A Ruling!

A Ruling!

Articles posted by Arts & Letters Daily are usually worth the time it takes to read them. Today, for example, there was a debate between two scholars of feminism, one of whom has been challenging that the other's data is a collection of garbage. The other -- one Nancy K. D. Lemon (presumably Dr. Lemon but never so titled in the article) -- makes the following defense. The particular item they chose as the focus for their dispute is somewhat amazing:

In regard to the rule of thumb, for example, she asserted that Romulus of Rome, who is credited in my book with being involved with the first antidomestic-violence legislation, could not have done this as he was merely a legendary, fictional character, who along with his brother Remus was suckled by a wolf.

In fact, Plutarch and Livy each state that Romulus was the first king of Rome. He reigned from 753-717 BC, and created both the Roman Legions and the Roman Senate. He is also credited with adding large amounts of territory and people to the dominion of Rome, including the Sabine women. The modern scholar Andrea Carandini has written about the historic reign of Romulus, based in part on the 1988 discovery of the Murus Romuli on the north slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome.

Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers (whose biography states that she is a doctor, though she is also not given a title in the piece) disputes that idea.

Essentially everything in Professor Lemon's response is wrong.

She confidently informs us that Romulus actually existed and ruled Rome from 753-717 BC. That is preposterous. She cites Livy and Plutarch as sources. These first-century writers did not claim to be offering historically accurate accounts of events that took place some 700 years before their time, but openly professed to be summarizing beliefs, myths, and legends that had come down through the ages. She also cites the contemporary Roman archaeologist Andrea Carandini—a maverick figure who discovered what he claims might have been a wall of a palace that could have belonged to Romulus. As the July/August 2007 issue of Archaeology politely notes, his suggestion "represents a sharp break with two millennia of scholarship."

Well, it happens we have an expert on Roman history here among us. Mr. Blair, will you kindly give us a ruling on this dispute?

Congress

A Unique Honor:

"You know, this Congress comes home covered in a certain species of achievement. By the time the next elections roll around, it seems likely they will not only have spent more money than any other Congress in history, it's possible -- likely even -- that they will have spent more money than all the other Congresses combined."

"[Passing laws you have not read] is perilously near treason."

Bill Whittle, on the matter of the day.

Debate Update

Debate Update:

Things are not going well!

FreedomWorks’ August Recess Call to Action encouraged grassroots citizens to attend Congressional town hall meetings and listening sessions. We asked everyone to voice their opinions and communicate their opposition to the President’s proposed hostile takeover of the American health care system. Apparently, the very act of showing up and having an opinion is, in effect, to act like a “thug.” Opposing President Obama’s policy agenda on health care is, in and of itself, unacceptable, and has no place in our democracy. Bottom line: it’s “disgusting,” according to our friends on the left.

We didn’t know this. Evidently, we also didn’t know best practices in a respectful, dignified policy debate, but our leftist friends were kind enough to “take FreedomWorks to school”, so to speak.

Specifically, “school” included phone call blitzes from MoveOn.org and the AFL-CIO that jammed FreedomWorks phone lines and filled up staff voice mail boxes. Callers’ consistently used profanity, vulgarity, ever-popular references to “Nazis” and “brown-shirters,” racial slurs targeting an African-American staffer, and even veiled threats of violence and bodily harm.

Making a point about the unity of first and second amendment rights is this fellow, who lawfully brought a gun to a place where the President would be speaking. I personally think it would be healthy if the government trusted rather than feared its citizens, but the relationship should work the other way according to Ezra Klein.

What we're seeing here is not merely distrust in the House health-care reform bill. It's distrust in the political system. A healthy relationship does not require an explicit detailing of the "institutional checks" that will prevent one partner from beating or killing the other. In a healthy relationship, such madness is simply unthinkable. If it was not unthinkable, then no number of institutional checks could repair that relationship.

Is it unthinkable? Consider today's Day By Day.

The White House is actually hiring union thugs to attend rallies to counterprotest. Those thugs have actually attacked American citizens, describing those citizens as terrorists. The White House response, after the attacks, praised the union's efforts, while making no reference to the attacks and no attempt to cool their behavior.

Other bad behavior by the administration is less worrisome, like stacking town halls with cute little plants and selling out Medicare to Big Pharma. Hiring union thugs, though, crosses one of those lines of trust. It's not unthinkable now that a union ally of the President's might come bust your teeth, because you had the temerity as a citizen to carry a sign protesting government seizure of control of our health care. Following as it does government seizures of our banks and auto industries, some people want to protest: but they find allies of the President physically threatening them if they do.

Nancy Pelosi said it's un-American to try to drown out the opposition.

I have a memo from SEIU Local 2001....

“Action: Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.”

The relationship between citizen and government has passed the point at which it's "unthinkable" that "one party" might "beat or kill" the other. Both sides have reasons to fear actual violence.

Let's look at the reasonable fears of the President's supporters, too. It appears there has been an increased use of the fellow's favored Jeffersonian rhetoric. The rhetorical point Jefferson was making was honest enough: he believed, based on his own experience and a reading of English history, that liberty could only survive if it was regularly defended. Such defenses took the form of cyclical wars: his own Revolution, the Jacobite wars, the English Civil War, etc., all the way back to the wars against King John that established the Manga Carta.

Such violence was easy for Jefferson to contemplate coolly, having just finished his own generation's participation. On what might prove to be the front side of such a cycle, it's hard to be as sanguine. Some are worried, noticing the increase in death threats against this President. They are worried enough to declare that the law should be set aside:

Now, this guy is carrying a legal weapon, says NBC News' Ron Allen. The local chief of police has no objections. Open carriage of licensed handguns is legal in New Hampshire, and the man is standing on the private property of a nearby church (!) that has no problem with an armed man hanging around.

But let's be clear: anyone watching the mounting rage over, of all things, health care — perhaps one of the most boring and complex policy subjects — has to worry that these people are going to try to kill Barack Obama. That's not an extrapolation from unhinged rhetoric, or a partisan reading of the imagined intentions of our political enemies. It's a rational reading of the anticipated behavior of a man who brandishes a gun at the location where the president is expected to imminently arrive while holding a sign that openly advocates his assassination. And the astonishing, breathtaking, maddening fact that he hasn't been violently taken to the ground by large men wearing suits and earpieces is an open encouragement to anyone else so inclined to give it a shot.

Now, I understand the fear. I regret that the author is so frightened of his fellow citizens that he refers to them as "these people," and suspects them of plotting murder. I hope that we can change that sense in the future.

Nevertheless, notice that the call here is to void the law entirely. It doesn't matter what the state law is; what the local police think; what rights the man may have under state and Federal constitutions; or what the property owner wants. It makes no difference that a handgun is no threat to the President's convoy anyway, as it is armored far above the level a handgun could penetrate, and guarded by men with M4 carbines, body armor, and endless backup immediately available. The man should have been taken down, the argument goes, and violently. The fact that he wasn't is worrisome -- apparently more worrisome than a rank violation of the law by Federal agents would be.

Here's some good news: The Secret Service, and the local police, did the right thing. Their obedience to the law in no way resulted in any threat to the President, as they were aware of the man and quite capable of dealing with him. Nobody trusted anyone else: the man didn't trust the unions, the Secret Service didn't trust the man, the President doesn't trust the protesting citizens. Everyone was anticipating violence from the other parties involved.

Nevertheless, the system worked. The rights of the people were respected both by law enforcement and by the unions, the President came and went without incident. Trust wasn't necessary. It's a wonderful thing, but something that we can't always expect to have. Therefore, the system doesn't require it.

Ezra Klein is wrong. The system we have isn't predicated on trust. It's predicated on checks and balances, and the assumption that tyrants and bad-actors will sometimes be in charge. Every part of the system works this way, not just the relationship between Congress and the Executive, or the two and the Supreme Court. The government isn't required to trust its citizens: it's permitted to defend itself from any who rise up against it, as the Constitution gives it explict permission to suppress rebellions, and the Secret Service has authority to perform its noble and nonpartisan duty.

By the same token, citizens are not required to disarm themselves and submit to beatings by hired union thugs in order to exercise their rights of assembly and petition. If you're going to insist on fielding union thugs whose clear and stated intent is to disrupt protests, you have no right to complain when citizens avail themselves of lawful Second Amendment rights in defense of their First Amendment rights.

It is for just such a moment as this that these checks were created. The hope is that they will prevent a war, by ensuring that both sides have something to lose by starting one. As someone who deeply hopes to see no more violence arising out of this business, I hope that both sides will begin to back away -- but it is both sides that need to do so. The White House, having money, power, and informal armies of "purple shirts," has to back off if they want to see rhetoric cool on the side of the citizenry. If they don't want citizens to feel they need a gun to attend a protest, they ought not to take steps making it likely that a citizen might receive a beating for attending one.

We could yet reach Jefferson's cycle, if the escalation continues. These checks and balances, though, are letting it operate relatively smoothly even at this high level of tension and distrust. Compared with what similar levels of tension and distrust look like elsewhere, the American way looks pretty good.

Best. Whiskey. Ad. Evar.

Good job there, Bobby.

(via American Digest)

Death Panels

Death Panels:

One of the fairest and most reasonable points that I've heard ObamaCare proponents make is that there is already "rationing" in our current system; it's just that the rationing is handled by the market, and particularly by the insurance companies. This lies at the heart of the claim that they are the "villains" of the story, because they make money while choosing who lives and who dies.

A lady speaks here with passion and fury about the death of her mother.

I’ve been part of a death panel conversation. I know about death panels.

You have no idea what it’s like to be called into a sterile conference room with a hospital administrator you’ve never met before and be told that your mother’s insurance policy will only pay for 30 days in ICU. You can't imagine what it's like to be advised that you need to “make some decisions,” like whether your mother should be released “HTD” which is hospital parlance for “home to die,” or if you want to pay out of pocket to keep her in the ICU another week. And when you ask how much that would cost you are given a number so impossibly large that you realize there really are no decisions to make. The decision has been made for you.

Unfortunately, we are not facing a choice of saving people or letting them die. What we are facing is the choice of who will decide when they die.

The fact is that those impossibly large numbers don't change when the government is picking up the tab. The only difference is that it will be a government official who has to decide whether or not to pay, instead of you. You will be spared going into that room; but in return, no one who loves your mother will be consulted.

The result may well be the same in any case.

A loving child might possibly sell everything to pay for a mother's extra week of life. Then again, even a loving child might believe that their mother wouldn't really want them to lose everything. They make a decision in pain, and out of love.

The bureaucratic solution that is proposed has no love, and no place for love. Love is not a metric that it can understand, account for, or factor into decisions across a broad number of cases. If you are going to have a system in place that makes reasoned decisions for millions of people, emotions have to be left behind.

Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

That's what Mrs. Palin was writing about, and what bothers her. It is a system forlorn of love, where the decisions are as sterile as the room in which they are made.

Jesus the Horseman

The Horseman:

Lars Walker's blog, which I've been reading since I discovered that he had one, contains a review by one of his co-bloggers of Your Jesus Is Too Safe. I hadn't heard of the book before, though I suppose the only book about Jesus I've ever read besides the Bible is The Everlasting Man. Still, the review was interesting:

He doesn’t spend much time describing poor views of Jesus, like Hippie Jesus or the inhuman Flannel-graph Jesus. He touches on them in the context of healthy views on Jesus’ role as a shepherd, a judge, a prophet, a king, and many others.

As to which, how about Jesus as horseman?

Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.

What happens when you sit a colt that no man has ever ridden before?

It's not safe, that's for sure.

Another Victim

Another Victim:

The PA shooting we discussed below had another victim: the theology of permanent security. Ideas have consequences, and if you teach that salvation is irrevocable no matter what you do after... well, you understand the point. His long-time preacher is said to be "really broken this week." Small wonder.

The same problem exists with predestination, which lies at the heart of the Presbyterian faith in which I was raised. If you're pre-destined, what you do doesn't matter: it may (or may not) be an indicator of how your destiny lies, but you can't change it. So why be good? God made up his mind about you before you were born.

The theology of peril is the best one.

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.

The first time I read the Ballad of the White Horse, I thought the theological parts were tedious additions to an otherwise-great war poem. More and more, I realize that they were the most important parts of all.

Frightening Video?

"Great, Beautiful Half-witted Men/ From the Sunrise and the Sea."

Almost 100,000 Swedes, many of whom viewed the clip on YouTube, have joined a Facegroup group called “I am scared of the girl in the Apoliva commercial” (“Jag är rädd för tjejen i Apolivareklamen”) in reaction to the film. Several other related groups, both in favour of and against the ad, have popped up on the social media site as well....

The description of the Facebook group reads: “Those of us who have a TV and like to watch commercials can't be bothered to reach for the remote are facing a problem. Apoliva has begun to run a commercial that is frightening. A woman singing a Nordic/Swedish folk song in freezing rain with lightning. I am creating this group for those of us who need somewhere to seek support and talk things out. It's only a matter of time before it creeps into our dreams and terrorises us in our sleep.”

So: fools? Or a very clever marketing campaign?

Good Food:

Tonight I took down an excellent cookbook, and made a bread described by its recipe as:

A Festival Bread
From the Land of King Arthur

I substituted the dried fruit with fresh blueberries, as we have them on hand here.



As you can see, the bread didn't stand uncut long enough for me to get a photograph. But it has a cup of brown sugar and a stick of butter in it, in addition to the blueberries; so that is small wonder.

Miles in Shoes

Miles in Shoes:

The New Yorker begins an article by describing a Southern politician of the old sort.

Big Jim Folsom was six feet eight inches tall, and had the looks of a movie star. He was a prodigious drinker, and a brilliant campaigner, who travelled around the state with a hillbilly string band called the Strawberry Pickers. The press referred to him (not always affectionately) as Kissin’ Jim, for his habit of grabbing the prettiest woman at hand....

Folsom would end his speeches by brandishing a corn-shuck mop and promising a spring cleaning of the state capitol. He was against the Big Mules, as the entrenched corporate interests were known. He worked to extend the vote to disenfranchised blacks. He wanted to equalize salaries between white and black schoolteachers. He routinely commuted the death sentences of blacks convicted in what he believed were less than fair trials. He made no attempt to segregate the crowd at his inaugural address. “Ya’ll come,” he would say to one and all, making a proud and lonely stand for racial justice....

When the black Harlem congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., came to Montgomery, on a voter-registration drive, Folsom invited him to the Governor’s Mansion for a Scotch-and-soda. That was simply good manners. Whenever he was accused of being too friendly to black people, Folsom shrugged. His assumption was that Negroes were citizens, just like anyone else.

Thus we begin on a journey of discovery that proves that Folsom was a wicked man. His 'proud and loney stance for racial justice' is proven, by the alchemy of modern thought, to be a kind of evil. The magic begins here:

Folsom was not a civil-rights activist. Activists were interested in using the full, impersonal force of the law to compel equality. In fact, the Supreme Court’s landmark desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education ended Folsom’s career, because the racial backlash that it created drove moderates off the political stage. The historian Michael Klarman writes, “Virtually no southern politician could survive in this political environment without toeing the massive resistance line, and in most states politicians competed to occupy the most extreme position on the racial spectrum.” Folsom lost his job to the segregationist John Patterson...

It ends here, after a traipse through literary theory and To Kill A Mockingbird:

Orwell didn’t think that Dickens should have written different novels; he loved Dickens. But he understood that Dickens bore the ideological marks of his time and place. His class did not see the English social order as tyrannical, worthy of being overthrown. Dickens thought that large contradictions could be tamed through small moments of justice. He believed in the power of changing hearts, and that’s what you believe in, Orwell says, if you “do not wish to endanger the status quo.”

But in cases where the status quo involves systemic injustice this is no more than a temporary strategy. Eventually, such injustice requires more than a change of heart.

What we are being told here is that the wickedness of the mid-century Southern progressive is that he wasn't a revolutionary. He believed in changing people's hearts, in kindness, in respect to all mankind. He didn't hate enough: because if he'd been the best kind of man, he'd have known he should hate Bull Connor. As the author puts it, in a Mockingbird reference, "[T]he hearts-and-minds approach is about accommodation, not reform. At one point, Scout asks him if it is O.K. to hate Hitler. Finch answers, firmly, that it is not O.K. to hate anyone. Really? Not even Hitler?"

That dismisses outright the gentler, hearts-and-minds approach to changing a society. The kind of person who -- again, from Mockingbird -- states that you can understand others only if you "climb into his skin and walk around in it" are not suitable, according to the author, for fixing real injustice. The slow, quiet, decent method is not workable.

In fact, that was the very warning that was raised by progressives in the South during the Civil Rights era -- that pushing too hard, too fast, would cause a backlash that would make change even more difficult. The Civil Rights movement achieved all of its goals, eventually, but it did drive out the progressives, and the era saw bombings, murders, brutality, and other horrors.

The author asserts that it was necessary, because the Jim Crow system was so ingrained that slow and peaceful change could never be enough. Perhaps; but if you had looked at Chinese society during the Maoist era, you might well have thought that there was even less hope there. The Red Guard tormented the people, spies were everywhere, violence was fielded against intellectuals and, eventually, anyone who spoke at all. The government blithely demanded the people produce ingots for steel production, even though it meant they had to melt down their tools for farming. Tens of millions starved. The government refused to ask for outside aid, preferring to watch its millions die than admit the failure of its Communist planning.

Maoist China was a clear competitor for "Worst Place and Time in Human History." There was no obvious progressive movement at all. Yet now -- at a similar remove from the Civil Rights Movement -- you can see how remarkable the changes have been. In the South, where there was such a movement, who knows? Big Jim Folsom was elected governor of Alabama, after all. It's not like he was a fringe politician.

Today, Cassandra writes to warn against treating the Left from an 'us v. them' perspective. It's wise advice, though I dissent -- as I always do -- from her affection for the law. It's a conditional good only, if it is well-written and employed justly. Mao had courts and policemen too.

Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that there has been a lot of demonizing and fury going on. If it becomes de rigeur for politicians to be treated this way, we'll only get the sort of people whose lust for power overrides any sense of decency for the treatment of their families. That's hardly the kind of people we want writing, or enforcing, the law.

It may be we've passed the point of no return, and that it's already the case that decent men and women will avoid higher office. Let us hope, though, that that might also change -- with time, and patience.

Iran

Iran:

H/t: NR.

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.