Elements of Chemistry.This reminds me of some of our discussions on the Laches, in which the problem of physical education is considered. Can practice-fighting in armor yield anything of the virtues required to actually fight in armor? Here is the intellectual companion -- for the education of the full man includes both intellectual and physical education.
Beam sat in on a St. John’s laboratory seminar and found it “flat, flat, flat.” The same went for a seminar on portions of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (example: “Whether the proposition ‘God exists’ is self-evident?”). “Everyone had done the reading,” Beam laments, “but few could make heads or tails of it.” The problem, as Beam sees it, is that the students aren’t allowed to bring to the discussion anything outside the text. Beam imagines “a thousand interesting questions” that would have enlivened the proceedings: “Why did Aquinas feel the necessity of proving God’s existence? Who in the Middle Ages disagreed with him?”
How can you learn to fight like Odysseus or Musashi? Not by studying how they fought alone, nor by reading their words or only words about them: you must also actually fight. How can you learn to think like Aquinas? Not by reading only Aquinas -- but by learning to fight like Aquinas, which means learning to understand his foes as well as himself. It is the battles he fought that gave rise to the spirit of the argument.
If you want the spirit of the man, you must preserve more than the man. You must also preserve his foes.
Across the Euphrates:
Some of you may recognize the bridge.
If you don't recognize the bridge, it has an interesting backstory.
The elections are coming up. I know Iraq isn't the story it used to be, but glance this way once in a while. We're not -- not quite -- finished here.
The guy over at the Volokh conspiracy is right; this is just creepy. (catch it at 3:54)
I could make all sorts of rude jokes on this, but I don't feel like polluting the hall like that. But Jeebus. What were they thinking? Do they realize how insane they sound? Not to mention how nobody is going to believe their bullshit?
Fort Apache
Fort Apache:
I was out at what used to be PB Inchon the other day -- not too long ago a real "Fort Apache." It's been turned over to the Iraqi Army now. They cooked up some rice and chicken for the patrol, and then we went on elsewhere.
There are few of the real outposts left, already -- when I was here a year ago we were still laying them in. Now they're already being handed over, or already have been handed over.
Country's getting old on me. Well, likely there will be another frontier somewhere else before it's over.
Bill Faith
Bill Faith:
It was with surprise that I read in my email that Bill Faith has died. Bill Faith was the blogger who wrote "Small Town Veteran," one of the early milblogs -- he was a Veteran of the Vietnam conflict. He also founded Old War Dogs, which is where the poetry of Russ Vaughn is first published. That fact shows the quality of the men who chose to associate with him.
I hope his family finds peace in his memory. Though I knew him only online, he seemed to be a noble and kind man.
Dead stick into the Hudson river.
I used to live on the Jersey side of the Hudson. Its pretty big, actually. But I wouldn't want to try to ditch an airliner into it.
This video on CNN shows the actual ditching, as captured by some security cameras.
(there's some audio too, of 911 calls, a couple of people astonished at what they have just seen).
The pilot, it turns out, is a safety expert. The Smoking Gun has managed to come up with his resume.
As the Smoking Gun said in its email: "All hail "Sully" Sullenberger, the hero of Flight 1549."
I used to live on the Jersey side of the Hudson. Its pretty big, actually. But I wouldn't want to try to ditch an airliner into it.
This video on CNN shows the actual ditching, as captured by some security cameras.
(there's some audio too, of 911 calls, a couple of people astonished at what they have just seen).
The pilot, it turns out, is a safety expert. The Smoking Gun has managed to come up with his resume.
As the Smoking Gun said in its email: "All hail "Sully" Sullenberger, the hero of Flight 1549."
The Exclusionary Rule and "Heroic Disobedience"
The Exclusionary Rule and Heroic Disobedience:
Yesterday, Jonah Goldberg at NRO published this article on the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court), with some follow-up from readers here and here. I remember similar arguments from NR in the 1980's - that if the evidence is unlawfully obtained, it shouldn't be suppressed, but the officer who obtained it should be disciplined. The heart of his argument is this:
In setting heroic ideals, we admire the man who is dedicated to the mission, to the right end, and culturally we like the heroic figure who puts himself at risk for those all-important ends. A Few Good Men - an excellent film, but not a truthful one - creates just such a situation for the heroic defense attorney, who risks a court-martial of his own in order to attack the corrupt colonel.[1] If police could obtain useful evidence by ignoring the rules, the dull voice of pensions, paperwork, and disciplinary hearings would be saying "get warrants, read rights, obey rules" - but the heroic crime-fighting voice would be saying, "You know who did what - break in, seize what you need, intimidate the witness, and take the consequences!" And in your heart of hearts, which voice would you want him to hear loudest?
With the exclusionary rule in place, that dilemma is not there. If the officer wants to fight crime, however heroic his heart, he has every incentive to keep the rules. The exclusionary rule isn't designed to punish the police, the public, or anyone else (though a dedicated officer, like a dedicated prosecutor, may feel punished if his work is ruined). It's designed to make it pointless to break the rules, and to make the incentives all point the right way, and for this purpose it is well designed.
[1] This depiction is as false as false can be; in my experience, military defense attorneys attack the command freely, eagerly, and with no fear whatsoever. It only makes sense; blaming the leadership fits well with military notions of responsibility, and when a Soldier steps far over the line, at least a few people are thinking, where did his leaders go wrong? (Whoever angrily declares that the troops "aren't being treated like adults" is likely forgetting that the leaders are given the responsibilities of parents...but that is another story.)
Yesterday, Jonah Goldberg at NRO published this article on the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court), with some follow-up from readers here and here. I remember similar arguments from NR in the 1980's - that if the evidence is unlawfully obtained, it shouldn't be suppressed, but the officer who obtained it should be disciplined. The heart of his argument is this:
According to the exclusionary rule, a cop who breaks the rules to arrest a serial child rapist should be “punished” by having the rapist released back into the general public. (Or as Benjamin Cordozo put it in 1926 when he was a New York state judge, “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.”) But the officer, while frustrated, isn’t really punished. The people punished are the subsequent victims and their families.Leaving aside the legal issue of how the rule was derived - in the military confessions context, Congress enacted it in section (d) of this statute - I believe his focus is wrong, and there is a good reason for having the rule that he and his readers didn't touch on. It's a matter of incentives, of heroic disobedience, of Nelson's blind eye to the spyglass.
In setting heroic ideals, we admire the man who is dedicated to the mission, to the right end, and culturally we like the heroic figure who puts himself at risk for those all-important ends. A Few Good Men - an excellent film, but not a truthful one - creates just such a situation for the heroic defense attorney, who risks a court-martial of his own in order to attack the corrupt colonel.[1] If police could obtain useful evidence by ignoring the rules, the dull voice of pensions, paperwork, and disciplinary hearings would be saying "get warrants, read rights, obey rules" - but the heroic crime-fighting voice would be saying, "You know who did what - break in, seize what you need, intimidate the witness, and take the consequences!" And in your heart of hearts, which voice would you want him to hear loudest?
With the exclusionary rule in place, that dilemma is not there. If the officer wants to fight crime, however heroic his heart, he has every incentive to keep the rules. The exclusionary rule isn't designed to punish the police, the public, or anyone else (though a dedicated officer, like a dedicated prosecutor, may feel punished if his work is ruined). It's designed to make it pointless to break the rules, and to make the incentives all point the right way, and for this purpose it is well designed.
[1] This depiction is as false as false can be; in my experience, military defense attorneys attack the command freely, eagerly, and with no fear whatsoever. It only makes sense; blaming the leadership fits well with military notions of responsibility, and when a Soldier steps far over the line, at least a few people are thinking, where did his leaders go wrong? (Whoever angrily declares that the troops "aren't being treated like adults" is likely forgetting that the leaders are given the responsibilities of parents...but that is another story.)
Ahem
Thank You, Mr. Broccoli:
This reminds me of an old post from 2005.
A bold plan to restore glory to the Colosseum:
Gladiators are to return to Rome's most famous fight arena almost 2,000 years after their bloody sport last entertained Roman crowds, local authorities announced.There's also a "gladiator slide show."
According to Umberto Broccoli, the head of archaeology at Rome's city council, 2009 will be a time for the five million people who visit the Colosseum each year to experience "the sights, sounds and smells" of ancient Rome.
"We do not need to enshrine historical sites and monuments, we need to make them more spectacular. Museums and monuments must speak to the public in a new way," Broccoli told the daily La Repubblica.
This reminds me of an old post from 2005.
Dennis the Peasant is an accountant by trade.
Its always interesting (to me anyway) to see a SME (Subject Matter Expert) comment on people who themselves, are commenting on subjects in the SME's knowledge domain.
It always makes me consider again the source. And that's a skill that is only going to be more and more important these days.
Its always interesting (to me anyway) to see a SME (Subject Matter Expert) comment on people who themselves, are commenting on subjects in the SME's knowledge domain.
It always makes me consider again the source. And that's a skill that is only going to be more and more important these days.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)