I already know what I'm getting for Christmas... it's a Stihl chainsaw. Thanks to everyone for their recommendations, and good stories about woodcutting past.
Following the spirit of Cassandra's post, here is our tree. It's a six foot cedar I cut off the property (with a single blow of the axe -- not a giant tree, I mean to say).
"Fine and dandy, Grim," you might be saying, "but what's at the other end of that rug?" Well, that's the other part of Cassidy's post I should emulate.
It's not Buckaroo's first Christmas with the family. It is, though, the first year that he and I will be here at the same time.
Finally, on the friends-and-family side, I'd like to direct you to The Donovan's latest. All I can say is that, when you reach one of these livestock moments, it's important to chose your soundtrack carefully. All the best, John.
Yuletide
Heh
National Review offers a backhanded 'defense' of a practitioner.
Therapists such as Mr. Cohen are an object of special hatred for organized homosexuality, and that lobby probably has never had so prominent a voice as Miss Maddow’s. To be sure, Cohen is a distinctly unsympathetic figure. His psychotherapeutic work is pure New Age goo, but that is to be expected: Psychotherapy is pseudoscience. At its least destructive it amounts to idle chatter; at its worst it is a reality-displacing religion substitute, advancing beliefs that are every bit as fundamentalist and anti-rational as any desert jihadist’s, if not so violent.I think that was meant to be encouraging!
In this context, there is nothing uniquely offensive about Mr. Cohen’s brand of pseudoscience. America offers a splendiferous bouquet of preposterous belief systems from which the connoisseur of the absurd may choose....
Miss Maddow, strangely, made much of the fact that Mr. Cohen is not a licensed psychotherapist, as though being a chartered practitioner of witch-doctoring were preferable to being a freelance operator.
Domestic Terrorists
Greyhawk discusses domestic Islamic terrorism, and cites a piece from Small Wars Journal.
The great concern from a strategic perspective is that governmental officials will start to drink their own 'spiked punch' and delude themselves into believing that the many terrorist incidents listed in this essay are in actuality the actions of mentally unstable and delusional individuals and nothing more. This would mean that our domestic intelligence and interdiction capabilities are performing flawlessly with the ensuing pats on the back, 'atta-boys', and political kudos being exchanged....I expect the consideration will focus more on the reasons not to do that, which include: 1) the government's belief that the American people are perpetually just that close to becoming an anti-Muslim lynch mob, and 2) the danger of increasing a perception in the Muslim world that America sees itself as at war with Islam. America's policy, since 9/11, has been to state loudly and frequently that we do not believe radicalized Islamic teachings are the true faith of Islam, and to declare respect for "mainstream" or "moderate" or "true" Islam as one of the great religions of mankind.
What is now needed is a governmental and federal law enforcement debate focusing on the broader spectrum of the domestic radical Islamic threat. This new debate on 'Ones and Twos' should revisit conventional views on terrorist groups and their organization. Specifically, while non-state warfare can be waged by larger radical Islamic cells, i.e. those which have been successfully interdicted such as the 2002 Lackawanna, New York (Muktar al-Bakri et al); 2005 Lodi, California (Hayat family et al); 2007 Fort Dix, New Jersey (Duka family et al); and 2009 New York (Najibullah Zazi et al) groups, it must also ask whether cells composed of ones and twos are not now also part of this threat spectrum....
In the process, some consideration should be given to openly informing and educating the American public about the broadening radical Islamic threat spectrum.
Not only are we fighting two counterinsurgency campaigns in Muslim countries, but there remains the global recruiting problem. And, indeed, to the degree that the government appeared to be coming out against Islam, the domestic terror problem is actually increased as a threat. Muslims who now don't feel alienated from the United States might come to feel alienated, when the government starts putting out documents explaining that their community's members might pose a threat even if they aren't affiliated with any known terrorist or radical group.
You could begin and end the report with paragraphs on how radicalized Islam is not true Islam, and reiterating America's respect for true Islam; you could put a watermark on every page that stated "Americans respect and honor true Islam!" Even so, a report that suggests that Muslims 'even in ones and twos' are potential terrorists is going to have a negative effect.
What would be wiser would be to harden the American population against a generalized threat. To a certain degree, the population has been hardening itself for some time. Liberalized conceal-carry laws are one way that the population has become much more capable of self-defense. Another is the massive surge in firearm and ammunition purchases since the election of President Obama.
Anyway, that's your cheery report for this morning: domestic terrorism, Iranian nuclear weapons, and an American population that is beginning to speak openly of the need for civil war. I don't suppose boredom is going to be a problem for anyone these next few years.
Boom
It was never a very convincing disguise anyway, but this puts paid to it.
The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.It was always difficult to imagine the Israeli prime minister who would endure Iran's nuclear program passing a certain point. That was true even if you could make a plausible claim that it was for civilian, peaceful use.
“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”
...
Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”
If Iran follows through this time on its pledge to swap fuel for uranium, it might buy time for some other approach to be tried by the community of nations. However, this exposes their negotiations for what many of us have always suspected that they were: merely a ploy. A ploy to do what? Why, to buy time!
The diplomatic options therefore become much less attractive, even if Iran actually does follow through on the swap. It's clear that they're continuing to refine uranium; all the swap does is push out the time until they have enough for a bomb. However, if they need that time anyway to overcome the remaining techincal challenges -- including this one, which they have apparently been trying to solve since 2007 -- they stand to lose nothing from the swap. They do gain the appearance of cooperation and good faith, however, which might protect their program from military action... just... long... enough.
"Gadzooks!"
And a hat tip to the gentleman for the photo.
"Prepare for war: live free or die." This kind of thing is a good argument for freedom of speech. Some would say this kind of thing is incitement, but you can't incite people who aren't already pretty mad. If they are mad enough to be incited in Missouri, the boys in D.C. are lucky if someone thinks to warn them in time to head it off.
And how much time do we have? If this fellow speaks for more than himself, the idea is to give 2010's elections a chance. Since you'd have to allow time to see if the change did work, though, I'm guessing you'd want to push out your prospective timeline for the shooting to start until summer 2011. That should be about the time that we should be rotating troops home from Afghanistan in large numbers. They may come as our soldiers from Iraq have come, well-satisfied with victory; or they may come angry, if the timeline aspect of the war plan proves only to leave the Taliban in control of areas their brethren have died to defend.
That will be an interesting few months, I expect. If you wish to head off that war, and we should all wish that, there is still time. Much hangs on Afghanistan, and much on how long it takes for Congress to abandon this lust for spending that has overtaken it. We should support our fighting men, and try to rein in the politicians.
Wren Song
The wren, the wren, the king of all birds:
Some people theorise that the Wren celebration has descended from Celtic mythology. Sources suggest that the Druids used the wren in augury and might have studied its flight, amongst other birds, to derive predictions about the future. It may also have been introduced or influenced by Scandinavian settlers during the Viking invasions of the 8th-10th Centuries.A merry song, with an interesting tale behind it. How well suited for the season, and the Hall!
Various associated legends exist, such as the wren bird being responsible for betraying Irish soldiers who fought the Viking invaders by beating its wings on their shields, in the late first and early second millennia, and for betraying the Christian martyr Saint Stephen, after whom the day is named. This mythological association with treachery is a probable reason why in past times the bird was hunted by Wrenboys on St. Stephen's Day....
Times Sq Gunman
Times Sq. gunman held weapon like rapperGet some, sergeant.A Times Square bloodbath was narrowly avoided because the machine-pistol-toting thug who fired at a cop flipped the gun on its side like a character out of a rap video, causing the weapon to jam after two shots, law-enforcement sources said yesterday.
When scam artist Raymond "Ready" Martinez held the MAC-10-style gun parallel to the ground, it caused the ejecting shells to "stovepipe," or get caught vertically in the chamber, the sources said. The gun is designed to be fired only in a vertical position.
If he had fired the weapon -- which had another 27 rounds in the clip -- properly, Martinez, 25, could have killed the hero cop pursuing him and countless others walking through the swarming tourist mecca Thursday morning.
Instead, Sgt. Christopher Newsom was able to return fire -- killing Martinez with four shots before anyone was hurt.
Seriously, though... what a maroon.
National Review meditates:
In fact, however, the classic just-war tradition began, not with a presumption against war, but with a passion for justice: The just prince is obliged to secure the “tranquility of order,” or peace, for those for whom he accepts political responsibility, and that peace, to repeat, is composed of justice, security, and freedom. There are many ways for the just prince (or prime minister, or president) to do this; one of them is armed force.The whole essay bears consideration.
Philosophy @ Lowes
Since we bought the new place, I've been cutting and splitting a lot of wood. There are downed trees all across the property which need to be cleared, and which of course can be used to heat my house next year -- some of the wood has been down long enough to burn this year, even.
For that reason, I'm thinking of buying a more powerful chainsaw to handle the things that are just too tough for my little lightweight Mac-Cat. Doing some comparison shopping tonight, I ran across Lowes' "Guide to Buying a Chainsaw." It begins as follows.
A chainsaw is one of those tools that can be described thusly: When you need one, nothing else will really do.That's quite true. Nothing else really will.
Malth. Mad
Is there something in the water that is making all these people long for Chinese-style authoritarianism? First it was Mr. Thomas Freidman of the New York Times, and now this piece from the Financial Post.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.First of all, those claims about the living conditions in China are absolute nonsense. Its middle class grows, yes -- on the east coast, while the vast majority of China is one of the poorest countries on earth. "All its citizens" certainly do not have housing: I saw people living in utter rubble. "All its citizens" certainly do not get health care in any fashion we in the West would recognize as such. Food and education are available (today! Remember the Great Leap Forward and the Hundred Flowers Period, respectively), but education is strictly rationed by an examination system or connection to powerful families.
Furthermore, it's not really proper to describe Chinese nationals as "citizens." They are subjects, with very limited freedom of movement even within China, and the requirement to petition their government for lawful changes of address, let alone to visit other nations.
But at least the lady is open to a rational debate on her proposal.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.Right, well, I suppose we should just hop on the first plane to Tyranny, then. In case, you know, some of those things might otherwise happen. Obviously there's nothing else we might be able to do to increase our ability to feed populations.
By the way, do you know what will be happening to China's "growing middle class" once the current generation begins to need to retire, and the far-smaller "one child" generation has to take over the shop while caring for their aging parents and grandparents? And here I thought the Green movement was supposed to be about "sustainability."
Women & Shopping
...this time, to the mall!
Prof Kruger said on the other hand in prehistoric times men had to hunt for specific items which meant they had to be clinical in their approach like they are now with shopping.
"Men often have a specific item in mind and want to get in, get it and get out," he said.
"It's critical to get meat home as quickly as possible. Taking young children isn't safe in a hunt and would likely hinder progress...."
"[G]uys, myself included, have been puzzled by why women shop the way they do."
Oddity of the Nobel
Today's speech underlines just how odd this whole Peace Prize award to the President really is.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.It's true that he has done little, he states. By comparison with those who have won the prize in the past, he has "slight" accomplishments.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the commander-in-chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.
He hasn't sacrificed anything for peace, unlike those beaten or jailed. Others who have are "far more deserving."
And, you know, he's leading two wars, including one he's chosen to double down on in just the last week.
It's abundantly clear that the Nobel Peace Prize committee just tossed out its standards entirely this year. What they were thinking in making this selection is unclear, because none of the markers that would normally point to a candidate are present.
It's always good to hear the President invoke Just War theory, though, and his remarks on Holy Wars are consistent with the doctrine evolved by Michael Walzer (Just and Unjust Wars). As an advocate of Just War theory myself, I agree that we should use it as our guiding principle. Justice in war is a noble thing -- but it's not "peace," and this made for an odd occasion to explore the topic.
Down in Flames
Significant content warning, but Eric's old friend Dennis the Peasant has hit bonaza dirt on at least that first video.
Dear Cassandra will love it, though.
Gotta Rec This One
Our very good friend Greyhawk points out this article, about battlefield screwups that were hilarious (until people died, of course).
Reckoning
Joe's post on the subject of religion as adaptation meriting, as it does, future consideration and a fuller consideration of the argument, I'd like to add that I do have one particularly firm belief at the moment. It is that there will, someday and in some fashion, be a reckoning for the words spoken here:
That is a religious belief. I simply cannot believe otherwise, though there is no empirical data to support it, and the belief has not been tested by scientific methods. I am as sure of the reckoning to come as I am of the sun rising tomorrow. It is an interesting question, whether it is a false belief that arises merely from adaptation, or the influence of the image of God that we have heard was written in us.
Whichever, I fear for the speakers. It seems to me that they have placed themselves in a terrible peril, and ought to tremble in fear of what they have done.
State Dept
I have two pieces on the State Department at BLACKFIVE: The Good, and The Bad and The Ugly.
Good point from TH
"Just when you think 'they can't keep making it harder'..."
Regulatory risk from the federal government is now -- by a longshot -- the biggest barrier to increasing private sector employment. Neither looser money nor string-pushing "stimulus" can overcome that in the long run.No, obviously we do not.
Already our economy is struggling against health care "reform," massive new regulation and/or taxation on any business that emits carbon, the proposed "Employee Free Choice Act," new regulation in financial services, new corporate "governance" requirements, fiscal catastrophes in all the large states controlled by the Democrats, and huge new tax increases for the people who actually decide to hire people (whether they are corporate tools or individual entrepreneurs). Do we really need "an array of 90 rules and regulations" from the Labor Department on top of all that?
This proves to be a beautiful place in a beautiful park, reachable by footpath through a wood that runs atop a cliff overlooking the Hudson river. After a time, you come to a ridgetop and look across to the next, where the bell-tower of the monastery-shaped museum rises from the oaks.
I'm not sure that New York City has anything else that could hold my interest or suit me so well; but it has at least one thing that can.
Irish, NY Style
In honor of the unexpected raid into the north country, some good Yankee music.
Snowballs in Hell
First of all, let me congratulate Alabama on their victory, and an oustanding season. Though a Bulldogs fan myself, tonight we must all say: "Roll Tide!"
Second, an announcement about the weather in Hell. I find myself tonight in New York City, where I will be for the next couple of days. Had you asked me to predict such a visit even a week ago, I'd have put the likely timeframe as sometime between now and never. Yet here I am, intending to take the suggestion from our friend 'Dellbabe in da Bronx' to visit the Cloisters tomorrow.
It's cold up here. However, compared to the last time I was in New York, I do notice a greatly decreased propensity among the citizens to steal anything that isn't tied down. Nobody seems to be afraid, really, though pervasive fear was another feature of the NYC I remember. I guess all those stories about Rudy were really true. Amazing what can happen if you put your mind to it.
The Faith Instinct, Morality, Envy
A slightly reduced caseload, a short bit of leave ending in a short bit of sickness - I found time to read Nicholas Wade's The Faith Instinct, well-reviewed by John Derbyshire and Razib Khan. I highly recommend it to our guests here - each chapter, especially the earlier chapters, provides much food for thought. His later chapters are more speculative and occasionally go completely off the rails - but the first seven chapters alone, about 2/3 the length, are more than worth the price and time.
He doesn't get around to the basic theme of the book - "The Evolution of Religious Behavior" - until chapter 3, but the chapter before, "The Moral Instinct," is well worth reading. I want to say something about that topic and my own thinking. I grew up as something of a blank-slater, with an idea that "morality is pragmatism with a long-range view," so that while it wasn't exactly a "type of knowledge," it could be taught. (Contrary to a well-known inductive argument to the contrary.) In this view, moral philosophy (I inclined to the rule-utilitarian) is of central importance - without reasoning it out, you don't find the rules.
I haven't believed that in a while - have instead thought that moral instincts are built-in, messy, and inexact like other instincts, with of course the occasional mutation and outlier who lacks them completely. Amongst other things, it better explains what I read in LTC Grossman's book - that the psychological effects of killing struck strongest on the troops that had to shoot or stab and see the results; battleship gunners might well know they were killing, but they didn't suffer the heightened psychological casualties, because their knowledge didn't trigger the instinct against killing. It explains to me why the most intensely moral people I have known were not always armed with an airtight philosophy of ethics, or indeed much of one at all; and persons who spend quite a lot of time thinking about morality needn't be the most moral (Barbara Branden described her ex Nathanael in this way). Moral philosophy in this view is of lesser importance, and a good thing too - because otherwise the behaviors we need to keep society going, with all its attendant blessings, would be limited to people who reason them out correctly, and this would not be good.
Wade, being a better writer than I am and knowing more, traces the view of morality as innate from David Hume (quoting: "Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions...The rules of morality...are not conclusions of our reason") through Jonathon Haidt and beyond, in a few pages of crisp prose - summarizing pages 17-20 of this paper quite succinctly. It points to various experimental papers to discuss the blend of inherent and learned moral values - there's a section on "primate proto-morality," and another on how children at impressionable ages can experience "the selective loss of intuitions."
In discussing how such a thing as morality might've evolved - that is, how it conveys a reproductive advantage - Wade follows the authors who suggest that morality (and, ultimately, religion) was an advantage to groups rather than individuals. It's not hard to see that a group in which, let's say, everyone's truthful with everyone else, because it feels wrong not to be, is going to have an advantage over a group in which everyone lies to everyone else, whenever they like. But within a group, a good liar would get a lot further in the competition for food and mates - unless there's a countervailing force of some kind. In chimpanzees, who have a sort of proto-morality and a social system dominated by a "strongman," there's a habit of coalition-building (a coalition of chimps will kill a domineering alpha if he's alone, so the successful leader shares out the mates with a coalition of his own, strong enough to keep him in power). In modern primitive groups, there's a strong sense of egalitarianism - a readiness to ostracize or kill the man who exceeds the rest, or takes too much pride in his success - leading to societies without real chiefs or hierarchies. Again, if his argument's right, this is the sort of thing that lets a group advantage - like morality - convey its advantages without having it self-destruct from the inside (by letting a free-rider take over). (He suggests other countervailing factors, such as the high rate of warfare between primitive groups; one thing everyone here understands: when you're fighting for your lives all the time, the "we" matters more than the "I." And this ties into his views on why religion evolved, but that is not my subject for this post.)
Switching wholly from Wade to me: While more modern humans haven't kept that kind of equality, those instincts are obviously not dead - the desire to pull down the successful is that thing called Envy, a Deadly Sin to the traditionalists, and a thing I particularly hate (even if it's spun as a desire for "fairness"). I suppose that since I recognize true morality as based on instincts, and am inclined to accept that this kind of envy came as part of the "morality package," I'd be self- consistent to start accepting egalitarian envy as right. I don't, for I am stubborn.
I am inclined to think this way: Doubtless, moral instincts are largely innate and operate as instincts - that is, feelings triggered by certain events, and that do not line up in a coherent system. But they serve a metaphorical "purpose" - that is, there is a reason we should be glad we have them (contra this man) - and that is to help us get along in groups. Suggesting further that a rule that accomplishes the purpose better than the instinctsn is a moral one. In modern, complex societies, tolerating successful persons and minorities is a lot better than the contrary - for material and intellectual advances, at least, you won't get too far if you wipe out your middleman minorities with the IQ advantages, no matter how much resentment they draw. So perhaps in this way, I can justify rejecting some moral instincts but not others.
Absence
I apologize for the continuing lack of new posting. I've been in D.C. with Uncle Jimbo all week, and I'm afraid the constant parties hard work has left me with little time to blog. I'll be back around the start of next week, I hope.
Jun 2011
Apparently the main thing we are meant to take from tonight's speech was a very limited commitment to Afghanistan. So let it be recorded.
Wash State Pol Off
If you'd like to help the wives and children of the police officers killed this weekend in Washington State, here is a post on the subject.
A Gambling Man
On the topic of poker as game-theory for statecraft, a review of a new biography of Charles II. "The Merry Monarch" loved horses, hunting, drinking, and gambling:
...how diligently he worked to navigate the political cross-currents of his time and fashion a fairer society. It was an improbable goal, considering how deeply divided England was at the time. Not everyone cheered the return of the monarchy, of course—parts of the population retained republican sympathies. And though Charles was king, Parliament controlled the purse and could easily derail his best-laid plans.All things considered, he was a fairly successful king.
As a result of such divisions, Charles became a "gambler," as Ms. Uglow puts it—not at cards or gaming tables but at affairs of state. His biggest gamble was on something he fervently wanted to achieve: religious toleration...
Folks after own heart
I love this kind of story, where the American West is used as an inspiration for those living and fighting today.
I’m not sure when Benjamin Franklin created the US Postal Service, he envisioned US mail being transported by armored HMMVWs and protected by machine guns. But that is one of the methods used to transport mail to the awaiting soldiers in remote combat outposts and camps throughout Afghanistan.One can argue about the history, but it is good to see yourself as part of a living tradition. You are one who has been given a rich inheritance, and has a duty to preserve it and pass it on intact. The military is fairly good at reminding its members of the history of the unit to which they belong, its great battles and noteworthy heroes. Civilian America, as a whole, could do better.
Strategic Skill
You know, today we're just going to quote the editorial board of the New York Times.
The Israelis have refused to stop all building. The Palestinians say that they won’t talk to the Israelis until they do, and President Mahmoud Abbas is so despondent he has threatened to quit. Arab states are refusing to do anything.Well, you know, you voted for him. You knew he'd never had a real job, let alone a serious executive position. Remember how charming it was when his campaign cited his campaign as proof that he knew how to be executive for a nationwide organization?
Mr. Obama’s own credibility is so diminished (his approval rating in Israel is 4 percent) that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever.
Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board.
When your supporters start fielding chess metaphors against you, you may be in trouble. It'd be worse if they were poker metaphors, though, because diplomacy and intelligence are much more like poker than they are like chess. That's just a writer's convention, though; the Times couldn't see three moves down a chessboard any more than it could tell you, based on the fourth card showing, whether it was possible that someone at the table might be holding a flush.
At least, that's how they've always struck me. But I do play poker, and chess in a playful manner.
Wow - FT Hood
Mark Steyn has a remarkable piece outlining just how extremely open the FT Hood jihadist was about his intentions. As the cowboy Charlie Waite says in Open Range, a man will often tell you the evil he means to do. It's amazing to read just how often, and how loudly, this particular man said it -- in the US Army -- with no one to stop him.
Aside from that, though, there's another thing I hadn't known.
...an opposition MP mused on whether it wouldn’t have been better to prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf.I had no idea that was the case. The history as I inherited it from various teachers was that the Nazis got away with it because people were angry, and looking for a scapegoat. That there was sustained opposition on the point, with the force of the law, was never related.
“That analysis sounds as if it ought to be right,” I replied. “But the problem with it is that the Weimar Republic—Germany for the 12 years before the Nazi party came to power—had its own version of Section 13 and equivalent laws. It was very much a kind of proto-Canada in its hate speech laws. The Nazi party had 200 prosecutions brought against it for anti-Semitic speech. At one point the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Hitler from giving public speeches.”
Of course the only effective opposition to the Nazis came not from the law; the law failed to bind them, but was ready enough to serve them when they became the ruling party. No, the opposition that stopped them came from men: Russians, Americans, and the Brits.
And on the subject of Brits who fought the Nazis, and have no use for political correctness, this piece:
Curious about his grandmother's generation and what they did in the war, he decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write to him with their experiences.Mark that down, if you're keeping score.
He rounded off his request with this question: 'Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'
What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is their vehement insistence that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war would now be turning in their graves.
There is the occasional bright spot - one veteran describes Britain as 'still the best country in the world' - but the overall tone is one of profound disillusionment.
'I sing no song for the once-proud country that spawned me,' wrote a sailor who fought the Japanese in the Far East, 'and I wonder why I ever tried.'
'My patriotism has gone out of the window,' said another ex-serviceman.
In the Mail this week, Gordon Brown wrote about 'our debt of dignity to the war generation'.
But the truth that emerges from these letters is that the survivors of that war generation have nothing but contempt for his government.
They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, 'betrayed'.
On Pro-Woman Politics
I was reading one of Elise's favorite bloggers, Reclusive Leftist, who cited the Roman emperor Diocletian as a desirable model. Desirable, that is, in the sense that he could completely dispose of the existing system and replace it with another that he thought was better.
Probably everyone has that impulse at times, although doubtless over different issues; obviously the Stupak amendment doesn't cause me to doubt the system as much as the bill it was attached to in the first place. For me, it's the regulation of every facet of everyday life that sometimes makes me wonder if we can really fix the system we have. I remain devoted to the system, and the Constitution, but I certainly understand moments of frustration.
What interested me was her concept that women ought to create a party -- 'the National Womens' Party' or something like that -- because they were not well served by either of the existing parties. She has a list of things that a pro-woman party would support: abortion (though failure to be pro-choice would not be disqualifying, she says, if you supported the rest); perhaps something like an equal rights amendment; single-payer health care.
What she aspires to, I gather, is a model in which the government takes care of women. If a woman gets sick, her health care is covered by the government. If a woman wants to have a child, there will be financial assistance from the government if she needs it so she can stay home with the child; or, if she would prefer to work, the government would provide her with child care. If she doesn't want to have a child, she is free to dispose of him or her. If she wants to try something and people don't think she should, the government will be there with laws and lawyers to force them to give her access to whatever field of endeavor she'd like to try.
The irony, of course, is that there is a word to describe this form of government: "Paternalistic."
Yet it's not really the father that the government is replacing here: it's the husband. This model of government would replace the husband-and-father-of-your-children. The equality it really creates is an equality between happily married women and unmarried ones. It gives them the access to health care that they might have to give up if they were unmarried and wanted to quit work to raise a child; a husband would have provided it in the traditional system. It gives them a basic level of income even if they don't work, as being married would. It hires someone to care for their children if they'd rather work than spend time with them. It stands up for them and fights for them against bullies, yet -- like the perfect husband -- it is completely deferential to their wishes even on the most crucial of matters, such as whether their child lives or dies. The husband or father might want to have a say in that; but the government bows to its wife's will.
In the fashion that women who joined a nunnery became "Brides of Christ," this model of government would essentially make them "Brides of the State."
I would think that would be a terrifying model, and I don't understand why it isn't. In the fantasy, the government that can't be convinced even to avoid the Stupak Amendment is perfectly behaved. In reality, giving the government that much of a working partnership in your life means that you would be totally controlled by it. Every single critique that early feminism reared about the dependence of women on their husbands would be directly applicable to such a state. And while a woman can leave a bad husband for another one, or for no husband at all, you're pretty much stuck with the State. You can try to change it, but whereas a woman has a direct and personal opportunity to try and change her husband, she'd be but one voice among millions of women in the National Womens' Party; and that party would not be the only party in government.
On the other hand, I am certainly pro-woman. I like women, respect the women in my life, and want women to feel happy and fulfilled as members of our society. It seems to me that there are two alternatives to this paternalistic vision of government that are at least as objectively pro-woman, one conservative and one libertarian.
The conservative version is to reinforce marriage: to try to rebuild it as an inviolable contract, so that women are provided those advantages by their husbands instead of the State. This would include trying to teach young men how to be good husbands. This vision is exposed to all the early-feminism critiques of marriage, but no more than the Statist vision: and the woman has a lot more leverage with her individual husband than she has with the massive State, with its armies and police and its trillions to force her to obey. In a marriage, a woman has an opportunity at real equality with her partner; and if there is not real equality, it's just as likely that she will be the domineering partner as her husband. That is more about intelligence and force of will than about physical size.
There's no doubt that being a member of a successful marriage is of tremendous advantage to both partners -- and to society! We were talking the other day about how married couples pay 75% of all income taxes. The "top ten percent" of income earners pay 71% of income taxes; married couples are 40% of filers. That means there is almost a perfect identity between "married couples" and "the top ten percent," but that the 30% of filers who are married-but-not-in-the-top-ten-percent are still overpaying their share.
In addition, the married couple is paying the lions share of the costs of raising its children. Furthermore, their children will be more successful, as study after study shows that children from two-parent families outperform other children on average in every field.
So, a conservative answer: a stronger system of marriage, with a focus on raising young men fit to be good husbands, is the single best thing that you can do for women and their children. This system is unlikely to admit to abortion as a "right," but even many women are deeply opposed to it. It is, after all, the killing of innocent children for personal advantage.
A libertarian answer is also possible to imagine. This would be more state-oriented than the conservative model, which would rely chiefly on the family instead of the government. However, it is substantially less-statist than the Leftist model.
In the libertarian model, the government's role would be to provide women with opportunities, rather than guarantees. For example, it would float them student loans at generous rates. It would help them start small businesses. It would help them find child care by helping establish those small businesses, and by providing some oversight to ensure that they were of high quality.
It might try to handle those in need of catastrophic health care according to something like the non-coercive model Elise and I were debating the other day:
A non-coercive approach that might be worth considering: the government runs a catastrophic plan that manages voluntary, tax-deductible donations, only to care for those too foolish to buy their own care. However, when the donations run out, the plan is done for the year.This model has the advantage, for all adults including women, of not forcing them into a position of dependence on the state. They are independent in the literal sense: if they take the student loan, they have to pay it back. If they take the help starting the small business, they have to run it and make it successful. If they want the system to have money for catastrophic care, they have to chip in when they are able; but no one forces them to do so. You could even address the free-rider problem by refusing to allow people into the system who don't choose to contribute as they are able; but that would be a decision for debate.
That would leave us in a situation much like the blood supply: there would need to be regular drives for support, but nobody is pinned to the table and forced to donate blood. The blood supply seems to work, and it treats the same kind of 'unexpected emergency' problems that you're considering here.
If you allowed 'in kind' donations from doctors and nurses, on a tax-deductible basis, I'd say you could probably arrange a substantially effective model without having to force anyone to do anything. Right now, doctors are essentially forced to absorb much of the costs of treating the people without insurance; if they were allowed to deduct those costs from their taxes, many of them would probably gladly donate a set amount of time for providing such care.
Abortion would be more of an open question to the libertarians, who tend to be in favor of letting people do what they want. However, even libertarians might like to note that the woman is not the only one who ought to have a vote on the issue of an abortion: the father might deserve a voice in whether his child lives or dies; and the child herself should have some rights to be considered.
These are thumbnail sketches, as Reclusive Leftist's own post was. What I hope that they illustrate is that it is possible to approach issues of pro-woman politics without Statism. The truth is that the State is not your friend; it is at best a dangerous servant, and more likely to be the slavemaster that Socrates considered it to be. He considered it a largely benevolent master, but felt that "citizens" were really slaves who owed the state their lives. Most states through history have felt so also; and even among the free, it is a constant struggle to restrain the concentrated power that every government builds over time. The defense of liberty is an eternal fight.
That refusal to submit does not mean that women are not important to me, though; it doesn't mean that I don't care about them. I do my best to be the kind of good husband that frees and liberates at least one woman to live the life she's always imagined. I wish I could do more. I can do that much, though, and I do.
It seems to me that a woman who wanted to see herself as my genuine equal might reply that she would be responsible for herself, and would not need a husband to help her with her dreams. I've no objection to her being personally independent and strong; but especially with children, it is important to have a companion and partner. You're better off chosing your own, and carefully, than having the State force its way into your bed.
Preach -> Meddle
Never my very favorite people, PETA continues to amaze. This time, though, they are honestly just wasting their breath.
PETA suggests Georgia could use a robot dog or a costumed mascot instead of the white English bulldogs that have represented the school at football games since 1956.So, the preferred alternative is to move the breed into extinction, replaced by unfeeling robots? I suppose in some absolute sense that might reduce suffering, since all life entails some suffering, and zero must necessarily be less than anything.
Last week, bulldog mascot Uga VII died at the age of 4, apparently of a heart ailment.
Desiree Acholla of PETA says bulldogs are prone to heart problems and other medical issues because of inbreeding.
On the other hand, Uga VII, as all of his predecessors, enjoyed a life filled with the adoration of tens of thousands. But what is love next to... well, there's no indication he suffered, really, just that he died young.
"Better never to have lived and loved, than to have lived at all."
Happy Turnkey Day
(Click to enlarge. The picture is Mr. Lockit from The Beggar's Opera.)
Thanksgiving 2009
I've spent the last two Thanksgivings in Iraq, where Bill is still again this year. It will be interesting to see how a real Thanksgiving dinner compares to the Army's!
It's good to be home this year, but I hope you'll keep the deployed in your thoughts at times today. For some of you that will be all too easy, as someone you cannot help but think of is absent from your table today; for others, please make a moment or two.
TGTBTU on YouTube
Apparently, YouTube has decided to offer the full version of Sergio Leone's classic for free, until the end of the month. Most likely you have a copy or two on your shelf already, but if not, enjoy.
A Speech
One of you sent me an email about the USS Constitution. I wondered if the story was at all true, so I looked around a bit. I can't verify it, but I can now point to a source: US Marine General Jim Jones.
Let me begin by sharing a bit of history with you about our nation’s oldest warship, the USS Constitution. My good friend General Jim Jones used to tell this account. I can’t vouch for its historical accuracy, but believe it’s a pretty good story all the same:I'm pretty sure they used water for cooking or something.
On 23 August 1779, the USS Constitution set sail from Boston loaded with: 475 officers and men… 48,600 gallons of water… 74,000 pounds of cannon shot… 11,500 pounds of black powder… and 79,400 gallons of rum.
Her mission: to destroy and harass English shipping.
On 6 October, she made Jamaica, took on 826 pounds of flour… and 68,300 gallons of rum.
Three weeks later, the Constitution reached the Azores, where she provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and… 6,300 gallons of Portuguese wine.
On 18 November, she set sail for England where her crew captured and scuttled 12 English merchant vessels and… took aboard their rum.
By this time, the Constitution had run out of shot. Nevertheless, she made her way unarmed up the Firth of Clyde for a night raid. Here, her landing party captured a whiskey distillery, transferred 40,000 gallons aboard and headed for home.
On 20 February 1780, the Constitution arrived in Boston with… no cannon shot… no food… no powder… no rum… and no whiskey. She did, however, still carry her crew of 475 officers and men and… 48,600 gallons of water.
Pushback
A post on LTC West, on the occasion of the SEAL story from yesterday.
I have great sympathy for the military lawyer, who must enforce the law even when he doesn't think it's right. It was probably worth making that point to troops leaving for Iraq: even if he thought you were right, he'd still have to prosecute you. There's probably an interesting moral argument to be made on the subject of a commander choosing personal legal consequences to putting his soldiers at greater physical risk; or on the duty of a man, and an officer, to obey the law versus the duty of a commander to his men.
The SEALs plainly decided that they preferred to fight rather than accept what felt like injustice out of the law. I don't know what the result of the procedure will be, but I can see that LTC West is -- if anything -- liberated to fight even harder. I hope that, whatever comes of the SEALs' case, they are able to continue to serve the Republic according to their conscience.
Fight Club
I didn't catch Fight Club back in 1999. In fact, I caught it for the first time earlier this fall, about ten years late. Man, is it wild in how well it predicted the world of our age. With one exception: in the movie, we were meant to be fighting on the other side.
Four people have been arrested in Peru on suspicion of killing dozens of people in order to sell their fat and tissue for cosmetic uses in Europe.That's not us. That's criminal gangs. Fight Club wondered whether we'd be the ones leading the charge to unmake the world.
The gang allegedly targeted people on remote roads, luring them with fake job offers before killing them and extracting their fat.
The liquidised product fetched $15,000 (£9,000) a litre and police suspect it was sold on to companies in Europe.
Did you want to hold it together? We've, most of us, given ourselves to the task: we've sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution and try to preserve it. When I was a boy I used to wonder, reading the lives of Wyatt Earp and others of his kind, whether they knew that they were destroying themselves. If they built a final peace, who would need Wyatt Earp?
In Lonesome Dove, Texas Ranger Captain Gus McCrae asks the question explictly:
Woodrow Call: [riding in San Antonio] Things sure have changed since the last time I was here. It's all growed up.It's an odd position to be in. The wages of victory are slander and the hatred of the protected, who believe in their clean hands. The wages of defeat are a world in which we are needed and valued.
Gus McCrae: Of course it's growed up, Woodrow. We killed all the Indians and bandits so the bankers could move in.
Woodrow Call: Only a fool would want the Indians back.
Gus McCrae: Has it ever occurred to you, Woodrow, that all the work we done was for the bankers?
Yet we are men of honor, and therefore we must try for a world that neither needs nor wants us. We must, because our wives and children will be safe there.
Until our sons try to become men, that is.
UPDATE:
From Japanese Death Poems, ed. Yoel Hoffmann:
In 1582 the samurai leader Oda Nobunaga (1534-82) captured a company of over a hundred Buddhist monks who were allies of his enemy. He ordered his men to pile dry branches around the prisoners and set fire to them all.... With flames licking at his body, Kaisen responded, "If you have vanquished your selfhood, coolness will rise even from the fire."If you have seen the movie, confer with the scene captured here, of Tyler Durden looking on during the beating of the narrator:
Katsu.
Change
Spiked has a pretty good article on the subject of change, and how it distracts.
Present educational fads are based on the premise that because we live in a new, digitally driven society, the intellectual legacy of the past and the experience of grown-ups have little significance for the schooling of children.Well, people look backwards with their minds for the same reason they look in three dimensions with their eyes: because that's the only way the organ works.
The implicit assumption that adults have little to teach children is rarely made explicit. But there is a growing tendency to flatter children through suggesting that their values are more enlightened than those of their elders because they are more tuned in to the present. So children are often represented as digital natives who are way ahead of their text-bound and backward-looking parents.
A useful English Lit project would be to grab up the Louis L'amour novels and run through them for the literary references; and then make a class that required students to read those books he cites. (And to read them in the manner he recommends: for example, to read Plutarch's 'lives' at least three times.) Ivanhoe. Shakespeare. Blackstone's legal commentaries. So many others!
A useful philosophy project would be to grab up those same novels by the man, and have the students read L'amour directly. What did he mean to say about life? About manhood? About duty? About honor? About the right way to live, and how best to learn?
I looked for his books in the local public library. Even in rural Georgia, there were only two of them in the collection.
It's OK, though: the truck stop down the road sells a neverending supply. Truckers have a lot of time to think, like cowboys riding trail. When the rest of it falls apart, they'll still be there.
Psalm 109
JarHead Dad wrote the other day to mention a new bumper sticker seen up around Pigeon Forge: "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8." Being the sort of folks who have a Bible on the dashboard, they quickly discovered that it was a joke:
"Let his days be few; and let another take his office."As usual with political jokes, a lot of people aren't finding it funny. Here's one of them:
Among the world's top Google searches today are phrases that contain the words "Psalms 109 8", and "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama". For those of you who may not know that particular verse, it reads "May his days be few, may another take over his position." And before anyone excuses this toxic use of scripture as nothing more than the wish that President Obama not be re-elected to a second term of office, the next verse in the psalm reads, "May his children be orphans and his wife a widow".That last line gave me whiplash. Even granting that the broader passage is quite unkind to the wicked person, there's surely a difference between praying for God to punish the wicked, and deciding to kill a bunch of people yourself. Deuteronomy has God advise those who might wish to seek vengeance to leave it in his hands:
In fact, the entire chapter is about the prayed for death of an evil person. Not to mention that anyone who knows enough Bible to have thought about this verse in particular, surely knows the entire chapter and appreciates its message. Pretty scary stuff.
All this is especially upsetting in light of the last weeks' events at Fort Hood.
"To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste."The early Christian book of Romans re-emphasizes the point:
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."The Christian vision is to forgive; but for those who cannot forgive, to give the wish for vengeance to God. This is much in line with the early Church's position on sex, which is: abstain; but for those who cannot abstain, marry. In both cases, there is a perfect way, but there is then also a humane exception that allows the exercise of the vital power in a way that channels its harmful qualities in useful directions. Anger is a natural part of mankind, and a just response to wickedness. Lust is a natural part of mankind, and the normal response of youth to beauty.
The vengeful may pray to God, and the lustful may take wives. Thus there are not murderers but prayerful men, and not predators but husbands.
In this way, the Bible's response is the opposite of the call to Jihad. It is meant to contain the wrath, mitigate it, channel it where it does good rather than harm. It is not a call to murder, but to give your wrath to God and trust his disposition of it.
Economic Collapse
The Wall Street Journal reports:
President Barack Obama took office promising to lead from the center and solve big problems. He has exerted enormous political energy attempting to reform the nation's health-care system. But the biggest economic problem facing the nation is not health care. It's the deficit. Recently, the White House signaled that it will get serious about reducing the deficit next year—after it locks into place massive new health-care entitlements. This is a recipe for disaster, as it will create a new appetite for increased spending and yet another powerful interest group to oppose deficit-reduction measures.It's not just an American problem, as the UK Telegraph notes:
Our fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly in just the past few years. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion—the highest since World War II—as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.
Governments have already shot their fiscal bolts. Even without fresh spending, public debt would explode within two years to 105pc of GDP in the UK, 125pc in the US and the eurozone, and 270pc in Japan. Worldwide state debt would reach $45 trillion, up two-and-a-half times in a decade.The other half of the world isn't going to do that well either: China and the developing world are likewise dependent on investment from the First World, and sales to that world's economies.
(UK figures look low because debt started from a low base. Mr Ferman said the UK would converge with Europe at 130pc of GDP by 2015 under the bear case).
The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. "High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt," it said.
Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.
If so, gold would go "up, and up, and up" as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.
The bank said the current crisis displays "compelling similarities" with Japan during its Lost Decade (or two), with a big difference: Japan was able to stay afloat by exporting into a robust global economy and by letting the yen fall. It is not possible for half the world to pursue this strategy at the same time.
Brad DeLong, meanwhile, seasons his praise of a Paul Krugman piece with this warning:
The long Treasury market is thinner than many people think: it is not completely implausible to argue that it is giving us the wrong read on what market expectations really are because long Treasuries right now are held by (a) price-insensitive actors like the PBoC and (b) highly-leveraged risk lovers borrowing at close to zero and collecting coupons as they try to pick up nickles in front of the steamroller. And to the extent that the prices at which businesses can borrow are set by a market that keys off the Treasury market, an unwinding of this "carry trade"--if it really exists--could produce bizarre outcomes."Picking up nickles in front of the steamroller" is an expression that doesn't really capture the nature of what is being done. The metaphor suggests that these guys are aware of the steamroller, but are risking their necks to try to collect up the free money that's lying around before it gets here. The truth is that the bad actors on the private side of the equation are actively fueling the "steamroller," as through predatory lending to unqualified buyers in advance of the housing crisis. They're urging people to stand in front of the steamroller, and charging admission for the right.
Bear in mind that this whole story requires that the demand curve slope the wrong way for a while--that if the prices for Treasury bonds fall carry traders lose their shirts and exit the market, and so a small fall in Treasury bond prices turns into a crash until someone else steps in to hold the stock...
This is something to think really hard about....
The bad actors on the government side are simply ignoring the existence of the steamroller. That is clear from the vast scale of these new expenses, while doing nothing to deal with the existing crises in Medicare, Social Security and public pensions.
Beer Will Make You Feel Better
...if you're a man.
Drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third, a major study suggests.Well, in celebration of that little piece of wisdom, here's a Singapore blues band performing a classic by the Reverend Horton Heat.
The Spanish research involving more than 15,500 men and 26,000 women found large quantities of alcohol could be even more beneficial for men.
The title of this post is taken from another song, whose chorus goes: "Everybody's got to believe in something; I believe I'll have another beer."
Colonel Lewis L. Millett, an Army veteran of three wars who received the Medal of Honor for leading a rare bayonet charge up a hill in Korea, died Saturday in Loma Linda, Calif. He was 88.
The colonel was hard core. He would have been an interesting man to serve with.
Wood = Felony?
We've reached a point in our history at which we honestly have no idea what the law says. For example:
This amendment deals with illegal plants -- the primary thrust being illegal wood. Henceforth, all wood is to be a federally regulated, suspect substance. Either raw wood, lumber, or anything made of wood, from tables and chairs, to flooring, siding, particle board, to handles on knives, baskets, chopsticks, or even toothpicks has to have a label naming the genus and species of the tree that it came from and the country of origin. Incorrect labeling becomes a federal felony, and the law does not just apply to wood newly entering the country, but any wood that is in interstate commerce within the country. Here are some excerpts from a summary:So, if you buy an incorrectly labeled pack of toothpicks, you've just committed a felony.
[...]
Anyone who imports into the United States, or exports out of the United States, illegally harvested plants or products made from illegally harvested plants, including timber, as well as anyone who exports, transports, sells, receives, acquires or purchases such products in the United States, may be prosecuted.
Did you know that? Of course you did not. Nobody knew it. These omnibus bills create new crimes all the time.
How many new felonies are in the more-than two thousand pages of the Senate's health care bill? Will we know by the time they vote on it, scant days after compiling it? How many of them will have read it?
I'm sure you read that Texas appears to have accidentally banned all marriages.
This break-neck, all-the-time changing of the law is the absolute enemy of liberty.
First, it hems in the space in which we are free.
Second, and worse, it undermines the rule of law itself. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a bedrock legal principle: you can't claim, as a defense in court, that you weren't aware of the law governing your actions. When the law becomes unknowable, due to rapid, massive, and constant changes, that bedrock principle becomes unjust.
A standard often invoked in the law is 'the average, rational person.' If the average, rational person honestly can't know what laws he lives under, how can the system be just? How can it be valid? How can we morally prosecute anyone for violating such laws?
The law, in such a system, becomes wicked. It no longer protects that average, rational person. The average, rational person becomes a felon.
The government must be stopped from changing the law all the time. We need to find a way to put on the brakes.
No Decision?
That's what the White House is saying:
President Barack Obama will not announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the Thanksgiving holiday, senior aides said on Thursday. The news came as the president greeted 1,500 troops at Osan Air Base in South Korea, just before boarding Air Force One....Thanksgiving is an important holiday, and a time for reflection. There's been quite a lot of reflection already, though; and besides, isn't this the decision?
"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.
Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed "the gratitude of the American public" and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a "safer more prosperous world for all of us."
President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have turned the focus of Afghan war planning toward an exit strategy, publicly declaring that the U.S. and its allies can't send additional troops without a plan for getting them out.Whether it is or not, it's the decision. What we're now debating is means to the end of getting out.
The shift has unnerved some U.S. and foreign officials, who say that planning a pullout now -- with or without a specific timetable -- encourages the Taliban to wait out foreign forces and exacerbates fears in the region that the U.S. isn't fully committed to their security.
"It's not a good idea," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D., Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
That may seem like a small thing, since our mission in Iraq also includes an end-state whereby we withdraw remaining forces. However, the Bush administration pushed the public debate in the direction of how to achieve victory, not an exit strategy. The difference in that debate is significant even if you designed precisely the same practical steps to achieve one as the other. That is, even if your plan for 'achieving victory' is exactly the same plan as an 'exit strategy,' there's an important difference in perception.
"The moral is to the physical as three is to one," as Napoleon said. Telling your troops, your allies and your enemies that you are not committed to the region will have effects. Those effects may echo from little battlefields at distant outposts, to the cities of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
VALOUR-IT 2009 Final
I'd just like to pass on Cassandra's words of congratulation to all of you, in her capacity as Marine Corps Team Leader. As you can see from the scores, the Marine Corps team met and surpassed their goal in a very difficult year (indeed, none of the other teams achieved the goal; in most years, the competition is to see who can get to $35K first).
Thank you for your kind attention, and for your concern for our wounded veterans.
The blogger Instapunk has an interesting rant (note: very strong language in parts) on the phenomenon of what I'm going to start referring to as Palin Derangement Syndrome:
Americans -- remember them? -- should be asking themselves what it means that a woman of traditional American values can be so reviled, so relentlessly, so unscrupulously, so take-no-prisoners viciously. She doesn't need to become president to perform an invaluable role. Why is she so popular in the heartland?
Because she is us. A good-hearted ambitious American doing her best to offer her best. If they -- and who are they, exactly? -- hate her so much, then it has to be the case that she's only a symbol of the hatred they feel for all the rest of us. If ordinary average Americans ever figure this part of the equation out, the 'liberals' are done forever. I'm thinking Sarah Palin is making that outcome more likely.
And I say to that sentence: I certainly hope so.
WTF?
If I ever meet this fellow who has gotten himself elected President, I'm going to demand to know why he isn't bowing to me.
"Why should I?" I imagine him saying. "You're not a king, a monarch, a head of state."
No, I'm not. But I'm a free American citizen, and as such, I'm the equal of anyone in the world. If he'll bow to them, as America's primus inter pares, then it must be personal. That is, he's not bowing because it is right for the President of the United States to bow where no "mere" citizen would, but because he personally is a scoundrel who knows his place.
An American citizen can look the Queen of England in the eye as an equal, if he chooses. We won the right on the battlefield. In her case, one might choose to do otherwise, as she merits special honor. A gentleman might bow to her as a lady without shame, for she truly is one.
But Hu Jintao? He's no lady.
The Road Is Not
Tonight I made the last long run to finish the move. Man, family, horse and dog, and all their gear have made the movement to a new home. We should begin to be good, tomorrow.
Lots to do yet, but things are better than they have been, starting time now.
That quote is attributed to Ghandi, but I'm thinking it has applications here. Like the article says:
"...for somebody who's supposed to be such a political joke, an Arctic ditz and eminently dismissable as a serious anything except maybe a stay-at-home hockey mom, Sarah Palin is sure drawing an awful lot of attention from Democrats and eager critics."
I usually don't read political memoirs, but I think I'm going to be making an exception in this case.
And speaking of the governor, Nate Silver of 538.com (a basically Democrat polling website) makes the case for why Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012. But what I find especially interesting is the comments. Just look at all the anti-Palin comments, and replace "she" with "he" and "Palin" with "Obama" and see how they sound. Very, very interesting.
Read it quickly before the woman comes to her senses and takes it down.
Grim, you ain't missing anything. Get settled with your family.
(via Ace of Spades)
Out of Touch
I apologize for the continued lack of new posting here. We're moved, but the phone company doesn't have a cable pair in this part of rural Georgia to carry our phone/internet signal. We're working on resolving that one way or another; until that happens, I'll have to connect from the public library!
I want to thank my co-bloggers for their interesting entries. I'm glad to read Joesph's commentary on the subject of the FT Hood shooting trial.
Aside from that, I'm afraid I haven't had enough internet access lately to be much abreast of the happenings of the world. I have been working on wells in a pasture, cutting hay, and laying some white clover seed for the benefit of certain horses.
Hope to be back soon. In the meantime, I'll be around as I can be.
Really? Still making things up?
You go, girl!
I am always slightly astonished at the lengths people will go through for a joke. But it's still pretty neat for all that.
The original, if anybody wants to compare.
Sadko - Song of the Varangian Merchant
For no better reason than that I feel like it: here is a favorite Russian song of mine.
This is from the opera Sadko by Rimsky-Korsakov. Sadko is a musician of Novgorod who once boasted to the local merchants that, if he had a hoard of gold, he wouldn't stay home - he'd buy trade goods, sail overseas, and bring back fabulous wealth to decorate the city's churches. At this point (Tableau IV of the opera), he's just acquired a fortune by catching the golden-finned fish of Lake Ilmen and he intends to keep his promise - but where to trade? Three foreign merchants sing songs of their homelands, and the first is the Varangian (Viking). This is how he describes his home and people:
On the terrible rocks the waves break with a roarI long ago heard (but never saw verified) that the "Song of the Volga Boatmen" is a rare remnant of Viking music, and this recalls that, so the composer may have thought so.
And run backwhirling with white foam;
But the grey cliffs stoutly bear the pressure of the waves,
Standing over the sea.
Our Varangian bones are of those rocks,
Our life's blood came from those ocean waves,
Our secret thoughts from the mists.
We were born in the sea; we will die on the sea.
The Varangians have swords of Damascus steel,
Deadly sharp arrows, they bring unfailing death to our foes.
Courageous are the people of the midnight lands,
Great is their god Odin, gloomy their sea.
In case you were wondering, the other merchants are from India and Venice. Sadko decides on Venice.
2 notes on Hasan
As you've heard he's been charged (i.e., charges have been preferred). That means he will probably be tried next year, despite earlier accounts that trial might take years. One advantage military justice has over civilian criminal law - it's generally a lot faster, both to get started and to do. Several rules and statutes put pressure on the prosecution to bring him to trial rapidly, beyond the basic Sixth Amendment guarantee of a speedy trial. The basic rule is that trial is supposed to occur within 120 days after charges are preferred; but there are several excludable delays that can easily add months to that. I'd still be surprised if the case took even a year to bring to trial, though my views are not amazingly well-informed, as I haven't tried a murder, let alone a capital murder. Even if his lawyer moves for a psychological evaluation, these can be done with surprising speed.
It wouldn't be quite fair to compare this to the Khalid trial in New York - 8 years after the event - as that at least required much more investigating to bring the facts to light. The full inquiry into Hasan's background and whether something might've been done to stop him may take a while; but the facts of what he did and why it's bad - these won't take so long.
From the original story - Secretary Gates' comment: “Everything will be made public and clear at an appropriate time, I just don’t want to jeopardize this investigation,” Gates added. “So my view is: Everybody just ought to shut up.” As I mentioned in comments before, truer words were never spoken. Partly this is to protect the integrity of the investigations, but part of it is to avoid unlawful command influence - the concern that someone in the command, even at the top (civilian) levels - might say something that could be seen as having a prejudicial effect on the panel. (And if it's a death case, there has to be a panel.) The legal standard on that is very strict - the defense only has to raise the issue "beyond mere speculation"; then the prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is not command influence.
Also, at ScienceBlogs, of all places, a debate about whether Hasan's chosen weapons were amazingly effective implements of doom, or not. (Incidentally, if the horse lovers who are known to frequent this place follow the link through to Mr. Springer's blog, they should scroll to this for a historical curiosity.)
A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise.
David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy". He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit.
Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out.
The dithering was noticed a while ago. Now the the previously adulant press is beginning to notice. And this administration hasn't even been in office for a year.
That has got to be a record.
A Hero's Grave
Via Dad29, who notes, "That wacko shrink was not the ONLY Muslim in the US Armed Forces."
CPL Khan joined the Army precisely to show that Muslims could be loyal Americans. He died in the service, in Iraq, being posthumously promoted from Specialist to Corporal.
The promotion to Corporal in the Army is a "lateral" promotion -- that is, it is from the pay grade of E-4 to the pay grade of E-4. It is nevertheless extremely significant because it is the point at which a soldier enters the ranks of the noncommissioned officers: the leadership class. It is granted only to E-4s who show other soldiers the right way to serve by their personal example.
For that reason, the poshumous promotion was exactly appropriate. Given that it was his reason for service, and the cause of his death, it is likewise appropriate that we should remember him now.
Speculation on Hood attack
By now you'll have heard of the horrible attack at Fort Hood. The reports are suggestive, though early reports are often wrong. Nevertheless, it seems clear now that the shooter killed was a Major named Malik Nadal Hassan, who was a psychiatrist from Maryland.
Speculation in the press seems to be that he was angry about being deployed, which perhaps he was. Still, these early reports suggest a more specific motive than 'anger.'
If the facts in the press right now prove to be accurate, the attack was executed on a unit in the last phase of pre-deployment. As a result, it would be likely to attack the morale and, therefore, the operational effectiveness of the unit once deployed. That motive, to produce a psychological effect on the unit, would be consistent with a psych-doctor being involved in the planning and execution of the attack.
If it was an attack on a unit deploying to war, intended to blunt the effectiveness of the unit, that would make this attack a form of 'levying war against the United States.' Treason by an officer of the United States military is almost unknown.
We'll have to see if these reports pan out; and if so, what might have moved an officer of the United States Army to treason and murder. If I do not mention it, someone will point out his recent conversion to Islam; but whether that was the key issue or not remains to be seen. Likewise, I have heard that there were other soldiers arrested and multiple shooters -- that is not confirmed to my satisfaction at this time, but would make the situation much more dire if true.
UPDATE: Looks like we might get a proper hanging after all. The allegations of others so far aren't proving out. Also, it turns out he may have been a lifelong Muslim, not a recent convert; but there are new reports of radicalism from officers who had served with him.
Still, I've known a few radical-sounding Muslims I didn't mind to have dinner with; just having a strong opinion doesn't make you an enemy. Of course, mostly they were Iraqis, and I reckon they have a right to some mixed feelings in spite of the good we always meant to do. We did our best, and I think we did both well and good overall, but a certain number of them have a right to some hard feelings in spite of the best we could do.
The Drive Begins II
After three years on the Etowah River, the time has come to move on. We'll still be in Georgia, but closer to the Oconee and South Broad rivers than the Etowah and Amicalola country. I love the country where we have lived; the Amicalola river country is home to me, more than anywhere else. Still, there are good reasons for what we're doing, including being able to get enough land out that way to do something with.
I'll be out of touch for a few days, more likely than not. Once we're settled, I'll be back.
The Drive Begins I
As the post above explains, I'll be of even less use to the Marine Corps Team over the next few days. I'd like to remind everyone to check in with Team Leader Cassandra every day until Veteran's Day -- though I hope we'll have the competition won well before the Birthday. In the meanwhile, here is today's update from her. Push on to glory.