Shut Up

"Shut Up":

I was waiting to post this because I thought perhaps it was old, and pertained to a different situation than what we are now seeing. But no, it's from August 6th. So...



That's honestly amazing. 'I'm the President, and I'd just like to declare that some of my opponents have no right to participate in the debate. Just shut up, OK?'

So, who are these 'people who made the mess'? Republican politicians? Insurance companies? No, not them... Obama's kissing their feet to a degree that caused Reclusive Leftist to declare, "Understand that Obama is the Enemy." Which, actually, is stronger rhetoric than I think I've ever used about him, though I suspect I have more points of disagreement with him than she has.

So, Republican politicians, then. They've got 40 votes in the Senate, which isn't enough to stop anything on their own; but if they could just shut up, too, that'd be great.

The problem is, the Republican politicians aren't doing much of anything here. The heat that's coming is coming from fed up citizens, not the political class. The numbers are big:

Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans and 58% of unaffiliated voters say the protesters reflect the concerns of their neighbors. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats say the protests are phony.

When 58% of unaffiliated voters are against you, you lose in a landslide. The whole Obama/Pelosi strategy is based on the concept of convincing people that these protests are just bought-and-paid-for idiots, not at all a reflection of ordinary people.

Regardless of the motives behind the protests, however, voters overwhelmingly agree that the average congressman listens most to party leaders rather than the voters they represent – by a 73% to 14% margin. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided. These numbers remain virtually unchanged since April.

I guess we'll learn something definitive on that score soon. The people have spoken, as loudly and angrily as they have in a generation at least.

What to say? What to do?

What to Say? What to Do?

Elise is very angry at how the nation has treated the murders of women by a loser unable to attract them. I wondered what to say about it, and finally decided I had nothing of use to say.

The fact is that these mass killings are with us for the forseeable future. It's not a question of guns; in Iraq, they use bombs made with homemade explosives. Such weapons are not hard to make, out of chemicals readily available anywhere and too useful to ban. We are, in a sense, blessed by the guns: we read in America on rare occasion of the death of five of a dozen, rather than fifty or two hundred.

Because the killings are always the product of the unstable and strange, it's impossible to predict where they will occur, or when, or why. Indeed, giving weight to the meaning is almost pointless. It's only accidental that these minds' hatred and rage settled on X instead of Y. No amount of education or reasoning would have persuaded them to hate Y instead of X, and certainly not to hate nothing at all. You cannot teach them that womens' lives matter, or that anyone's does.

Once I would have said: "The lesson here is that women must be prepared to defend themselves; they ought to want to seek the training, and they ought to want to seek the tools." I have decided that, too, is a fool's errand. In Iraq, for example, there remains a problem of female servicemembers being raped. Rape is usually described as 'a fate worse than death,' and for good reason. When two people have sex, even if one of them sincerely does not wish it, chemicals in the brain cause a bonding with the other. Thus the raped cannot escape the memory of the rapist or the rape. The torment cannot end, does not end for many years, I have understood from those I've known who've suffered it. Yet time and again, women who were trained to arms, required to carry them everywhere, taught to kill as well as anyone could be taught, and well aware of the danger, did not use their arms, nor make themselves prepared to use them in those moments where the danger was most likley.

Some women are suited to killing, but many are not: many, and very good women, would not kill even to save themselves from death or a fate worse than death. I don't think that's a flaw in them. So, while I absolutely believe in the right of women to bear arms, and have trained many myself in their use, I know this is not the solution that will take away the problem. It can help some women, but it will not help all of them. Neither does that fact mean that there is something wrong with those it will not help.

I will certainly say to those who can bear arms that they should, always and everywhere. Be prepared, even though it is unlikely in America that you will ever encounter violence of this sort: but if you do, you may be the only hope. To those of noble heart, be ready to lay down your lives at any moment in the defense of the weak and the innocent. Evil exists. We must be ready to die at all times, in our souls and hearts as well as otherwise.

Those of us who can must be likewise ready to kill, that we may defend those who are not. It is important to do this, and to do it while remembering that those who are not able may be better than us. If you can remember that their gentleness and kindness may make them better than we are, you serve them humbly: ordinary people, who mean no harm.

If there is more to be said than this, I don't know what it is, unless it is prayer. Perhaps you know.

Order of ST. George

The Order of St. George:

Lt. Col. Edward Bohnemann, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division performs the traditional knighting for Sgt. 1st Class Byron Grier during his induction into the Order of St. George at Fort Hood's Iron Horse Gymnasium, July 22. Grier was one of three senior noncommissioned officers at the ceremony to receive the award, which is granted to armor and cavalry leaders for their dedication to duty and leadership. (Photo by U.S. Army)

Organized v. Disorganized

Organized Protests:

This marks a strange moment in American life. Ordinary citizens have come together to protest a government initiative. The government has apparently decided to declare the dissent inauthentic, and to suppress it using a combination of rhetoric and force.

It is not the first moment when protests have been declared to be the work of organized agitators, and bands of men deployed to drive them off. That was a regular feature of the early union movement, with union organizers (branded Communists, only sometimes with justification) being targeted by hired strikebreakers.

In those days, though, unions were poor and poorly represented. Though honest and hard-working, they were easy to marginalize because their experiences were not like those of the broadest part of the population. It was not difficult to convince Americans in the middle that they were dangerous, and in need of being brought to order.

The protesting groups today are composed of middle-class Americans, the most normal and ordinary sorts of people. The government has turned against these groups sharply, apparently under the belief that it can marginalize them according to the old formula.

That cannot work, however, because these people are quite mainstream. Iowahawk makes the point in satirical fashion, but quite well. Look at the examples of an organized protest -- the formatted signs, easy to read on television, or the uniforms of t-shirts, so that TV viewers will know there are large groups of people in agreement with the protest.

The opposite images -- just folks showing up in whatever they were wearing that day, amateur lettering on signs, etc -- are also available. Keep that in mind when you look at stories about these protests, because it is an excellent point.

For example, look here, at protestors that were simply locked out of the town hall meeting. (Union members were admitted through a side door, for the benefit of TV cameras inside.)

Take a look at these dues-paying members of AARP:



The White House is actively organizing a movement designed to show support for its programs, having just stated that 'organized' opposition was illegitimate. The Speaker of the House is dreaming up swastikas; scrambling to cover for her, the Huffington Post did manage to uncover a single swastika on one of those hand-lettered signs. It had a circle and a strikeout through it: 'No swastikas,' in other words.

Peggy Noonan, very much a Beltway insider, writes that the Congress is simply shocked. They knew there was hostility, of course -- that's why there was such a push to get this done before August. Nobody knew just how hot it would be. It's as hot as it has ever been in my lifetime.

I remember attending a HillaryCare "town hall" back in the early part of the Clinton administration, where an administration spokesperson came down to tell us about how great it would be. There were quite a few stiff questions about the plan then, too. Finally, in frustration, she said: 'What you really need to understand is that you'll get whatever health care you need, and it won't cost you anything.'

The audience burst out in uproarious laughter, with hoots and hollering thrown in for good measure.

Nobody seems to be laughing this time.

Clausewitz Today

Clausewitz Today:

Here is a review of On War at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Von Clausewitz remains the standard text for military science's beginnings. Though other introductory material now exists -- the Marine Corps' Warfighting, for example -- there is still a great deal of value in the book.

The reason it is so valuable is that the basic concepts remain powerful. Clausewitz was writing in the Age of Napoleon, but even in the age of maneuver warfare -- even in the age of Air/Land Warfare -- even in the age of Hybrid Warfare, the basic concepts he described exist. There is an enemy, with a structure that has to be attacked. There is a population, which is the key to final victory. There is friction in every action.

Vegetius, a Roman writer of the fourth century AD, said, "Let him who desires peace prepare for war." Carl von Clausewitz sharpened the point: "The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms." Darfur has made clear that that is not just a metaphor.

Just so, though denying that fact has been the strong hope of many people who wish it was not the case. For one such competing view, see here.

Now that's a boy

Now That's a Son To Be Proud Of:

Down Australia way, they still make boys fit to be men once in a while.

THE nine-year-old son of a spectator king-hit at a children's rugby match punched and hit the alleged attacker to try to get the strongly-built steel worker off his father.

"King-hit" appears to mean a blindside attack, followed up by pummeling the man while he's down. Here's a nine-year-old boy who looked at a giant of a man who had knocked down his father, and was hurting him badly: and decided the right course was to attack. That's a boy to be proud of, as I trust his father must be.

Of course the thug proves to have previous problems with abusing those unable to defend themselves. All of the British lands seem to have this issue: somehow their jurisprudence has gotten to a point where a man can use the strength he was given to assault women, children, and the defenseless, and yet be free to do it again.

The Last Great War in the Ukraine

The Last Great War in the Ukraine:

I believe this is an art form I have never before observed, practiced with an extraordinary degree of both talent and development.

(H/t: Arts & Letters Daily.)

Trouble

We May Be In Trouble:

Once:





Now:





There is no excuse for anyone being able to out-cowboy the United States of America. Something's not right.

Lars Book

West Oversea

Our friend and occasional commenter Lars Walker has apparently been so modest as to fail to mention to us his new book, trusting perhaps that everyone would simply find out on his own. :)

I see that the reader review mentions two things that ought to draw the eye of many who frequent Grim's Hall: Norse mythology, and Robert E. Howard.

Discordant Images

Women and Discord:

I spent part of the night reading (with a glass of porter and a fine Gurkha cigar) from Dr. Elizabeth Hallam's Chronicles of the Crusades. The book is mostly a collection of translated primary source writings from the period, both Western and Arabic. There are some sidebar pieces of analysis by the good doctor.

The Crusades are full of fascinating stories, reaching all levels of humanity. There are visions of saints and rivers of blood, chaste knights and unchaste nuns. The oath taken by the crusaders under Richard the Lionheart and his companion kings spent the greatest bulk of its words on regulations governing gambling by Crusaders while on the pilgrimage.

Here are a few notes that I thought were interesting:

Nicetas Choniates, a historian of the Byzantine empire, chronicles that the armies of the Second Crusade had "women riding astride horses... more masculine than the Amazons." Such women appear again in the chronicles of the Third Crusade at the siege of Acre, where they fought the Turks "with huge knives, bringing back severed heads in triumph." (p. 142)

Eleanor of Aquitaine's presence with the Second Crusade, however, went virtually unnoticed by the historians present for the Crusade itself. The importance of her presence, and that of her ladies, was created later by that sort of writer who -- having taken no part in the war himself -- seeks to excuse defeat by blaming it on those who did fight. A convienent excuse for those who want God to favor the righteous, the women were blamed for everything from excess luggage to excess lust. Not, that is, by anyone actually present: by people writing years later, from the safety of home.

The unchaste nun mentioned above (and mentioned on p. 73 of the text) sought out the highest authorities of the First Crusade to wail about her ravishment by a Turkish lord. She was granted forgiveness for whatever sin had been in such unlawful union, but then soon after, a messenger from that same Turk appeared to offer her a chance to join him for another such adventure. She disappeared, perhaps in the hope of winning her ravisher to marriage and Christianity, and thus making all good. So we believe, though Albert of Aachen adds after noting that potential hope, she might have gone simply "because her own lust was too much to bear."

Women made vows to go on Crusade from the earliest, the book notes, but often redeemed them for cash: this was a useful way for women who were not physically capable of the war of the day to participate in the great calling of their era. Yet even from the beginning many went in person, especially those who could afford to field a small army of followers who would add weight to the venture.

In this way, the women of the Crusades were exactly like the men. The old wisdom was that Crusaders were mostly second-sons and young men without other hopes for advancement. More careful scholarship in recent generations has proven otherwise: the Cross was taken most often by established men with much to lose, who mortgaged their holdings for the chance to clean their souls.

It's a more interesting story than we have allowed ourselves to believe it.

Iraq Trends

Iraq Trends:

Things in Iraq seem to be going better than I'd expected. The death rate has declined since the handover of the cities to Iraqi control, although that may be temporary. It would be wise of an insurgent group to take a low-level approach until they're familiar with the ISF's new procedures. I still expect to see some high-profile attacks exploiting those weaknesses once the various insurgents feel they understand the new lay of the land. Nevertheless, it's nice to see.

Meanwhile, politics continue. Iraq the Model correctly describes the debate. What I noticed back when I read Iraqi newspapers every day was that both sides of the debate -- what he calls the "Federalists" and "Nationalists" -- are using the term democracy. The Federalists claim the flag of 'consensual democracy,' which is to say, they say that giving the three major ethnic/religious groups quotas maintains everyone's consent to participate in the democracy. The Nationalists state that they want a 'democratic system,' which is to say, a more direct majority rule.

I found that the politics don't work out quite the way you'd expect. We spoke with some sheikhs who were Sunni, and you'd think they'd tend to Federalism and the protection of Sunni interests through quotas. Instead, they were strong Nationalists, because they were looking at the Arab/Kurd division in the north as the key issue for the future. They are almost certainly correct.

Sunni/Shia reconciliation appears to be proceeding, with IFCNR's plan for transitioning the Sons of Iraq being put into practice. It's one of those 'a little at a time' things, but that's how Iraq is.

Overall, having been home for a little more than a month, I'm pleased at what I see looking back. BillT, and others still there: my respects, gentlemen.

USS Jason Dunham

The USS Jason Dunham:

I hear this destroyer will do 31 knots. The two men who share the honor of the ship's name and class had a lot in common.

Lies, DL, Stats

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics:

Now this is an interesting chart:



At the link, the fellow talks about where his numbers come from, in case anyone wants to take a closer look.

I'd like to see some sense of the movement of the states to "shall-issue" concealed carry permits. Then we can tie that trend line not just to "How Many Guns Do People Own?", but also "How Many People Are Carrying Guns in Public?" I suspect you'd see some correlation with the downward slope.

[UPDATE: Ack! I see that was actually worked in already -- it's in the dim grey bars in the background, rather than a trend line. It looks like there is no obvious correlation, unless there is a 'critical mass' of concealed carry states that served as a tipping point for the trend. In such a case, criminals could easily move efforts at first, but at some point there would be no more places to go except the few hard-control states. There, criminals would be in direct competition with each other, so there would be some sort of ecology at work limiting the total harm done. Alternatively, of course, there could simply be no correlation at all; it could be that concealed carry rates have no appreciable effect on gun deaths, as counterintuitive as that would be for both the gun rights and gun control crowds.]

H/t: Gwa45.

A Christmas Story

"A Christmas Story"

The founder of a small business wrote a story about his father's last, great gift to him.

The paper tore away easily and revealed a severely plain crate made of fiberboard and masonite, that bore no markings of any kind. It was nailed shut. I had never gotten anything delivered in a crate before. It conjured up images of turn-of-the-century archaeologists digging through excelsior to find some precious object buried within, like mummies in sarcophagi. My Dad just smiled and got up, a few loooooong minutes later returning with a small steel pry bar (Craftsman, of course.)

“Careful, now,” was all he said.

It's a good story, though Eric may mock the Anglophilia on such open display.

It also underlines the concept of the Vision of Beauty, which in this case has informed a man's whole life and work. One thing that I notice from the story is how he never thought to ask just what it had cost his father, while the man was alive to ask: but now, as years pass, he wonders more and more about the sacrifice involved.

There speaks a man who has learned about making sacrifices of his own.

Pitchforks

Torches and Pitchforks:

Politico reports:

Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety — welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.

Given their performance, they are getting off easy. The police do seem to be taking a hard line in defending public officials, though. Even so, I was surprised at this report, which I saw at Dad29's place.

During the motorcade when the president was arriving, there were several vehicles following the limo that contained the secret service. All of the vehicles had all the windows rolled down, and back hatch open on the SUVs with the men holding their, I assume assault rifes, machine guns, drawn on everyone lining the streets. Needless to say it took my breath away at the sight of them, and made my friends and I dizzy with fear. I have seen the secret service before, but never like this. While they were intimidating, I never felt in danger. The guns were not drawn when the motorcade was leaving the event. But I turned on a local talk radio program as we were leaving and all the calls were about witnessing the guns being pointed at them and nothing else until the end of the program.

I've seen the President's motorcade, but never did I encounter this particular unit with open windows -- the Counter Assault Team, as they are called. Apparently, at some point in the last few years this has become standard practice to judge by these pictures. It's not just M4 carbines, either.



I'm afraid the pitchforks aren't going to do much good. :)

Seriously, though, these guys aren't there for protestors. Their job is to protect the President against a disciplined attack by terrorists or paramilitary forces. It's kind of an oddity, since I don't know that there has ever been such an attack on any Presidential convoy; further, you'd expect a VBIED threat rather than terrorists ginning up a fire team to take on the convoy.

Still, it's never a bad idea to be prepared for contingencies. While the President -- any President -- is the most replacable man in the world, having a full-time understudy and a predetermined chain of successors, we do have actual enemies out there. Some of them are capable of staging an attack on his convoy, if they put enough planning into it.

The Secret Service aren't the President's enforcers. They don't exist to execute his orders. They exist to protect him, and have power to override his orders if they feel it is necessary to his immediate security. They are, therefore, properly viewed as an independent and honorable company, entirely separate from the politics of the day or the occupant of the office.

Dishonor

Dishonor...

...lies in the tale.

[W]hen the thin man in a beanie cap, dark clothing and sunglasses pushed a black backpack across the bank counter and demanded money, Nicholson says his instincts took over....

Nicholson threw the bag to the floor, lunged toward the robber and demanded to see a weapon. Surprised, the would-be bank robber backed up and then bolted for the door, with Nicholson on his heels.

Nicholson, 30, chased the man for several blocks before knocking him to the ground with the help of a passer-by. Nicholson then held him until police arrived.

That was Tuesday.

On Thursday, Nicholson was fired.

The dishonor is not his, but the bank's, and the government's.

In a state that consistently ranks in the top 10 nationally in bank robberies, what Nicholson did was not only ill-advised, according to police and the FBI, it was all but unheard of. Bank tellers are trained to get robbers out the door as quickly as possible and are advised against being a hero over money that's federally insured.

The fact that the money is insured doesn't make it right to stand by while it is stolen!

Every man has a duty to defend the common peace and the lawful order. Every citizen is an owner of that peace and order, which is a good we all hold together.

A man who won't fight for it is no man. A government that urges you not to fight for it dices with its sovereignty.

Corporations are free to have immoral rules, as men are free to be immoral. I would do no business with such a firm, no more than I would with a wicked man.

Apocalypse porn.

The Wall Street Journal has an article on a new wave of disaster movies.

"A flood of postapocalyptic stories is now headed toward movie theaters and TV screens: Expect to see characters fending off cannibals, picking up day-to-day survival techniques and struggling to maintain their humanity amid the ruins. Previous waves of pop-culture disaster, from the Atomic Age paranoia of “War of the Worlds” to Watergate-era flicks such as “The Towering Inferno,” have depicted calamity in stunning detail. Many of the new projects, however, actually skip the spectacle of doomsday. Instead, they’re more fixed on what goes down in the aftermath."

This sort of stuff generally annoys me, since it is typically the product of some depressed writer, now trying infect the rest of us with their wretchedness:

“For me, I feel like I live in an apocalyptic world with global warfare, a recession, and resource scarcity,” says Jesse Alexander, writer and executive producer of NBC’s “Day One.”

Manup, Jesse. It's not that bad. The government isn't drafting your spoiled, whitebread, middle class butt and making you storm Iwo Jima.
But I also see this sort of thinking from time to time on plenty of blogs, (and comments on blogs), by people who really ought to know better. Whether it's black helicopters, Jihadi Nukes, H1N1, or ACORN activists, there are too many people out there who think that the end of the world is nigh. The end of the world has been predicted before. It did not end then, and it isn't going to end now.

Blanche of Castile:

Following up on the post of a few days ago, I thought of doing a series on similar women.

Blanche of Castile organized two fleets to assist her husband in his invasion of England. Although the invasion failed, the failure was due to a united England's resistance rather than to any failure of effort or intelligence on her part.

Later, following her husband's death, she was regent of France and guardian of their children. During this time she resisted an attack by the English upon her soil, and broke up a cartel of Barons united to claim greater powers from her (as a similar group would wrest the Magna Carta from King John).

She became regent again while her son Louis IX, then king, went on Crusade. He felt quite confident leaving his mother to defend his kingdom, and provide him with support for his wars in the Holy Land.

Has anyone written a book in the last few years about the remarkable women of the Middle Ages, one that doesn't portray them as victims of the Patriarchy, nor as helpless Disney-style "princesses", but allows them to shine in their own glory? One that respects them for who they were and what they did, and shows them as the partners of the men in their lives? Blanche was a very reliable partner to her husband and son, trusted and capable, and therefore possessed of great duties and powers.

Such a book would be a worthy project, if it has not been done. If it has, I would very much enjoy reading it myself.

Speaking of Which

Speaking of Which...

A much less important topic, but one in the news today, is the "birther" business. Hot Air mentions a poll that shows that Southerners disproportionately disbelieve that Obama was born in the United States.

I've already expressed my sense of the controversy in the comments recently, but to recap: because Obama's mother was an American citizen, the only way in which he could be constitutionally ineligible is if she were incapable of passing on citizenship to her son. It happens that the law actually does say this, in the case of mothers whose husbands were not citizens and whose children were born abroad (so I understand from reading birther manifestos). However, forbidding a mother to pass citizenship to her son is so manifestly unjust that there is no possible way that a court would enforce it, even if you could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was born in Kenya. The law, if indeed there was such a law, was repealed for a very good reason. (Even if you did find the court willing to remove him from office -- and it would have to be the Supreme Court, eventually -- you would be hearing for the next twenty years that you had sponsored the last enforcement of Jim Crow.)

Obama's not worth the harm that would cause the American polity. Even if you were right, and could prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, the whole business is foolish and should be tossed aside.

To return to the poll, however: 53% of Southerners stated that Obama was not born in the United States (23%), or that they were unsure (30%). As you know, and as Elise lays out (as part of her theory that there are really triplet Obamas), there is a "Certification of Live Birth," but not a "Certificate of Live Birth." The two documents are different, and the one that Obama has put out is less authoritative than the other in several respects.

What's being asked here is, 'Are you willing to take President Obama's word, in the face of evidence that he is telling the truth, but without absolute proof that he is telling the truth?'

Most Americans appear to be treating this as an empirical claim: given the evidence, what is most likely? Southerners, being an honor culture, are treating it as a question of honor.

Fifty-three percent of Southerners are simply not willing to take his word on it. Twenty-three percent are flatly declaring him a liar, which is a fighting matter. Thirty percent are stating that his word is no good, even if there is evidence to back it: actual proof is required when dealing with him, given their low opinion of his honor.

That's not really shocking. Obama has sacrificed nothing for anyone, and indeed has proven very willing to sacrifice others for himself: the Rev. Wright, Hillary Clinton, every single position he professed during the election, etc. Southerners normally despise men like this.

Honor Defined

Honor Defined:

The other day I was asking a boy if he could define "honor." Most people can't. It's a word we use very loosely; some people think it means something like "honesty" or "integrity." It doesn't mean either, exactly, as the parable of John Randolph shows clearly.

A guest is coming to dinner; Mr. Randolph is not prepared to receive him; he opens the door to the guest and says, "Sir, I am not home"; the guest leaves, without attempting to say in any way that Mr. Randolph is being less than truthful.

If honor meant "honesty," saying something that was obviously untrue would be proof of dishonor. Instead, Randolph's story shows that a man of honor is taken at his word -- even when it is obvious he is telling you something untrue. The visitor's willingness to take his word when he is telling an obvious untruth is proof of his honor, not his dishonor.

Why? When you understand that riddle, you will understand the real nature of honor.

"To honor" is to sacrifice something you value, in favor of something greater. You might honor a man by sacrificing your time to come to his birthday party. You might honor your country by risking your life for it. Some who do lose their lives in sacrifice. You sacrifice of yourself for something greater, something that matters to more than just you.

Honor is the quality of a man who does this.

A man of honor can be relied upon, because he will sacrifice his personal interests for his principles. This is the reason "honor" has become confused with simple honesty: we assume that such a man will only tell the truth. Yet he might -- as Randolph did -- have a reason to do otherwise. Because he has shown himself to be a man of honor, we trust him even when we don't know his reasons.

That willingness of people to place their faith in his hands is the proof of his honor. He would not have it if he had not earned it. Such a man is beloved, and when we love a man it is because of the sacrifices he has made for us. It is because he has loved us, and things we love, and at cost.

That is honor.

Chiv. per woman

A Woman's Thoughts on Chivalry:

I was updating my links today, long past due! If any of you regular readers have blogs that aren't on the new lists, let me know and I will add them.

While reading over Lars Walker's site, I ran across this link. It touches on our recent discussions, from a lady's perspective.

True chivalry is a deeply-held perspective that women are valuable and should not be exploited or taken for granted, but should be admired and protected and enjoyed with care and respect.

Chivalry is much broader than male-female relations, and touches on the whole code of life for 'heroes, warriors, and tamers of horses.' However, because of the chaotic state of male-female relations, that subset of the topic is always of special interest to everyone. I decided today to put together a compilation of what I've written on chivalry as an ethic. I turns out to be a whole lot more than I'd realized.

I've broken out the links into two sections, on the sidebar: "Chivalry," and "Chivalry & Women" for articles that relate to that sub-section of the topic. If you go to read over these things, be sure to read the comments. Often the most of the value comes from readers' thoughts.

Hate Speech?

Hate Speech?

Well, we tried to warn you.

Princesses

Princesses:

InstaPundit takes notice of a piece that criticizes women for being "princesses." He comments that he prefers either "Sarah Connor" over a helpless person who wants to be pampered all the time.

One of the key problems in seeing these issues clearly is the disdain in which our ancestors are sometimes held. We've been told so often that women of old were weak, or oppressed, or helpless, that people have just come to believe it.

Here's a story about a princess -- indeed, a Queen.

The Queen of England, who was very anxious to defend her kingdom and guard it from all disturbers, in order to show that she was earnest about it came herself to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. She took up her residence there, to wait for the forces she expected from different parts of the kingdom. The Scots, who were informed that Newcastle was the place of rendezvous of the English army, advanced thither, and sent their vanguard to skirmish near the town; who, on their return, burnt some hamlets adjoining to it. The smoke and flames came into the town....

On the morrow, the King of Scotland, with full forty thousand men, including all sorts, advanced within three short English miles of Newcastle[.]

The Queen ordered the defense from a shorter range, and greater personal danger, than is normally encountered by our general officers today. No one thought this was shocking at the time; it was her duty.

On the day of the battle, she rode out to the army to ensure it was properly formed for the combat:

The Queen of England came to the place where her army was, and remained until it was drawn out in four battalions.... The queen now advanced among them, and entreated them to do their duty well in defending the honor of their lord and king, and urged them, for the love of God, to fight manfully. They promised her they would acquit themselves loyally, to the utmost of their power, perhaps better than if the king had been there in person.

Her name was Philippa of Hainault. Her victory over the Scots earned a mention in Shakespeare. The "she" in these lines is England as a whole, but very readily personified by the Queen who led her:

When all her chivalry hath been in France,
And she a mourning widow of her nobles,
She hath herself not only well defended,
But taken, and impounded as a stray,
The king of Scots; whom she did send to France,
To fill King Edward’s fame with prisoner kings...

These were her arms:

Health Care

Health Care: Next Step

Elise has written a whole series of posts on 1233, several in response to a fellow Georgia-blogger called "MaxedOutMama." MOM believes that the 1233 incentive structure is definitely designed to encourage doctors to refuse care; Elise explains her disagreement in a very detailed way that I won't attempt to summarize.

Elise says, at one point:

Before I begin, let me say I am very much aware I am falling into exactly the trap Grim described so well:

The one thing that could undermine the Right's position would be to admit they were wrong, which would indeed undercut their credibility. The most successful rhetoric will, instead, answer every such defense with a new charge: 'So you claim that mish-mash is a defense? Well, then explain how in section 12, you call for taxpayers to pay for lawyers to write living wills for the elderly.'

I have to admit to a bit of impish glee at this next part:

Protein Wisdom: "The Communists Have Landed!"

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments and benefits you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individuals’ finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks’ accounts for election funds transfer

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195 HC Bill - Officers and employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial and personal records.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors will all be paid the same, regardless of what specialty you have.

Pg 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.

Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells doctors what/how much they can own.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people.! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “Advance care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

Pg 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those same services

OK, Elise, get to work. ;)

Jean de Nivelle:

Ey, ey, ey, avaunt: Jean de Nivelle est triumphant.

Ici, freres et soeurs.

Not two months ago I was discussing analytic philosophy with a tribesman of the Hamdani, in my broken French and his broken English. He was educated at the University of Paris, which is a better education than I've had myself.

Don't sell them short. Iraq is going to be all right.

Where Feminism Went Wrong

Author's note:  In the two years after I wrote this post, some excellent female readers, and some others who are friends I know away from the internet, have convinced me to value the perspective of feminism as a mode of inquiry.  I retain the objection to false consciousness, however, without reservation:  it is a violation of the principle of plurality, which is to say that it is a failure to respect a person's right to disagree.  It is one thing to say that someone is wrong, and fight for what you believe; it is another thing to deny that they have the standing to fight for what they believe.  In the duel, a gentleman fights only with equals.  In striving for the right, we are all equals.  Each of us possesses a freehold, a part of the world of time and space that is ours alone:  a place that stretches from birth to death.  We are thus equally dignified.  Everyone has the right, and the duty, to fight for the true and the beautiful.

Since I have so often learned from our friend Cassandra, I eventually tend to follow her continued interests even when I am initially not disposed to do so.

My sense about the video is that the lady's most devout wish is that it had never existed. Therefore, I remain determined to act as if it did not. Not to pretend that it does not, which would be a lie: but to act as if it does not, which is a decision.

Nevertheless, when I finally got around to reading up on the business this morning -- following her continued interest, as I said -- I learned that there is a thing called "Rule 5," which lies at the root of this. The author seems to have correctly understood the rules of internet traffic, and although I don't normally read him, I recognize him as someone cited regularly by Dad29, which means he must be a decent man. (So say we all.)

Rule 5 is a rule for generating internet traffic, not a moral rule. One of its precepts is this:

Feminism sucks -- You can never go wrong in the blogosphere by having a laugh at the expense of feminists. All sane people hate feminism, and no one hates feminism more than smart, successful, independent women who've made it on their own without all that idiotic "Sisterhood Is Powerful" groupthink crap. And if you are one of those fanatical weirdos who takes that Women's Studies stuff so seriously that you're offended by Stephen Green's sexist objectification of Christina Hendricks and her mighty bosom -- well, sweetheart, to paraphrase Rhett Butler: "You should be offended, and often, and by someone who knows how."

There is a part of feminism that does suck. You cannot correct it, though, merely by offending it. You must understand just where it is wrong. The moral has to interact with the pleasant.

The reason feminism sucks isn't its desire to create a society in which women and their interests are important. The reason is not that it insists on female voices being taken seriously; nor even that it wants men to change in ways that make women happier or more comfortable.

The older I get, the more I believe that chivalry, and especially its concept of the service of women by loving men, is the thing that defines the West. Other societies have had everything else: philosophy, science, even Christianity, which has been practiced in Egypt and China without ever learning how the brave may serve, and liberate through love:



Don't stop there. Look at these. See the thousands of paintings men have called "The Lady of the Lake."

The reason 'feminism sucks' is the concept called "false consciousness." This is originally a Marxist concept.  It is the style of argumentation that goes: "This is what I believe. Those who disagree are wicked, sick, or insane."  Most commonly the insanity attributed is being too oppressed to know better:  but the only way you can prove that you are no so oppressed is to adopt the correct opinions.  You are thus trapped:  if you assert as you believe, you are too oppressed to be taken seriously.  If you assert as they believe, you are obviously a free and equal mind -- but in fact you are now oppressed, because you cannot believe as your heart leads you.

There is a parallel in psychology, which is an equally dangerous field.  Dr. Helen was talking today about the DSM-V, which shares this basic trait. Anything that differs from what is perceived as "normal" by those tasked with writing the thing seems to be constructed as a pathology of some sort, an illness. She asks what pathology might really be, for example, in the area of sex. One of her commenters notes: "A basic criteria for any mental disorder are the following: 1) Distress, 2)Dysfunction, and 3)Deviance."

The first two have potential -- who wants to see anyone in distress? -- but the last one is foolish. "Deviance" merely means that what you are doing is unusual. Just recently we mentioned St. Francis of Assisi giving up all his goods to live in the forest, and serve the poor. God knows that is an unusual thing to do -- or 'deviant behavior,' to use the terms of the era. God knows also whether it is wrong, sick, or wicked. Insofar as men have dared to judge, we have declared him a saint.

A man may be wholly alone in seeing the right, and still be right. So may a woman. That is first the problem of feminism: it refuses to let even women follow their own heart.

Just as bad is the second problem: it licenses wrongdoing as long as it is common.

This also exists outside of the Feminist movement. There are those men who admit, 'What I am doing is horrible,' and then assert that it is a statement of fidelity to 'heterosexual men'. Bound by common wickedness, are we?

Well, I have often done horrible things. Pride and Wrath rather than Lust seem to me my paramount sins, but I do not fail to understand.

"When God put man in a garden
He girt him with a sword,
And sent him forth a free knight
That might betray his lord;

"He brake Him and betrayed Him,
And fast and far he fell,
Till you and I may stretch our necks
and burn our beards in hell."

So we may. And maybe we should: perhaps it is why we were let to come so far from home, to learn things about ourselves. But don't forget where you are, or in what peril.

It is not deviance you should fear, but dishonor. Neither can the fact that a behavior is common save you. If it is common to be wrong, deviance is a bath to wash and a balm to heal.

We follow our hearts, and hope. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Rep Democ.

Representative Democracy:

The people have spoken. Now get to work.

Kindness

Kindness to Others:

Douglas, in the comments to the post on Beauty and Desecration, remarked:

"Bring back true chivalry, bring back the idea that love is more than hormones and lust, bring back the idea that one can take time to stop and contemplate something beautiful, to sit in silence and dream."

I still think it was a big mistake to start translating charity as love[i.e., translating "caritas" -Grim]. It moved from something involving action and possible cost, and instead became about feelings- just too self-centered for my tastes.

It's easier to feel love than to live charitably.

Ms. Jessica Crispin reviews a book that argues we are wired to be kind, as proven by all the unkindness in the world.

Even believing that humans are hardwired for kindness — and not that competition rules all — could affect everything from simple interactions to national policy on eldercare and the health system.

They write in On Kindness that while it’s always been a philosophical quandary as to whether man’s nature was genuinely kind or selfish, the cynics won out and convinced us that kindness is the clothing civilization forces us to wear, and that deep down we are all wild beasts. Instead of being the cooperative generous beings that primatologists and anthropologists have suggested we are, the argument goes, we need religion and laws to keep us from slicing each other open on a regular basis. Kindness, then, was relegated to your Christian duty, to be done as an item on a checklist....

It can be unpleasant, and there is a prevailing notion that vulnerability and kindness are signs of weakness — for a long time kindness was seen as the territory of weak-minded women, while competition, brutality, and selfishness were the powers of the superior man. Today independence and self-sufficiency are the true virtues, and the interdependence that comes with a kind nature is looked down upon.

And yet when have humans ever craved kindness quite so much? Phillips and Taylor write, “The modern Western adult’s fear about himself is that, to put it crudely as possible, his hatred is stronger than his love; that there is, in the British psychoanalyst Ernest Jones’s words, ‘much less love in the world than there appears to be.’”

I'm not sure how this turned into an anti-Christian rant, since Christianity was the main voice in Western culture that continued to insist on kindness. More, it did so in a way that claimed the virtue equally for men and for women, which seems to be the other complaint here.

(It's because Christianity made it into a 'duty,' instead of suggesting that it's something fun and natural. How oppressive. -ed. Well, when it is fun and natural we don't need to be led to it; the important thing is to be kind and charitable when it's hard, not when it's easy.)

The surviving point, though, is that kindness is an active virtue. It's not enough to have feelings of love for people, but do nothing. It's also not enough to feel a sense of charity, and therefore to vote for someone to do something about it -- but do nothing yourself. To realize the good of the virtue, you actually have to do something.

"Interdependence" isn't the thing that causes us to shy from being more open to showing kindness, though. It's dependence -- not ours, but others'. We all love to take in lost kittens and stray dogs; but if you make a policy of doing it, you very soon find yourself so awash in cats and dogs that every dime of your income is going to their upkeep, while they have long since shredded your curtains and ruined your floors.

The same applies to people. St. Francis of Assisi was able to spend his life in service to the poor because he was able to give up everything and live in a mud-and-branch hut. If you also are willing to adopt a lifestyle that is poorer than that the poor covet for themselves, there is no problem about this. Such a decision must surely be made individually: no one has the right to decide for us that we shall give up everything and live in mud huts, so that the poor may be given whatever we might have.

There are people who are unfit for the pressures of American capitalism, lacking either the ability or the will to do the work to support themselves. They desire protection or support instead of freedom. Many we imprison. Others we support via welfare programs, or by the kind of government job-as-sinecure that we find in every major bureaucracy, the kind where you are entitled to a paycheck and essentially cannot be fired regardless of performance.

I used to believe that these bureaucracies were purely wicked institutions for that reason. The job they do may need to be done ("may," I say, because many of them I think we could dispense with entirely); but it could surely be done more efficiently with private employees who were under threat of firing and other economic pressures. Forcing people to rise to those higher standards would mean that they did rise to them, and society would be better than it is.

Cassandra said recently, in another context, that it is a great fault of conservatives that they like to write rules with the best-equipped in mind. "The government that governs best, governs least" applies well to people who -- left alone - will strive unceasingly for the betterment of their families and beloved ones. Not everyone is like that, though, and leaving them without guidance may create problems. Telling them they must compete at the highest levels when they cannot may be equally wrong.

The problem of dependence remains. The government is currently in the hands of people who want to vote themselves, and their constituents, a living at the expense of others. That's no more sustainable than having the policy of always taking in stray cats and dogs when you meet them.

Even so, there is a duty to charity. We must find a way to support the weak with jobs and care, without the concern that we will thereby find ourselves voted into their forced servitude. We must reclaim the right to decide how much charity we can afford. Some will be generous, and some less, and a few will follow St. Francis into the forest.

The charity, though, will be freely given rather than stolen at sword's point. That's the other point missing from On Kindness' idea that our debates on public policy will be altered by a recognition of a human impulse to kindness. In order to get the benefits of the virtue, it has to be active: which means it has to be chosen. The effect on one's mind of choosing to be kind to the weak is just as they describe. The effect on the mind of having your taxes raised, or your property seized to pay for those taxes, is quite opposite.

If you want to raise the amount of love in the world, you can't do it by force. Not even with the government and its mechanisms as your handmaidens.

Defending Ms. Clinton

A Word, Or Rather Not, In Defense of Mrs. Clinton:

I would rise to the defense of our Secretary of State against baseless slander, but frankly, North Korean diplomats are hardly fit to speak to her. You can receive insult only from an equal; no free woman should bother even to snap her fingers at the insults of the slave diplomats of a regime of liars.

From the subjects of North Korea, perhaps: for in suffering, we are exalted. Those who suffer as these do have a claim beyond equality, even on our service. If we have a policy toward North Korea, it should be aimed at their service. Never, though, should we speak of equality for those who receive preference from such a regime as the DPRK.

I do hope the lady might speak to the women of Iran, sometime soon. There are cries that ought to pierce her, when the last lie of the last diplomat has failed.

Medieval Music:

There is a line in the Cantiga 119 video, below, that states that "The use of fifths, coupled with unique phrasing, gives Medieval music its distinctive sound."

I had never thought of it before, but it is true that Medieval music has a distinctive sound. It's not just that it's "early" -- it's distinctive even among other traditional music (for example, Chinese or Japanese early music), and not just because of the use of different instruments.

The performers who recorded that version of Cantiga 119 kindly wrote back to my inquiry: "A fifth would be from C to G, that is an interval of a fifth. CDEFG,
see? or D to A DEFGA.... After medieval times, they weren't used much. And
Bach almost never used parallel fifths, which would be like D & A to
E & B."

Perhaps our resident music theorist, or others who are learned, might explain how the "fifth" works with the human brain. I'd like to know more about this than I do.

Sex and Necessity

Sex, Necessity, and the Tale:

I've been following this series of posts, and even made a sketch at a response. But today's entries have clarified what bother me about venturing into the matter with a whole heart.

What’s interesting about these public confessions—and, I suspect, what makes them so satisfying to women—is that they are utterly humiliating to husbands. Granted, Bialosky has protected her husband’s privacy by referring to him as “D.” throughout the essay—but perhaps, if her heart had really been in it, she would have written under a pseudonym. Clearly, sticking it to D. was part of her intention when she wrote and published the piece.

Yes, that's it.

The only part of the wedding vow that the courts ever attempt to enforce is the one about 'forsaking all others' who are outside of the marriage contract -- i.e., adultery. That is not less binding than the promise to 'love, honor and cherish,' which is normally included as well; yet failure to cherish is not normally punished, though it is surely at the heart of many of the problems people have.

Now, it's good that people who have fears or concerns can voice them and try to seek an answer. It is probably impossible to discuss your marriage's internal workings without embarrassing your spouse, unless you are perfectly happy. Discussing a spouse's marital failures certainly violates some part of the obligation to 'love, honor and cherish' their feelings by shaming the spouse in public.

What may be the best thing to do is to talk about the matter at angles -- for example, through literature. My favorite literature on a troubled marriage is the tale of Geraint and Enid, which is recorded in several forms. Ideally, you might read them all (with the exception of my own version, which is too modern to provide any useful insight; and in any event, was written chiefly as a lens for understanding the 9/11 attacks, and what must be done because of them).

Each of the forms offers a different view of the problem and the solution, just as a tale written by the wife may display the problem in a different light than the same tale written by the husband.

They all point to a basic problem, though: a man who begins to fail at being a man, as success and peace render him less than he was in the days of strife and war; and a wife who begins to be disappointed. In some versions she is perfectly faithful, and he scornful when reproached; in other versions, she truly does begin to be disappointed, and he is fair but determined to prove her worries unfounded.

It's worth trying to see it from all the angles, and in each light. Our ancestors knew much, and said much, though it is not always easy to hear them over the roar of what we wish to believe is true.

Cry Wolf

Crying Wolf and Modern Politics:

Some of you may have missed Elise's comment on the post below re: the New York Post report that ObamaCare would require end-of-life counseling sessions. If I may be so bold as to summarize, she read through several comparable sections, and believes that instead the language intends to limit the number of such sessions that Medicare will pay for, i.e., not more than once every five years unless you are in hospice or other serious care.

We all know Elise for a careful thinker with close attention to detail, so I'm willing to assume that her reading of the bill is better than the Post's.

Today she has a post expanding on that comment, and elaborating a fear she has that the Right -- meaning the professional Right, I think, its think-tanks and journalists and advocates -- is intentionally making overly strong claims about the bill. She worries that the claims will undermine the Right's credibility, making it harder to convince people of the less-strong-but-still-very-serious problems.

Personally, I think it is more likely that the Post author is simply less careful and thorough than Elise. Elise is a former computer programmer and quantitative analyst, after all, both of which require a mind much more well-suited for this kind of work than is normal. What seems more likely to me is that the Post author brought some expectations to the text of the bill, and so thought she had found what she was expecting to see.

For the sake of argument, however, let's say that Elise is correct. I said in an email exchange to her, which she asked me to reproduce, that I thought she was probably right about the text of the bill, but wrong about the effect of the rhetoric:

The rhetorical position is this:

A) There is already a perception that the Left is willing to endorse euthanasia and semi-forced living wills as a cost-cutting measure, etc., and

B) The public is suspicious of that.

Therefore, C) It is strongly beneficial to tee up an endless series of things that appear to endorse euthanasia, etc., and require the Left to deny it. Every claim will reinforce the perception, and every denial will require time that could have been spent defending the plan.

In addition, consider that the denial has to take the form: 'No, no, if you read Paragraph 45 of Subsection 23 of Section EE, and compare it to Pargraph 54 of Subsection 32 of Section DD, you can see that...'

Do you see what I mean? "The Right" has nothing to lose here in terms of credibility, because very few are going that far down the road. Rather, the people will see a claim that echoes with their existing perception (and which they are therefore inclined to believe); and then they will hear for an answer a bureaucratic mish-mash that sounds like gibberish if it isn't read thoroughly and digested. 99% of humanity will simply assume from that the claim is true, and the counterclaim is an attempt to hide the truth behind layers of lawyer-speak.

That's not to say that you're wrong about the facts. I mean, purely from the perspective of rhetoric, this is a powerful and likely to be a successful tactic. The one thing that could undermine the Right's position would be to admit they were wrong, which would indeed undercut their credibility. The most successful rhetoric will, instead, answer every such defense with a new charge: 'So you claim that mish-mash is a defense? Well, then explain how in section 12, you call for taxpayers to pay for lawyers to write living wills for the elderly.'

The endgame position leaves the Right having checkmated the Left. The Right has made a series of simple, clear, broad claims that the public was already inclined to accept; the Left has become so lost in the minutae of multiple defenses that it is unable to make a clear reply.

I don't write that to endorse the tactics, but simply to explain them, since you seem to feel the Right is making an error. They may be making a moral error; but not a rhetorical one. There they are doing the very thing most likely to lead to success. This is how debate is conducted in a large democracy, where it must persuade the hundred-millions instead of the few.

It's just how the Left defeated the Right on Social Security, a few years ago -- and you can see that the final position was just as I describe. The Left convinced the public that the Right was ready to throw senior citizens to the wolves; the Right was so lost in explaining the details of its defenses that it lost the ability to communicate. All it could do was babble on about subsections and rates of growth.

As for me, that's why I asked, "Seriously?" It sounded incredible (though not impossible, given the clear displays of arrogance by the government these last few years).

She pointed out to me that we've certainly seen the approach more recently than that. She cites this post from a blog called "Reclusive Leftist" (whom, should she follow this link back here and be horrified, I would like to refer to this recent post as an introduction to company probably more right-wing than she's accustomed to having):

But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.

The lies don't exist to justify the hate, exactly. The lies and the hate are both means to the end of destroying the ability of the thing to exist in American politics. Sarah Palin was very dangerous, and had to be destroyed. The hate and the lies were tools.

I still think it is less likely that the Post is attempting to leverage lies in this way, than that they aren't as careful and methodical as Elise. It's very easy for someone with a precise and clever mind not to understand how other people can be so slow and careless.

Still, the method does exist, and it has been employed on occasion. It's necessary to be aware of it, so you don't fall prey to it -- from either side.

Duty to Die

Duty to Die:

Well, you've probably seen this interview:



The President appears to be saying not that the 105 year old lady should have chosen to die, but that others who did not have her... what?... should choose to take pain pills instead of having lifesaving surgery.

The actual question is not answered. The actual question was very much tied to the issue of the lady's "what?": spirit, joy of life, strength, it's hard to say. The actual question was: Would that be taken into account?

The answer is: No, it won't. How can any bureaucracy develop standards to judge it, when we can't define exactly what it is?

Protein Wisdom is writing about this as well. They look at the experience of others who have gone down this road.

Many old people now fear Dutch hospitals. More than 10% of senior citizens who responded to a recent survey, which did not mention euthanasia, volunteered that they feared being killed by their doctors without their consent....

As the cost of socialized medicine in the Netherlands grew, doctors were lectured about the importance of keeping expenses down. In many hospitals, signs were posted indicating how much old-age treatments cost taxpayers. The result was a growing “social pressure” from doctors and others, says Arno Heltzel, a spokesman for the Catholic Union of the Elderly, the largest Dutch senior-citizen group, which favors voluntary euthanasia. “Old people have to excuse themselves for living. When they say that all of their friends are dead, people say, ‘Maybe it is time for you to go too,’ rather than, ‘You need to find new friends.’"

This is the picture of a society that has no respect for the concept of a Right to Life, but a very clear picture of a Duty to Die. We must break this magic.

Cassidy Music

Music from Cassandra:

Cassandra has a post today that I'm tempted to steal reproduce in full. Instead, I'm going to pull my favorite of the examples.



This is a very good rendition of Cantiga 119, of the famous Cantigas de Santa Maria.

Moonrise.

Beauty and Desecration

"Beauty and Desecration"

Roger Scruton has an important piece City Journal by that title. Readers of the Hall will be familiar with the thrust, as we have often discussed the topic, but Dr. Scruton's approach is worthy of reading on its own.

At any time between 1750 and 1930, if you had asked an educated person to describe the goal of poetry, art, or music, “beauty” would have been the answer. And if you had asked what the point of that was, you would have learned that beauty is a value, as important in its way as truth and goodness, and indeed hardly distinguishable from them.

As Scruton points out, the Modern period replaced beauty with originality. We've discussed the subsequent crash in the quality of art, as students of the arts ceased to care about method so much as the 'statement' they wished to make. Picasso was a master of method who chose to play with new things; those who followed him decided they didn't need to master the methods at all.

As the Japanese swordsmen say, though, one who is a master shows it in all things. It was the discipline that shaped a man with interesting things to say.

Dr. Scruton continues:

An example that particularly struck me was a 2004 production of Mozart’s Die Entführung aus dem Serail at the Komische Oper Berlin (see “The Abduction of Opera,” Summer 2007). Die Entführung tells the story of Konstanze—shipwrecked, separated from her fiancé Belmonte, and taken to serve in the harem of the Pasha Selim. After various intrigues, Belmonte rescues her, helped by the clemency of the Pasha—who, respecting Konstanze’s chastity and the couple’s faithful love, declines to take her by force. This implausible plot permits Mozart to express his Enlightenment conviction that charity is a universal virtue, as real in the Muslim empire of the Turks as in the Christian empire of the enlightened Joseph II. Even if Mozart’s innocent vision is without much historical basis, his belief in the reality of disinterested love is everywhere expressed and endorsed by the music. Die Entführung advances a moral idea, and its melodies share the beauty of that idea and persuasively present it to the listener.

In his production of Die Entführung, the Catalan stage director Calixto Bieito set the opera in a Berlin brothel, with Selim as pimp and Konstanze one of the prostitutes. Even during the most tender music, copulating couples littered the stage, and every opportunity for violence, with or without a sexual climax, was taken. At one point, a prostitute is gratuitously tortured, and her nipples bloodily and realistically severed before she is killed. The words and the music speak of love and compassion, but their message is drowned out by the scenes of desecration, murder, and narcissistic sex.

That is an example of something familiar in every aspect of our contemporary culture. It is not merely that artists, directors, musicians, and others connected with the arts are in flight from beauty. Wherever beauty lies in wait for us, there arises a desire to preempt its appeal, to smother it with scenes of destruction.

One of the things I have written about most often is how a vision of beauty defines the life of the best of men, who give themselves to their vision though it leads them where it will. Do you remember this speech?

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.

The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

I once argued that those rape rooms were at the essence of why Iraq was a Just War. It held that a nation that might free such a people had "the right, at least, to try." The right, at least: perhaps the duty.

I still think so. Did you see this interview? Shall I say, to answer conspirators, "Perhaps it is only Israeli propaganda?" Even so, read it.

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a "wedding" ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard - essentially raped by her "husband."

"I regret that, even though the marriages were legal," he said.

Why the regret, if the marriages were "legal?"

"Because," he went on, "I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their 'wedding' night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.

Well, propaganda it may be: but surely it merits investigaton. If it is false, a stain on Israel to forward such lies for their interests.

And if it proves true? These are girls who fear what they perceive as dishonor more than they fear death; and welcome death to end what they have been taught to see as dishonor. That is the finest human spirit, and it calls out to us.

I would bear my part in the cause of their liberation, as I did in Iraq. My beloved, I know, is glad to have me home after so long abroad: but surely she would excuse me one last time, though with pain, in the defense of women of such spirit and such sorrow.

Don't Trust Govt

Why The Gov't Can't Be Trusted to Reform Health Care:

Seriously?

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

So, free American citizens will be required to submit to "counseling" from the government on how it's their time to die? 'You know, you should really consider asking not to be cared for if you have another stroke. I mean, think of the relief to your family of not having to care for you...'

But it's OK, because it will "reduce costs." Which savings, of course, the Senate is spending today!

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

It's time to educate the government on its proper relationship to a free people. They can keep this nonsense, every last paragraph of it.

Own to Rent

"Own to Rent":

So, how bad an idea is this?

The plan would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes. They’d give up all their equity—if they have any—and future claims on the equity, in exchange for getting to keep their homes.

There are lots of problems with this idea, including havoc it would create in securitized mortgages, that it would make the housing market even more illiquid than it is, and that it would create a huge incentive on the part of even more borrowers to default. Think about it: now you don’t even have to walk away.

The idea isn't quite as crazy as it sounds on first hearing: Nicholas Taleb suggested a similar approach recently. However, his approach is much less punitive than this: the bank would claim a permanent stake in the house, in return for lowering the payments to something you could afford. (So, for example, the bank would always own 49% of your house; therefore, you'd only need 51% of the mortgate, and could make lower payments). That preserves not only your home, but your ownership of it. The bank doesn't become your landlord. It just gets a share of the sale of the house whenever it does sell.

If the moral hazard is the issue, though, the more punitive approach could be defended: it is good that you have to sign away all your equity, and all future equity, forever. That will keep everyone from doing it. After all, who doesn't want to pay half their mortgage costs in hard economic times?

Why E-books suck.

This morning, hundreds of Amazon Kindle owners awoke to discover that books by a certain famous author had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers. These were books that they had bought and paid for—thought they owned.

The MobileReference edition of the novel, “Nineteen Eighty-four,” by George Orwell that was deleted from Kindle e-book readers by Amazon.com.But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.

Some body go check Orwell's grave. I think I can hear the spinning from here.

Service

Service:

Why?

There's a badly run bar near my house. Used to be a drunk bar -- for probably 50 years. It was quiet then. A good neighbor, run by people who know how to run bars. Now, it's a hipster bar. They have bouncers there who...I don't know what they do, but they don't keep the assholes who patronize the place quiet....

I used to point out the proximity of the houses -- like, four feet away from where their car is parked, not behind some thick thicket of trees, and note that it's 2 a.m. and people (like me) were sleeping, and/or would like to be. This gets them combative. Even though I like to call an asshole an asshole, it appears to be an extremely counterproductive technique.

My new move is to come out and say, "Excuse me, my baby's sleeping..." Shuts the assholes right up and gets them to move, to boot. And they even apologize. Nicely. So...if you're 45 and would like to sleep, "[F*(&] you!"...but if you've extruded a child, "We're so sorry, Ma'am"?

What do you make of this?

The answer is obvious: it is the same reason people suddenly become highly respectful of a fellow airline traveler if he is a soldier returning to the wars. People will go so far as to give up their First Class ticket on an 11-hour flight for such a man. For 'just another traveler,' they wouldn't hesistate to shove past him.

Motherhood is service, as soldiering is service. It is among the most honorable of occupations.

Flying the flag of motherhood when you are not a mother, by the way, is perfidy.

Liberals

Liberals:

Mark Tapscott writes in praise of a liberal:

This may come as a shock to some but a liberal college professor was among the most influential people in this conservative's life. In fact, I often wonder whatever happened to liberals like Dr. Jerry Polinard.

Polinard was my constitutional law professor at Oklahoma State University - I know, shocker, I didn't go to an Ivy League school like the really smart people - and I loved his class more than any other, even though he and I passionately disagreed on just about everything.

He was an inspiring teacher who clearly loved the teachable moments made possible in the humorous and constructive repartee between teacher and student in the college classroom. More important, he always made a persuasive case for genuine American liberalism, while also taking seriously the conservative critique of that view.

His was the liberalism of counterpoised power on behalf of individual freedoms. He argued that concentrations of power often develop in certain sectors of capitalist economies with large corporations. And our decentralized, federal system sometimes lets local and state governments abuse individual rights or groups of people who are powerless to defend themselves, such as the Jim Crow era for Blacks in the rural South and urban North.

Let me join him in celebrating a friend and teacher, surely the best I ever had, who was a man of the Left. He was, in fact, a self-described Socialist. Yet he taught me much about economics and war -- he was my first introduction to Clausewitz -- and I loved him for it.

Agreement is not the main thing. It is not, in fact, particularly important. What matters is the life of inquiry, more than the conclusions drawn. Break lances gladly, with a joyous heart:

"The hour when death is like a light and blood is like a rose, --
You never loved your friends, my friends, as I shall love my foes."