...will understand.
The Scottish Warpipes are that kind of thing, you know.
Those Who Understand
Those Who Understand:
The Scottish Warpipes are that kind of thing, you know.
The Scottish Warpipes are that kind of thing, you know.
The Unexamined Life
The Unexamined Life:
Via Dad29:
I had read that week an article by Ashley Montagu of Princeton University on what he called “A Life Worth Living.” He listed the qualifications for a life worth living: good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential. These were among the measures of what was called “a life worth living.”It is easier, I have heard, for a camel to pass through an eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Here, perhaps, is part of the reason why.
And I remember vividly, as though it were yesterday, looking out the next Sunday morning at the congregation of St. John the Evangelist and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw that day the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning, a bolt of lightning that illuminated our moral and cultural moment, that Prof. Montagu and those of like mind believed that the people of St. John the Evangelist—people whom I knew and had come to love as people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—it struck me then that, by the criteria of the privileged and enlightened, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot.
An Amusing Weekend Review
An (Amusing) Weekend Review:
Maybe you picked the wrong horse here, hoss. Next time, try to get supporters who will fight for you.
Of course, if you have some, it might be best not to stab them in the back.
This year will be different! We're off to a good start with a... er... jobs bill. How will we be spurring the creation of jobs? Well, we, um, probably with tax cuts to corporations... maybe some low-cost loans or subsidies to, er, corporations.... hm.
Meanwhile, the dream lingers on. For a few more minutes, before the delicious aroma of coffee takes over.
So, what's your favorite story here at the start of the weekend? Is it mockery by the Huffington Post because Scott Brown's wife was once 'suggestive'? That story has a lot going for it, really: "Gail Huff wasn't always so prim and proper." "At the song's climax, she suggestively squeezes a tube of sunscreen...."
'At the climax,' right. So, my question is, isn't this Arianna Huffington's site? You know, she and now-Senator Franken used to be on that show called Strange Bedfellows?
I guess you've forgotten. Anyway, so what? Franken went on to become a Senator, which is meant to be a serious job with serious responsibilities; Huffington went on to become a leading figure in new journalism. Somehow, the fact that they once had a non-serious, 'suggestive' moment hasn't stopped them. (Actually, Franken's whole life has been built on non-serious moments, though he was rarely clever enough to be suggestive; but whatever.)
That story, though, is not the only contender. How about the story from Der Spiegel titled, "The World Bids Farewell To Obama"?
More than that, though, the vote shows just how quickly the political pendulum has swung back to the right following Obama's election. The seat Brown won had been in Democratic hands for all but six years since 1926. Now, its new occupant is a man who not only opposes the health care bill, but also favors waterboarding as a method of interrogation for terrorism suspects and rejects carbon cap-and-trade as a means of limiting carbon emissions.Remember when Obama was speaking to a giant, adoring festival of Germans in Berlin? And now they're already writing him off. It's almost as if you had an ally that promised to support you with their finest Kommando unit... only to find that those 'elite fighters' never went on a single mission before they went home.
Maybe you picked the wrong horse here, hoss. Next time, try to get supporters who will fight for you.
Of course, if you have some, it might be best not to stab them in the back.
"If Democrats waste this majority, and have nothing to show for it but bailouts of the biggest banks, auto companies and insurers, they deserve to be returned to minority status in the fall.... "--Timothy Egan, New York Times Web site, Jan. 20Well, yeah, that does seem to be the major accomplishment of the Obama administration so far. I think that my friends on the Left usually call this kind of thing "corporate welfare," and it's pretty much all that the administration and Congress actually accomplished last year.
This year will be different! We're off to a good start with a... er... jobs bill. How will we be spurring the creation of jobs? Well, we, um, probably with tax cuts to corporations... maybe some low-cost loans or subsidies to, er, corporations.... hm.
Meanwhile, the dream lingers on. For a few more minutes, before the delicious aroma of coffee takes over.
I think it's still possible that there's going to be a second thought, a realization that there's nothing but Plan B. And I think it's possible that in concert with this, Dem Reps will be on the receiving end of a wave of dissatisfaction from Dems across the country. But I think it's only a small chance.Good morning, Josh.
And the key reason is because it gets harder every day. And if they can't do it today, why does anyone imagine they'll be able to tomorrow.
DtP on fire
Peasant Burning:
However, I'm beginning to think it was pure incompetence by the administration. They clearly have fought for it, as with the President's personal appeal to voters over the weekend. They are still shouting from the rooftops that they'll find a way to pass it.
Combined with this incompetence may have been pure murder by Senate wise-men who understood that the bill needed to die. Stretching it out until now means they can kill it without suffering personal blame. Witness Jim Webb:
I suggest that the main thing is to build a new Congress based on small-government principles. Party isn't really the issue here, although if we begin to see the Tea Party movement capturing the Republican party that may change. I was never willing to leave the Democratic party for the Republican party; but I might be willing to leave it for a party that was honestly devoted to the principles of the Founders, gutting the social-welfare state, and very limited government interference in one's life.
At the moment, though, we need to look at our local races and figure out who among the candidates is the "limited government" candidate. We need to de-leverage American government, so that it isn't so heavily indebted and so that we aren't particularly dependent upon it nor subject to its whims.
Finally, I've noticed that some people are upset that Sen. Brown is a supporter of universal health care -- at the state level. Well he might be! That is a 10th Amendment issue. The state may have authority to do something like that; it's the Federal government that plainly does not. If Massachusetts wants to have universal health care, let them have it. If Georgia doesn't, we'll get all the jobs come the recovery: Atlanta will outstrip Boston because of better deals on taxes and spending.
Meanwhile, citizens who want universal health care can move to Massachusetts; whereas those who want less government in their lives can go elsewhere. That's genuine freedom, which doesn't exist given a one-size-fits-all Federal solution.
There's room in this country for liberals and conservatives alike. We just need to make sure that we're practicing our ideology at the state level. At the Federal level, the powers are meant to be specific and limited, and the government small and relatively absent from our day-to-day lives. The Federal government should look outward, for the most part; its power should mostly be used to push back the world, and maintain a space for liberty. It is the state, which any citizen can leave if he doesn't like it, where any expansive government functions should be exercised. Those of us who really want very little government should be able to have it; but there will remain some states where those who want cradle-to-grave security can try to have it, if they can indeed afford it.
Personally, I think that approach will always fail; but if they want it, let them try it there and not here. If they can make it work, at the state level in a state where it doesn't bother me, more power to them.
Dennis the Peasant is on fire. There's some highly pragmatic, insightful political advice buried amid all that cursing and mockery. :)
The health care bill has always been an exercise in time. When the Senate voted for it just before Christmas Eve, it looked like they might just beat the clock... until the next day:
I'm not sure why this is happening. I mean, I know about the polls; and I recognize that the left and the right both hate it. I understand that it's a terrible mess, and I've got no idea why anyone would actually want to pass it. However, until today I've been convinced that passing it was the first order of business on the minds of the national Democratic party.I wondered at the time if that delay meant a concession by the Democratic leadership that the bill was dead. Putting delays in front of it, when the 2010 election season has always been the chief danger, was almost suicidal.
It came through the House on a squeaker, though; and the Senate version passed with a zero-vote margin to spare. Now Congress has to come home on recess, to constituents who are very angry about the whole thing. When they come back in January, apparently the President wants to do something else for a while -- until after his State of the Union speech, at least.
However, I'm beginning to think it was pure incompetence by the administration. They clearly have fought for it, as with the President's personal appeal to voters over the weekend. They are still shouting from the rooftops that they'll find a way to pass it.
Combined with this incompetence may have been pure murder by Senate wise-men who understood that the bill needed to die. Stretching it out until now means they can kill it without suffering personal blame. Witness Jim Webb:
As Democrats reel from the loss of a U.S. Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb becomes the first senator we've seen tonight to call for suspending all votes on health care until newly elected Republican Scott Brown can take office.... It's been obvious to me for months now, just from observing Webb's body language and listening to his words, that he was not happy at all with the health care reform legislation, either the substance of the process. For months now, I've been wondering whether Webb would jump ship, and now he appears to have done so.The last chance, really, is the House performing the ping-pong strategy. The good news for HCR supporters: due to gerrymandering, and in direct contradiction to the Founder's intentions, House seats are much safer than Senate seats on average. The bad news: the entire House is up for re-election, and we've just demonstrated that the definition of "safe" is going to be different this year. Witness Barney Frank:
Frank said that, for now, lawmakers must "rule out" any effort to pass healthcare anyway.Now, there are ten months until the main election.
"I am hopeful that some Republican senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of healthcare reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the healthcare status quo," Frank said. "But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a healthcare bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened."
I suggest that the main thing is to build a new Congress based on small-government principles. Party isn't really the issue here, although if we begin to see the Tea Party movement capturing the Republican party that may change. I was never willing to leave the Democratic party for the Republican party; but I might be willing to leave it for a party that was honestly devoted to the principles of the Founders, gutting the social-welfare state, and very limited government interference in one's life.
At the moment, though, we need to look at our local races and figure out who among the candidates is the "limited government" candidate. We need to de-leverage American government, so that it isn't so heavily indebted and so that we aren't particularly dependent upon it nor subject to its whims.
Finally, I've noticed that some people are upset that Sen. Brown is a supporter of universal health care -- at the state level. Well he might be! That is a 10th Amendment issue. The state may have authority to do something like that; it's the Federal government that plainly does not. If Massachusetts wants to have universal health care, let them have it. If Georgia doesn't, we'll get all the jobs come the recovery: Atlanta will outstrip Boston because of better deals on taxes and spending.
Meanwhile, citizens who want universal health care can move to Massachusetts; whereas those who want less government in their lives can go elsewhere. That's genuine freedom, which doesn't exist given a one-size-fits-all Federal solution.
There's room in this country for liberals and conservatives alike. We just need to make sure that we're practicing our ideology at the state level. At the Federal level, the powers are meant to be specific and limited, and the government small and relatively absent from our day-to-day lives. The Federal government should look outward, for the most part; its power should mostly be used to push back the world, and maintain a space for liberty. It is the state, which any citizen can leave if he doesn't like it, where any expansive government functions should be exercised. Those of us who really want very little government should be able to have it; but there will remain some states where those who want cradle-to-grave security can try to have it, if they can indeed afford it.
Personally, I think that approach will always fail; but if they want it, let them try it there and not here. If they can make it work, at the state level in a state where it doesn't bother me, more power to them.
Animus eorum
This Calls for a Celebration:
And whenever the Irish come to mind, I can't help but think of the Clancy Brothers, though they start off here with an old English song:
They make up for it, though. "...I met a fellow rebel, and to me he did say..." Well, a fine song for today!
And here's from my old friend Harry:
For those of you who prefer a touch of whiskey to the fine wine or ale, well, good luck to you:
Watch Whiskey Bent & Hell Bound in Music | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
So that should make enough of a party on a weeknight. A good showing, my fine Yankee friends.
Pop the champagne -- or whatever other fine wine or ale you may prefer. We should drink to the good people of Massachusetts, who tonight have struck a fine, resounding blow. So here's my favorite, appropriate song, as performed by the Oni Wytars Ensemble.
Ense Petit Placidam Sub Libertate Quietem!
UPDATE: A good party needs more than one song. Here's one that should celebrate those good Irish folk that I hear can be found up Boston way. Goodness knows they were there when I went up to the town, back in '96.
And whenever the Irish come to mind, I can't help but think of the Clancy Brothers, though they start off here with an old English song:
They make up for it, though. "...I met a fellow rebel, and to me he did say..." Well, a fine song for today!
And here's from my old friend Harry:
For those of you who prefer a touch of whiskey to the fine wine or ale, well, good luck to you:
Watch Whiskey Bent & Hell Bound in Music | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
So that should make enough of a party on a weeknight. A good showing, my fine Yankee friends.
Public Opinion
The Struggle for Public Opinion:
Today, however, 79% of voters have an opinion... and every single one of them who has decided since April is opposed.
Right? I mean, it's possible that some people were in the 33% in April, fell out by now, and have been replaced by "new" supporters. But in spite of nine months of campaigning for this monster, essentially not one single net supporter has been added. The anti-health-reform side has captured the entire shift in opinion.
This ought to be a mild signal to Washington. A hint, you know, of which way the people would like the Congress to vote.
Commentary notes some polling:
In the survey, only 33 percent say President Obama’s health-reform effort is a good idea, versus 46 percent who consider it a bad idea. That result is essentially unchanged from last month’s poll. However, the number saying that Obama’s health plan is a bad idea has increased 20 percentage points since April, when the public supported the reform effort by a 33-26 percent margin.So, in April, only 59% of voters had any particular opinion about health care reform. A good 41% didn't yet know how they felt about it.
Today, however, 79% of voters have an opinion... and every single one of them who has decided since April is opposed.
Right? I mean, it's possible that some people were in the 33% in April, fell out by now, and have been replaced by "new" supporters. But in spite of nine months of campaigning for this monster, essentially not one single net supporter has been added. The anti-health-reform side has captured the entire shift in opinion.
This ought to be a mild signal to Washington. A hint, you know, of which way the people would like the Congress to vote.
Werewolves of Moscow
Werewolves of Moscow:
From the Financial Times (h/t Arts & Letters Daily).
Every so often, you would see [a stray dog] waiting on a metro platform. When the train pulled up, the dog would step in, scramble up to lie on a seat or sit on the floor if the carriage was crowded, and then exit a few stops later. There is even a website dedicated to the metro stray (www.metrodog.ru) on which passengers post photos and video clips taken with their mobile phones, documenting the savviest of the pack using the public transport system like any other Muscovite.How did they learn to do that? One alone, perhaps an exceptional brain among dogs -- but many?
Guardame
Guardame las Vacas:
The tune is named "Guarding the cows." As we know from the sagas of Ireland, this was warrior's work from the early period; cowboys and Cú Chulainn are united in their understanding of the importance of the Old Brown Bull. This is from the CD "Music for a Knight," from the CD set Time of the Templars.
GHBC III
Grim's Hall Book Club: Bendigo Shafter, Chapters 4-13
Several things happen in this part of the book:
1) The town is set upon by raiders, who are wiped out by the citizen's militia. Webb irritates many of the citizens with his part in it, which is to end negotiations and 'open the ball.' Bendigo Shafter believes Webb saved them by doing so, however: the raiders had come with evil intent, and therefore the 'negotiations' were only a fraud. Webb's quick action had, Shafter says, thrown the raiders off balance and allowed the victory that followed.
2) The town assists some Mormons, who are attempting to cross very difficult terrain with hand-carts. These Mormon pioneers represent an interesting moment in American history; L'amour mostly includes them, I think, in order to tell an interesting story that is not well known by most Americans.
Yet it's also a moral decision point -- will the small society of the town try to be kind to strangers and offer hospitality to those in need, even though they have little themselves? Will they undertake physical dangers in order to help those who need help? There are consequences to the decision.
3) The introduction of Drake Morrell, the gambler, and his charge. Bendigo takes a particular attitude toward him: even though he knows of his past, he purposefully sets what he knows aside and insists on judging the man according to his present behavior. Yet he also warns Morrell about Webb, in order to prevent a conflict between them.
What do you think about the attitude that L'amour suggests here? How much does a man's past matter? Is his character more important? His present actions?
4) The issue of how a young man ought to think about marriage. Ben doesn't feel ready to marry, and the one young lady who seems ready to marry he doesn't think is right for him. Yet he doesn't seem to take a negative attitude towards her: he regards her as dangerous to himself ("a trap"), but in every case he attempts to avoid that danger without rudeness or by causing her anger. He's just... careful.
Is that enough? Does he behave towards the (obviously interested) young lady in the right way? If not, what might he have done better?
5) Throughout, his education continues and he begins to think about what he wants to do with his life. He settles on a first step: a cattle drive. He begins to prepare for that, and we'll have more to discuss later on that subject.
Thoughts?
Indiscernable Identity
Indiscernable Identity:
If the universe can't have but the two objects, but one of them is sentient, he will observe the other object as separate from himself. If the universe can only have two objects and they must have the same properties -- i.e., they must both be sentient -- the observing object can still identify the separate object: "That one is not me." Finally, if both objects' property of consciousness is fully the same, so that they are sharing a single consciousness, they really are the same creature.
Thus, the basic rules of logic hold -- in a universe with an observer.
If both quantum theory and logic require an observer to make certain statements about reality, does that mean that the two things are both flawed models that are the products of the same kind of conscious mind? Or does the similarity imply that the universe really does, as the Buddhist suggests, need a conscious mind to achieve actual (rather than potential) realities?
I don't know, but I met a professor with degrees in both physics and metaphysics today who was scratching his head after I asked him.
There is a thought experiment by the philosopher Max Black that calls into question one of the basic rules of logic: the principle of indiscernable identity. The full description of the experiment is at the link.
However, the short version is this: imagine you're told about an object x, and later about an object y. You can't see either one, perhaps because they are too small or too far; but over time your sources tell you about their various properties through experiments of one kind or another.
Over time you learn that every property that x has, y has also; and vice versa. What you would tend to conclude is that "they" are the same object: x and y simply have been given two different names. If you get to the point that you have established all of their properties, and you continued to find that they each had all and only the same properties, you could logically conclude that this was the case.
Max Black posited a universe in which there were only two objects. They each had all and only the same properties; but because they were the only two objects in the universe, there were no properties that x had that y didn't have also. (E.g., "X is five feet away from the other object in the universe." How far is y? Well, five feet.)
This would lead you to conclude logically that x and y were identical, but in fact they are not the same. You couldn't come up with any property except the name that would distinguish them, and the whole purpose of this rule is to eliminate duplicate names.
I mention all this because it occurred to me that our Buddhist had a plausible answer.
Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.As soon as you introduce an observer, so that the two objects are not "indiscernable," the whole thought experiment collapses. If you could introduce an artillery officer, for example, you could tell him, "Hit that one, not that other one."
If the universe can't have but the two objects, but one of them is sentient, he will observe the other object as separate from himself. If the universe can only have two objects and they must have the same properties -- i.e., they must both be sentient -- the observing object can still identify the separate object: "That one is not me." Finally, if both objects' property of consciousness is fully the same, so that they are sharing a single consciousness, they really are the same creature.
Thus, the basic rules of logic hold -- in a universe with an observer.
If both quantum theory and logic require an observer to make certain statements about reality, does that mean that the two things are both flawed models that are the products of the same kind of conscious mind? Or does the similarity imply that the universe really does, as the Buddhist suggests, need a conscious mind to achieve actual (rather than potential) realities?
I don't know, but I met a professor with degrees in both physics and metaphysics today who was scratching his head after I asked him.
Fav. Headline
My Favorite Headline From Today:
'Reid says he "won't dwell" on race-based controversy.'
That's big of you, Senator.
UPDATE: Baldilocks probably has it right. One of the classes that I had in school, actually, was a public speaking class. The main purpose of the class was to teach students how to avoid a Southern accent when engaged in public speaking. It was thought, we were told, to make you sound less intelligent to many people outside the South.
You might say, "$@#* those people," but you might also want a job from them or something. Like if you were running for office, say. Buyers only buy what they want.
Harry Reid was probably speaking more as a strategist than a racist; but that's neither here nor there. What really matters is that he doesn't dwell on it. I think that's the main thing.
Bendigo Shafter 1-3
Bendigo Shafter Chapters 1-3:
Now that most of us have the book, we can discuss the first few chapters. In this early phase, L'amour sets up all four of the major conflict types: man against nature, man against man, man against society, and man against self.
The first issue is the early snowstorm, which catches the children away from the incomplete houses. The second is the seizure of the children by the Indians, and the third arises from tensions within the village population.
The fourth conflict type is demonstrated by Bendigo Shafter's concern for his own education. He has enough, at the start of the book, to make a living with: he can build a cabin, or split and plane floors. That would have been enough for the time and place, and for many times and places: a skilled carpenter is almost always valuable, and would be easily employed at a good rate even today if it were not for the housing situation being what it is.
Some things for discussion:
1) What is the widow Macken's relationship to the rest of the townsfolk? What can you tell from how people relate to her?
2) What do you think of the late Mr. Macken's plan for education? Would you have lugged a crate of books across the prairie?
3) Which ones, and why? The date here is the mid-19th century.
Discuss in the comments below. Since this is an easy read, I'd like to propose we try to do ten chapters a week henceforth. That should put us through the book in about a month.
Of Course (Beta)
Of Course:
It appears that some of them have learned how to make a living off insecure young men, too. These "PUA" are selling DVDs to "train" them. And books. And seats at seminars.
They have found a way to convince men who are hurt, or scared they will never find love, to fork over money -- and help build their reputations, which in turn builds their sales figures. The men are desperate enough, or hurt enough, not to notice that someone whose claim to fame is their ability to "play" people will probably be playing them, too.
If I were to meet someone who had been suckered into this line, and who was spending money or raising the reputation of these characters, I would probably say something like this:
"These guys are not teaching you to be a 'Master of the Venusian Arts.' They are turning you into what they would proudly call 'my latest b*tch.' They're living off you every bit as much as you fear a woman would, and they're laughing at you.
"Is that who you wanted to be?"
These so-called artists are skunks. You don't want to be one of them, and you definitely don't want to be their latest conquest.
If what you wanted instead was love, there is no shortcut to it.
If what you wanted was safety, there's none of that to be had in love either. If you've been hurt, you have to risk getting hurt again. I know it's hard. It's hard for soldiers who've been hurt in combat, it's hard for horsemen who take a bad throw, and it's hard in love.
Nevertheless: a man should ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.
That's the whole point of being a man. A ship is to cross the ocean, and a man is to dare the perils of the world.
If what you wanted was to be was an alpha, that's what one is.
Cassandra took the time to run the Futurist's sources for his "Venusian Arts" piece. Here's what she found:
The first thing to note is that 63% of these links go to the same 4 sources: himself, Roissy (a pick up artist site), Spearhead (self described men's issues site that also posts about "Game" or PUA tactics), In Mala Fide (another "game" site). Nor were these the only links to PUA sites: when the rest of those links are added up, they amount to 70% of his sources.Now, what is a "pickup artist"? We've all known them: they are men who have learned how to make a living by preying on the vulnerabilities of insecure young women.
It appears that some of them have learned how to make a living off insecure young men, too. These "PUA" are selling DVDs to "train" them. And books. And seats at seminars.
They have found a way to convince men who are hurt, or scared they will never find love, to fork over money -- and help build their reputations, which in turn builds their sales figures. The men are desperate enough, or hurt enough, not to notice that someone whose claim to fame is their ability to "play" people will probably be playing them, too.
If I were to meet someone who had been suckered into this line, and who was spending money or raising the reputation of these characters, I would probably say something like this:
"These guys are not teaching you to be a 'Master of the Venusian Arts.' They are turning you into what they would proudly call 'my latest b*tch.' They're living off you every bit as much as you fear a woman would, and they're laughing at you.
"Is that who you wanted to be?"
These so-called artists are skunks. You don't want to be one of them, and you definitely don't want to be their latest conquest.
If what you wanted instead was love, there is no shortcut to it.
If what you wanted was safety, there's none of that to be had in love either. If you've been hurt, you have to risk getting hurt again. I know it's hard. It's hard for soldiers who've been hurt in combat, it's hard for horsemen who take a bad throw, and it's hard in love.
Nevertheless: a man should ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.
That's the whole point of being a man. A ship is to cross the ocean, and a man is to dare the perils of the world.
If what you wanted was to be was an alpha, that's what one is.
The Sandbar Duel
The Sandbar Duel:
I recommend the Davis book, for those of you who like to read American history. It's not as kind to the legend as many might wish; but good men have to be able to do myth with one side of our brains, and history with the other. You shouldn't neglect either one.
James Bowie gets quite a treatment here:
According to William C. Davis, though, he was the most notorious land scam artist in early America. Having read the book, I have to admit that I'm convinced -- short of Davis having outright manufactured all the documentary evidence he has on the US government's attempts to avoid the Bowie clan's attempts to annex all the best parts of about five states through forged Spanish land grants.
It's a hell of a story, honestly.
Then again, so is the Sandbar Duel. Here is part of Davis' description:
[Crain] missed Bowie, and Bowie's answering bullet just clipped Crain's cravat. Instantly Crain drew another [pistol] and fired, this time hitting Cuny in the thigh, severing an artery. Bowie saw the general fall, and as Crain turned to run back toward his friends in the willows, Bowie drew his other pistol and fired but missed. Then he reached to his belt and that new scabbard, drawing out the long knife [his brother] Rezin had given him.... the "tiger" followed Crain some distance, yelling out, "Crain you have shot at me, and I will kill you if I can." Suddenly he found himself isolated and without a loaded weapon. Crain turned and seeing what he called his "savage fury," threw his own empty pistol at him, catching Bowie on the side of the head that almost sent him to his knees.... Unable to answer [yet another combatant's] fire, Bowie yelled at him to shoot and be damned.It was quite a fight, and became a legend almost at once on the frontier. Later John Wayne, portraying Davy Crockett in The Alamo, would use the legend of it to sway the fictional Jim Bowie from abandoning the post before the fight with Santa Anna.
I recommend the Davis book, for those of you who like to read American history. It's not as kind to the legend as many might wish; but good men have to be able to do myth with one side of our brains, and history with the other. You shouldn't neglect either one.
UT Sports Jokes
UT Sports Jokes:
You may have heard that the University of Tennessee has had a little trouble with some of its players lately. Since mine is a mixed family -- some live in Tennessee, some in Georgia -- naturally I've had the occasion to encounter some of the fallout.
Q: What do you call a drug ring in Knoxville?Consider the comments a good place for any jokes in a similar spirit. Or, really, any good jokes you may have heard lately.
A: A huddle
Q: Four Tennessee players are in a car, who's driving?
A: The police
Q: Why can't most of the UT players get into a huddle on the field?
A: It is a parole violation to associate with known felons.
The University of Tennessee team has adopted a new Honor System:
'Yes, your Honor; No, your Honor'.
The Volunteers are hoping for an undefeated season next year....
12 Arrests, 0 convictions.
Ockham's Razor diversity
Diversity and the Razor:
Here's the upside:
What strikes me here is that the argument for the 'friendly effect' introduces a new element that is not necessary. It may or may not be true that 'hanging out with people different from you' inspires creativity. It need not be true, however, to explain the upside. The upside is adequately explained adequately by the first study.
If you live in a community where there is a lot of fellow-feeling, charity, civic groups, volunteerism, etc., that takes a lot of the competitive strain off of marginal producers. You have some people who are going to strive for excellence because that's who they are; but you have a large body of people who are going to do just what they have to do to get by. To the degree that 'civic engagement' softens the impact of noncompetitiveness, there will be less competition.
On the other hand, if you live in a community where you are aware of lots of people -- and groups you perceive as different -- struggling to drag themselves over the top, and where there is a lot less "civic engagement" to help you out if you fail, that same body of people are going to be goaded into struggling too. Precisely because the 'hostile effect' destroys the community, they will be frightened, and will have less of a cushion to soften the blow if they fall.
So too for anyone at any margin: the margin of 'who gets the raise,' the margin of 'who gets the promotion,' of 'who gets the job,' or 'who keeps the job now that we're cutting back.' Precisely because it destroys communities, diversity increases competitiveness, and therefore productivity.
This is the same metric from naked capitalism v. socialism debates; if I have a generous welfare society, I lose productivity across the board. If I have a generous volunteer-based civil society, I'll also lose productivity.
Therefore, the suggestion that diversity inspires people is unnecessary to explaining the findings. It may still be true; Ockham's Razor only points to what is most likely, not to what is certain. Still, the Razor says it's more likely that diversity's 'hostile effect' is responsible for both the collapse of communities, and the higher productivity in the most diverse spaces.
I was reading this piece on the effects of diversity (h/t: Cassandra). It begins by pointing out that diversity has significant downsides; but then posits an upside, and tries to strive for a balance point. In doing so, it runs afoul of Ockham's razor.
Here's the downside:
[A] massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.For the purpose of this argument, we'll call this the 'hostile effect' of diversity: it destroys community, making people more suspicious of each other and less willing to help each other out.
"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.
Here's the upside:
So how to explain New York, London, Rio de Janiero, Los Angeles -- the great melting-pot cities that drive the world's creative and financial economies?Page wants to posit a 'friendly effect' to go with the 'hostile effect' -- that friendships among diverse people create inspiration.
The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.
"Because they see the world and think about the world differently than you, that's challenging," says Page, author of "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies." "But by hanging out with people different than you, you're likely to get more insights. Diverse teams tend to be more productive."
What strikes me here is that the argument for the 'friendly effect' introduces a new element that is not necessary. It may or may not be true that 'hanging out with people different from you' inspires creativity. It need not be true, however, to explain the upside. The upside is adequately explained adequately by the first study.
If you live in a community where there is a lot of fellow-feeling, charity, civic groups, volunteerism, etc., that takes a lot of the competitive strain off of marginal producers. You have some people who are going to strive for excellence because that's who they are; but you have a large body of people who are going to do just what they have to do to get by. To the degree that 'civic engagement' softens the impact of noncompetitiveness, there will be less competition.
On the other hand, if you live in a community where you are aware of lots of people -- and groups you perceive as different -- struggling to drag themselves over the top, and where there is a lot less "civic engagement" to help you out if you fail, that same body of people are going to be goaded into struggling too. Precisely because the 'hostile effect' destroys the community, they will be frightened, and will have less of a cushion to soften the blow if they fall.
So too for anyone at any margin: the margin of 'who gets the raise,' the margin of 'who gets the promotion,' of 'who gets the job,' or 'who keeps the job now that we're cutting back.' Precisely because it destroys communities, diversity increases competitiveness, and therefore productivity.
This is the same metric from naked capitalism v. socialism debates; if I have a generous welfare society, I lose productivity across the board. If I have a generous volunteer-based civil society, I'll also lose productivity.
Therefore, the suggestion that diversity inspires people is unnecessary to explaining the findings. It may still be true; Ockham's Razor only points to what is most likely, not to what is certain. Still, the Razor says it's more likely that diversity's 'hostile effect' is responsible for both the collapse of communities, and the higher productivity in the most diverse spaces.
Doc H on Men
Women, Love, Intimidation:
The term they sneer at -- "chivalry" -- is an ethic of willful service to one another. This is true in its relationship between men, whether they were equal fighting companions, or lord and vassal, each with clear and binding duties toward one another. Chivalry's attitude toward women grew out of that same ethic, so that many knightly poems of love borrow the terminology of fealty and service.
I remain convinced that it is both the most successful and the most beautiful model of relations between the sexes. As longtime readers know, I have a whole series of essays on the topic linked on the sidebar, under the heading "Chivalry & Women."
Finally, on anger:
If I've heard one thing said a thousand times it's that women resent the way that men talk over them, ignore them, and generally just refuse to engage them if they aren't interested in the point the woman is trying to make. (Which, as Cassandra once noted, is exactly what men do to each other too!) That doesn't speak of intimidation. At best it's a kind of rough equity; but it's certainly not intimidation.
I can't recall ever being intimidated by a woman. I'm not easy to intimidate in any case, but I can only recall one woman who even tried to do it (and that while I was fairly young, and she an adult). It didn't work, though she did succeed in making me angry -- but not intimidated.
Are we sure the study is on solid ground? Perhaps it's a sampling error. Maybe the kind of guy who wrote the "Venusian Arts" piece (peacocking!) is the sort that's really so scared of women that, at the first sign of trouble, he wilts and slinks off to bitterness (but with the solace of ever-better Virtual Reality porn: who needs those women anyway?).
Perhaps that's the resolution. I noticed some commenters slamming on SWWBO because of her acronym, as though it were proof that she was just the kind of woman that the VA piece was discussing. I hate to think what they would have thought of the story of the originator of the phrase.
He was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and a paragon of the sort of love they appear to despise. As a young man he fell in love with a lady called Lily, and sought her hand; but he was delayed in his purpose, first by her father and then by his own, until she eventually married another. That husband abandoned her after embezzling funds from his bank and running off with the family's savings as well. Haggard provided a home for her and her children, and saw to her children's education. She died of the syphilis her husband gave her, but supported and cared for by the man who had really loved her.
Perhaps that made him a fool; but if so, he was my kind of fool.
Dr. Helen is a woman we all greatly admire, and for several good reasons. There is her courage in the face of heart disease; the fact that, though a woman, she very much wants society to show respect and fairness to men; the fact that, though a psychologist, she is able to recognize that not every claim her discipline makes is founded on the firmest rock of true science. All these things are the mark of a good person, one who is brave, seeks to understand the concerns of others different from herself, and honest in her inquiry.
Nevertheless, I find myself in disagreement with her on occasion. This week has provided several opportunities for me to scratch my head.
Most recently, this is her advice to men on production and consumption. Of course a man ought to strive to produce more than he consumes; even a purely selfish man can easily imagine reasons for doing so. He might wish to find a way to keep more of what he produces; but what you build in the world, along with the love you share with people who matter to you, is what matters most out of life. A man who follows this advice will not fill his heart.
On a different matter, I think that everyone learned my opinion of the Venusian Arts from reading Cassandra's page; but here is the short version for ease of reference:
On the one hand, the guy who wrote that has a solid handle on a number of problems that are disrupting the way young Americans try to form families and have happy lives today. He's right about the demographic problems, and he's right about a number of ways in which the old system was far better.I appreciate that the doctor wants to be on the side of men; but not, I hope, of men who don't merit it. Men who are themselves deeply angry at women ("fatpocalypse") are just as unlikely to produce an insightful methodology for achieving greater understanding between the sexes as the sort of radical feminist that got so much attention in the 1970s. I suppose chivalry seems "pig headed" to those males who view women as a class of self-absorbed parasites, just as it does to those women who view men as a class of hideous oppressors.
However, he's coming at it from a perspective that is actively hostile to women. He really doesn't like women. You can't construct an answer to this question starting from a perspective that is hostile to either sex....
[I]f anyone comes off worse in the piece than women, it's men who like women. I quote:
Hence, many men are still stuck in the obsolete and inobservant notion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today, despite the modern reality that a woman's sexual decisions are no longer controlled by her parents, and are often casual rather than locked in matrimony. Whether such men are religious and called 'social conservatives', or effete leftists and called 'girlie men', they are effectively the same, and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them.... These men are the biggest suckers of all, as their pig-headed denial of the Venusian Arts will prevent them from deducing that excess agreeability and willingness to do favors for the objects of their lust are exactly the opposite of what makes women sexually attracted to men.
Now, while it's obvious that I rush to avoid any appearance of disagreement with Our Lady Host, and would never think of arguing assertively against any lady, this kind of gives away the game.
My relationships with women are not intended to be 'pathways to sex' in the first place. Neither am I interested in being 'sexually attractive' to the women I meet. I do enjoy the company of women, their charm and grace and easy manners, but I'm quite content with having my sexuality contained within the private space of my home.
I sometimes meet beautiful and desirable women, and I'm always glad of the opportunity to enjoy their company in a friendly way. If I wanted to take them, I'd take them. I don't, because that isn't what I want: what I want is love, which is harder to come by and harder to nurture and to defend.
That, I think, was what dear Cassandra was saying above about her husband: it's just not the same thing at all. If you've focused your mind on sex, you've missed the real thing entirely....
The real alphas out here are the ones who love women. Women know when they meet a man who likes and enjoys women, and they react accordingly.
The term they sneer at -- "chivalry" -- is an ethic of willful service to one another. This is true in its relationship between men, whether they were equal fighting companions, or lord and vassal, each with clear and binding duties toward one another. Chivalry's attitude toward women grew out of that same ethic, so that many knightly poems of love borrow the terminology of fealty and service.
I remain convinced that it is both the most successful and the most beautiful model of relations between the sexes. As longtime readers know, I have a whole series of essays on the topic linked on the sidebar, under the heading "Chivalry & Women."
Finally, on anger:
Men are typically more stressed and confused in arguments with women and remain bitter for longer afterward, while women are more comfortable amid verbal jousts, recover from them more quickly, in our ready for another round. Generally, it is fair to say that men are more intimidated in confrontations with women than the other way around.I certainly agree that the state should stay out of people's marriages. I'm amazed, though, at the study that finds men to be intimidated by arguing with women.
If I've heard one thing said a thousand times it's that women resent the way that men talk over them, ignore them, and generally just refuse to engage them if they aren't interested in the point the woman is trying to make. (Which, as Cassandra once noted, is exactly what men do to each other too!) That doesn't speak of intimidation. At best it's a kind of rough equity; but it's certainly not intimidation.
I can't recall ever being intimidated by a woman. I'm not easy to intimidate in any case, but I can only recall one woman who even tried to do it (and that while I was fairly young, and she an adult). It didn't work, though she did succeed in making me angry -- but not intimidated.
Are we sure the study is on solid ground? Perhaps it's a sampling error. Maybe the kind of guy who wrote the "Venusian Arts" piece (peacocking!) is the sort that's really so scared of women that, at the first sign of trouble, he wilts and slinks off to bitterness (but with the solace of ever-better Virtual Reality porn: who needs those women anyway?).
Perhaps that's the resolution. I noticed some commenters slamming on SWWBO because of her acronym, as though it were proof that she was just the kind of woman that the VA piece was discussing. I hate to think what they would have thought of the story of the originator of the phrase.
He was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and a paragon of the sort of love they appear to despise. As a young man he fell in love with a lady called Lily, and sought her hand; but he was delayed in his purpose, first by her father and then by his own, until she eventually married another. That husband abandoned her after embezzling funds from his bank and running off with the family's savings as well. Haggard provided a home for her and her children, and saw to her children's education. She died of the syphilis her husband gave her, but supported and cared for by the man who had really loved her.
Perhaps that made him a fool; but if so, he was my kind of fool.
A Fool and His Money Linger
How Sophisticated:
Some of the institutions so created have ceased to "operate according to" that document. In that fashion, they have -- what's the phrase? -- gone rogue. They are no longer our institutions; they are owned by someone, but it isn't the People of the United States. We, the People, would permit the government to do anything it could pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing. The problem is that the people interested in having a 'great moment of social reform' find that process cumbersome; so they've chosen, increasingly over a few decades, to alter the Constitution either by judicial fiat, or by simple assertion.
Witness, for example, the recent letters from the BATFE that they just won't honor state laws, in spite of clear language in the Constitution that places the matter under consideration in the realm of state, not Federal, authority. Witness the outright disinterest in the question of whether this whole Health Care plan is constitutional -- in the face of at least seven cogent arguments that it probably is not. Witness, for that matter, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, which was openly admitted by everyone not to be 'fully' Constitutional, 'but we'll let the Supreme Court sort that out,' and then SCOTUS permitted it to stand.
The reason the Tea Party movement is in such high standing right now is that it is standing on the wreckage of the Republican party. During the last administration, the Republican party abandoned the principles of limited government. If there's anything this country needs, it's a party dedicated to restoring the Constitution to the center of our public life.
Having gotten worked up in favor of defending 'our' institutions, Mr. Brooks embarks upon a whole line of argument that is nothing but a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
Intensity of opposition may be up because 'the educated class' decided it would ramrod all these changes through in a few months over the howls of whatever opposition remains in the government. Certainly the sudden rush has contributed to a spike in a lot of people's ire.
However, the opposition itself arises from the fact that these positions are wrong. If 'the educated class' suddenly decided tomorrow that abortion was a moral evil, I doubt you'd see one single Tea Party member change his view for the simple pleasure of 'opposing the educated.'
This isn't about populist ire against 'the educated.' Believe it or not, these people actually have reasons for holding all these positions.
The New York Times' alleged conservative probably thinks he is 'defending institutions,' which is a key conservative task. Unfortunately, he has failed to understand the nature of the problem or the reasons for the mission.
Americans have lost faith in their institutions. During the great moments of social reform, at least 60 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. Now, only a quarter have that kind of trust.Americans haven't lost faith in their institutions. Our institutions are those which are created by, and operate according to, the permanent will of the People as codified in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several states.
Some of the institutions so created have ceased to "operate according to" that document. In that fashion, they have -- what's the phrase? -- gone rogue. They are no longer our institutions; they are owned by someone, but it isn't the People of the United States. We, the People, would permit the government to do anything it could pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing. The problem is that the people interested in having a 'great moment of social reform' find that process cumbersome; so they've chosen, increasingly over a few decades, to alter the Constitution either by judicial fiat, or by simple assertion.
Witness, for example, the recent letters from the BATFE that they just won't honor state laws, in spite of clear language in the Constitution that places the matter under consideration in the realm of state, not Federal, authority. Witness the outright disinterest in the question of whether this whole Health Care plan is constitutional -- in the face of at least seven cogent arguments that it probably is not. Witness, for that matter, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, which was openly admitted by everyone not to be 'fully' Constitutional, 'but we'll let the Supreme Court sort that out,' and then SCOTUS permitted it to stand.
The reason the Tea Party movement is in such high standing right now is that it is standing on the wreckage of the Republican party. During the last administration, the Republican party abandoned the principles of limited government. If there's anything this country needs, it's a party dedicated to restoring the Constitution to the center of our public life.
Having gotten worked up in favor of defending 'our' institutions, Mr. Brooks embarks upon a whole line of argument that is nothing but a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.That "so" gives away the game: people, he asserts, are turning against these ideas because 'the educated class' favors them. That apparently leaves me out of 'the educated class,' which I regret; but, in spite of my lack of whatever he believes constitutes a real education, I did pick up somewhere that correlation does not imply causation.
The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.
The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.
Intensity of opposition may be up because 'the educated class' decided it would ramrod all these changes through in a few months over the howls of whatever opposition remains in the government. Certainly the sudden rush has contributed to a spike in a lot of people's ire.
However, the opposition itself arises from the fact that these positions are wrong. If 'the educated class' suddenly decided tomorrow that abortion was a moral evil, I doubt you'd see one single Tea Party member change his view for the simple pleasure of 'opposing the educated.'
This isn't about populist ire against 'the educated.' Believe it or not, these people actually have reasons for holding all these positions.
Science @ Work
Science @ Work:
On another topic that skirts the edge of 'controversial science' versus 'non-science,' I ran across an interesting metaphysical argument that would appear to be another answer to the Great Filter aspect of the Fermi paradox. It does touch on quantum physics: specifically, on the issue of observation "collapsing" possible states into a single actual state.
The argument posits that 'all possible universes' evolved along the quantum theory that all possible states remain potential until an observer actually observes them. This continued until one of the possible universes evolved a sentient, conscious being; at which point, all the potential universes collapsed in the face of an observer. Thus, there would likely be only one sentient form of life -- the first one to evolve locked the universe into a single course.
That particular aspect of quantum theory has always struck me as something for which I expect future science to discover a better explanation. Schrödinger's cat probably explains why I feel that way: while, in theory, it's true that you can't really know if the cat is living or dead without looking, in fact, the cat is either alive or dead. I can't believe that my looking really makes any difference; I think we just don't understand the mechanism yet.
Still, since we were recently discussing Buddhism, it's an interesting thought experiment to play with.
Arts & Letters Daily links to an amusing "debate" between Discover and a paleoanthropologist.
To those who have linked the post: I want to let you all know that your links have directed more than 10,000 people to find some actual true information about the "Boskop race". Good work out there!Good work yourself. It's one of the bright spots of the blogosphere that we can access, on a moment's notice, the expertise of a real paleoanthropologist, or astronomer, or whatever other sort of expert we might need. This is how we'd like to see the internet work all the time.
On another topic that skirts the edge of 'controversial science' versus 'non-science,' I ran across an interesting metaphysical argument that would appear to be another answer to the Great Filter aspect of the Fermi paradox. It does touch on quantum physics: specifically, on the issue of observation "collapsing" possible states into a single actual state.
The argument posits that 'all possible universes' evolved along the quantum theory that all possible states remain potential until an observer actually observes them. This continued until one of the possible universes evolved a sentient, conscious being; at which point, all the potential universes collapsed in the face of an observer. Thus, there would likely be only one sentient form of life -- the first one to evolve locked the universe into a single course.
That particular aspect of quantum theory has always struck me as something for which I expect future science to discover a better explanation. Schrödinger's cat probably explains why I feel that way: while, in theory, it's true that you can't really know if the cat is living or dead without looking, in fact, the cat is either alive or dead. I can't believe that my looking really makes any difference; I think we just don't understand the mechanism yet.
Still, since we were recently discussing Buddhism, it's an interesting thought experiment to play with.
GHBC 1: Bendigo Shafter Part I
Grim's Hall Book Club: Bendigo Shafter Part I
I realize that several of you are just now in the process of getting the book, so we'll only do introductory commentary and a few pages.
The first thing to know about Bendigo Shafter is that it arose from an earlier short story Louis L'amour wrote called "The War Trail." (You can find this in the collection Grub Line Rider, pp. 186-208). In the short story, the widow Ruth Macken's son Bud is the protagnist -- unlike in the novel, in which it is Ben Shafter -- but the real hero is the lady herself. Her forceful and forthright nature wins the respect of the best men in the party after the death of her husband, and she saves the party by proving able to negotiate with the Sioux in their own language.
She continues to play a major role in the novel. Her character is one of a few very important ones, and her remarks on love and marriage will be of interest as we continue. She is also the patron of education in the community, as you will discover: not the actual educator, but the one who encourages education. It is clear that L'amour loves this character, and that she is an exemplar of the kind of woman he most admires.
Other characters to pay attention to in the early parts of the book are Ethan Sackett and Webb. Ethan's last name marks him, for those who read L'amour's full works, as a member of a clan from Tennessee that he wrote about at great length. They are simple folk, Scots-Irish, and a fighting people. They tend to be marked by great skill in the woods, learned in the relative poverty of the Appalachians. I find the Sacketts interesting because they are very regularly L'amour's progatonists, but are very different from the protagonists that L'amour normally writes about when he is not writing about Sacketts. His normal protagonist is well-educated (though often self-educated), a creature of the mind as much as of the body. The Sacketts mostly do without the book learning that L'amour valued, but he finds a way to admire them too.
Webb is a character that receives significant foreshadowing in the early pages of the book. I'd like you to pay particular attention to him when he appears in the novel, as I'd like to discuss him and what he means to L'amour. As they move West:
Webb grew, too, but in another way. There had always been a streak of violence in him, but fear of public opinion and fear of the law had toned it down. Now a body could see the restraint falling away.We'll talk about that at length as the novel progresses; but for now, just based on that paragraph, what do you think will happen to Webb?
Social Harmony II
Social Harmony, Revisited:
A Western philosopher would say, "Discuss." The Japanese might say: Katsu.
Perhaps the most frequently cited thing I've ever written was Social Harmony, a meditation on the importance of old men being dangerous. It ends:
By a happy coincidence, having a society whose members adhere to and encourage those virtues makes us freer as well--we need fewer police, fewer courts, fewer prisons, fewer laws, and fewer lawyers. This is what Aristotle meant when he said that the virtues of the man are reflected in the society. Politics and ethics are naturally joined.It has been said in several places, recently, that the government has failed us entirely in keeping us safe; but the one thing that has worked in every case is the heroism of the individual citizen.
A Western philosopher would say, "Discuss." The Japanese might say: Katsu.
Tenth Amendment Challenge Presses
Gun Rights: The Tenth Amendment Version
The BATFE is sending letters to gun dealers in Montana and Tennessee stating that it will ignore state laws on intra-state manufactured firearms. The legislatures of these states passed these laws to remind Congress that the Constitution only allows the Federal government to regulate "interstate" commerce, and because the Tenth Amendment reserves non-delegated powers to the states, or to the people.
There's been quite a bit written about this, and I think everyone was expecting the Federal government to simply assert its dominance in this way. I doubt the change of administrations has made any difference here; it's more a question of real power, which all recent administrations (and all Federal bureaucracies) have liked to gather to themselves. It was always a question of how the states would respond, or whether private citizens like gun dealers would force the issue themselves.
So take this post, then, not as a warning of some new tyranny; but just an announcement that the next step in the dance has occurred.
New Year's Cartoons
Cartoons for the New Year:
You might also be forgiven for thinking that Bugs Bunny's tongue-out performance was a clever mockery of The Devil Himself; but you'd be wrong. Jerry Lee Lewis cut his first demo record in 1954, eight years after this cartoon was filmed. Bugs Bunny got there first.
The Geek with a .45 was celebrating an apparent Looney Toons marathon held today in honor of the new year. I missed it, lacking television of any sort, but his enjoyment of the thing reminded me of an example of the beauty that sometimes can arise from needless duplication. Consider the strange case of "Rhapsody Rabbit" versus "The Cat Concerto."
The same year Warner Bros. released Rhapsody Rabbit, MGM produced a very similar Tom and Jerry cartoon called The Cat Concerto, which features Tom being distracted by Jerry while playing in a concert. Most of the gags are identical to both cartoons, and they used the same music that was played. The Cat Concerto won an Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film.Judge for yourselves.
Both MGM and Warner Bros. accused each other of plagiarism, after both films were shown in the 1947 Academy Awards Ceremony. Technicolor was accused of sending a print of either cartoon to a competing studio, who then plagiarized their rival's work. This remains uncertain even today, though Rhapsody Rabbit has an earlier MPAA copyright number and release date. The massive similarities could be coincidental. The animators at Warner Bros. and MGM were experienced in making cartoons, and it could be likely that they all thought of similar concepts and expanded them, not knowing that similar situations resulted in each cartoon.
You might also be forgiven for thinking that Bugs Bunny's tongue-out performance was a clever mockery of The Devil Himself; but you'd be wrong. Jerry Lee Lewis cut his first demo record in 1954, eight years after this cartoon was filmed. Bugs Bunny got there first.
Dark Hypocrisy, etc.
Dark Hypocrisy, etc.
Why do you have to believe that there is some 'dark hypocrisy' about this? Starbucks is selling you a product: coffee. It has many competitors, so it tries to find a niche for itself. It offers what it claims is premium coffee, at a premium price. It offers you the chance to 'upgrade' your purchase by allowing you to buy 'fair trade' coffee. Some people want to do that, so they find themselves with a niche market, and they make a good living. Meanwhile, you buy the coffee (and, perhaps, the good feelings) you want.
What's the hypocrisy? Starbucks is making you a fair offer; you're free to accept or reject it.
I went into a Starbucks not long ago, while I was up in D.C. The fellow behind the bar was carefully projecting his gayness to everyone, and carefully taking their orders for very fancy and sophisticated styles of coffee, using the pseudo-Italian terms that the franchise prefers.
As soon as I stepped up, he looked at my cowboy hat and asked very pleasantly, "Small, medium or large?" I thought that was good service: pretense for those who want to buy pretense, strong black coffee for those who only wanted that.
Today's installation in 'finding the dark hypocrisy at the heart of Middle America' is on Starbucks.
It brought us exotic places and sounds, exposed us to an underground in the safety of a cushy seat: teaching us about places where our coffee came from, and new music and literary voices. It tried to be our cultural guide and helped us feel good about our environmental footprint through its green campaigns and aid to farmers, even if Starbucks did little and we did nothing but buy coffee. It did so consciously, purposefully manipulating our desires, hopes and aspirations, all the while making us feel good about ordering up a venti soy latte.Good lord, people.
But, we also knew, on some level, that it was all a delusion we actively participated in. “Starbucks worked as a simulacrum,” Simon writes, “it stamped out the real essence of the original idea of the coffee house and, through proliferation and endless insistence, became itself the real thing for many bobo and creative types.” Even as we believed we were being individuals, demonstrating our sense of style, we were just following the javaman’s master plan.
Why do you have to believe that there is some 'dark hypocrisy' about this? Starbucks is selling you a product: coffee. It has many competitors, so it tries to find a niche for itself. It offers what it claims is premium coffee, at a premium price. It offers you the chance to 'upgrade' your purchase by allowing you to buy 'fair trade' coffee. Some people want to do that, so they find themselves with a niche market, and they make a good living. Meanwhile, you buy the coffee (and, perhaps, the good feelings) you want.
What's the hypocrisy? Starbucks is making you a fair offer; you're free to accept or reject it.
I went into a Starbucks not long ago, while I was up in D.C. The fellow behind the bar was carefully projecting his gayness to everyone, and carefully taking their orders for very fancy and sophisticated styles of coffee, using the pseudo-Italian terms that the franchise prefers.
As soon as I stepped up, he looked at my cowboy hat and asked very pleasantly, "Small, medium or large?" I thought that was good service: pretense for those who want to buy pretense, strong black coffee for those who only wanted that.
Death Passes By
Death Passes By:
The news this morning is worth celebrating. 2009 ends with the lowest level of casualties among our servicemen and women in Iraq, and December ends with none killed there in combat at all.
I remember when the Surge was being considered, a lot of people opposed to it demanded to know if you could define what "victory" would even look like. Well, I suspect it looks something like this.
Whether a similar victory is possible in Afghanistan, given the resources and the timeframe we have available, I cannot say. In Iraq, though, our faith and commitment was rewarded. The Kurdish problem remains a latent one, but much we chose to achieve has been achieved.
Now it must be guarded. That work may not be ours for long, but it will be someone's, if the achievement is to last.
All things achieved and chosen pass,
As the White Horse fades out of the grass[.]
Retrospective
Memento Mori:
Greyhawk ends, "Barack Obama is still President of the United States, and recently received the Nobel Peace Prize."
Finally, remember our comrades from the CIA -- that part of the Agency that gets out there, and does what needs to be done. Like the ePRTs from the State Department, regardless of the difficulties of their parent bureaucracy, the ones who 'ride out' are our own kind.
As we close the year, Greyhawk reminds us of what has passed.
The only thing needed to really sell the story was a brigade to actually be "shifted" from a planned Iraq rotation. There were plenty available, but the lucky one chosen to earn Obama his headline (and an all too brief bump in American popularity polls) was the 2nd Infantry Division's 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team.Michael Yon has a moving photo essay of their memorial to the soldiers they've lost on this mission.Like previous Stryker brigades, the 5th Brigade has put dozens of its troops through intensive, 10-month Arabic language training. They were tested in exercises last month....Those months of training and preparation were scrapped (one example: they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan) so the phrase "Barack Obama diverts 17,000 soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan" could appear in newspapers. But while a reduction in force in Iraq as a result of greatly improved conditions there would be both welcome and overdue (and military units go where they're needed), that part of the story was the real "big lie". A mere few days later, the Obama administration would rather quietly announce that "Gen. Odierno will receive a Stryker Brigade to replace the incoming replacement brigade diverted to Afghanistan just a week ago." The 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was scheduled to deploy to Iraq "several months ahead of the original schedule, Army officials said Monday."
Some comments from those most affected here. But while it was certainly a big story here last year, unlike the news coverage of Obama's "Iraq drawdown" and "diversion of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan", the revelation that it was all actually a complete fraud (and in fact an overall increase in troops in the combat zones) would pass without notice in the American media.
*****
End of year update: Where are they now?...
The 5th is in Afghanistan:Stryker soldiers say commanders failed them
...In late November, brigade commander Col. Harry Tunnell decided a change had to be made. He replaced Capt. Joel Kassulke, the commander of 1-17's Charlie Company, which had taken 12 of the casualties.
But Kassulke's former soldiers say that not only was he not to blame for the casualties, the 1-17's problems started much, much earlier.
Mismatched training
...The battalion had spent much of the previous two years training for combat, but preparing for the wrong theater -- until February, when it got orders for Afghanistan, 1-17 was scheduled to deploy to Iraq.
Greyhawk ends, "Barack Obama is still President of the United States, and recently received the Nobel Peace Prize."
Finally, remember our comrades from the CIA -- that part of the Agency that gets out there, and does what needs to be done. Like the ePRTs from the State Department, regardless of the difficulties of their parent bureaucracy, the ones who 'ride out' are our own kind.
At Last
"At Last"
A young lady I'd not heard of before tonight, named Neko Case, sings here a poem that grabs the attention and holds it for its brief span.
Not bad. "I can say that I've lived here, in honor and danger," but cannot explain life; and at last, go trembling but willingly with death. No, not bad, for a death poem in the Zen tradition. For a country music singer from Alexandria, VA, quite astonishing.
Rose Parade
Rose Parade:
Bthun wanted me to mention that RFDTV will be covering the Rose Parade. They don't cut away from the equine parts of the parade, which is the whole reason to watch the parade for some.
My wife's grandmother used to be a regular ride in the Rose Parade, with a sidesaddle group.
States Take Action
States Take Action on Health Care Reform:gerrymandering apportionment in certain ways, and then submit them to Federal review. However, that is rooted in clear Constitutional authority: the Constitution itself requires the state to pass laws regarding the handling of elections, and the 14th Amendment imposes the requirement to see that there is equal protection for those who are citizens. Since the states ratified the Constitution and its amendments, this is not the same thing as the Federal government unilaterally assuming the power to order state legislatures to pass certain laws.
That, by the way, is seven constitutional challenges by my reckoning:
1) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to require US citizens to purchase a product as a condition of existence? (General question: where is the authority?)
2) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to override the religious objections of doctors and nurses by forcing them to provide abortion coverage if they are Catholic or otherwise objectors? (First Amendment, freedom of religion.)
3) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to override the religious objections of citizens by forcing them to materially support abortions by paying into a mandatory fund that will be uesd to provide them? (First Amendment, freedom of religion.)
4) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to impose the religious objections of Rep. Stupak and others on women by allowing the banning of abortion coverage? (First Amendment, freedom of conscience.)
5) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to rewrite the insurance industry's practices in such a comprehensive way, without providing just compensation for their existing investments, and a fair profit margin? (Fifth Amendment, seizure without recompense; see Prof. Epstein's paper.)
6) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to override what appears to be a clear statement by the Tenth Amendment that this is an area left to the states? (Tenth Amendment, powers not delegated.)
7) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to dictate to state legislatures what laws they will pass? (General, where is the authority?)
I'd add an additional one: is it constitutional for the Federal government to adjudicate such a dispute in Federal courts? The constitution created both the State and Federal governments, with separate spheres of authority. The 14th Amendment broadened the Federal authority to a very great degree, and brought state laws within the scope of Federal courts. However, I don't see that it likewise made the Federal courts the proper place to answer questions about where Federal power ends and State power begins.
That is a question that neither sphere of government could expect to examine dispassionately. It seems to me to be an issue that is meant to be resolved not in court, but with the democratic mechanisms. The Federal government has a clear interest in the disposition of the power structure, as do the State governments. The People are the only ones who should be making these choices.
That implies a need to answer the question through the amendment process, or the Constitutional convention process. Those move through the democratic mechanisms, in order to return the question to the People and seek a clear, new authority. No other settlement should be considered valid, I would think, given the clear conflict of interest that the court would have.
Utah joins the fray:
Utah's attorney general is preparing to joins a lawsuit that challenges the Senate's massive health care reform bill. Utah is one of 10 conservative states prepared to challenge the health care bill.The Voting Rights Act springs to mind; it mandates that certain (but not all) state legislatures structure their
The reasoning behind the suit goes way beyond the cost of the legislation. The attorneys general, including Utah's Mark Shurtleff, say there are constitutional questions. Even more, they say the so-called Nebraska compromise part of the deal smells of corruption....
[The states] have constitutional questions about mandating state legislatures to enact portions of the bill.
"That's unprecedented. State legislatures can't be mandated by the federal government to do anything," Swallow says.
That, by the way, is seven constitutional challenges by my reckoning:
1) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to require US citizens to purchase a product as a condition of existence? (General question: where is the authority?)
2) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to override the religious objections of doctors and nurses by forcing them to provide abortion coverage if they are Catholic or otherwise objectors? (First Amendment, freedom of religion.)
3) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to override the religious objections of citizens by forcing them to materially support abortions by paying into a mandatory fund that will be uesd to provide them? (First Amendment, freedom of religion.)
4) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to impose the religious objections of Rep. Stupak and others on women by allowing the banning of abortion coverage? (First Amendment, freedom of conscience.)
5) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to rewrite the insurance industry's practices in such a comprehensive way, without providing just compensation for their existing investments, and a fair profit margin? (Fifth Amendment, seizure without recompense; see Prof. Epstein's paper.)
6) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to override what appears to be a clear statement by the Tenth Amendment that this is an area left to the states? (Tenth Amendment, powers not delegated.)
7) Is it constitutional for the Federal government to dictate to state legislatures what laws they will pass? (General, where is the authority?)
I'd add an additional one: is it constitutional for the Federal government to adjudicate such a dispute in Federal courts? The constitution created both the State and Federal governments, with separate spheres of authority. The 14th Amendment broadened the Federal authority to a very great degree, and brought state laws within the scope of Federal courts. However, I don't see that it likewise made the Federal courts the proper place to answer questions about where Federal power ends and State power begins.
That is a question that neither sphere of government could expect to examine dispassionately. It seems to me to be an issue that is meant to be resolved not in court, but with the democratic mechanisms. The Federal government has a clear interest in the disposition of the power structure, as do the State governments. The People are the only ones who should be making these choices.
That implies a need to answer the question through the amendment process, or the Constitutional convention process. Those move through the democratic mechanisms, in order to return the question to the People and seek a clear, new authority. No other settlement should be considered valid, I would think, given the clear conflict of interest that the court would have.
Bendigo Shafter
Grim's Hall Book Club: Bendigo Shafter
Several of you have suggested to me over the years that we do a book club, like we used to do the movie club. I think I've come across the right book for that, if enough of you are willing to commit to the project.
The initial book is Louis L'amour's Bendigo Shafter. You can probably get it from your library sytem; if not, it is available from Amazon both used and new for a reasonable price. (Grim's Hall is not an Amazon affiliate; I merely wanted to simplify your obtaining the book.)
The book is a Western adventure of the type L'amour loved to write, but it is also the fullest explanation of his ideas about how a young man should be educated. Too, it includes a number of passages that make clear his ideas about the good life, right ethics, and politics.
My idea is that we'd start with this rather pleasant read, and then follow it up by reading at least the best of the books he has his young hero read. I am thinking we could get some of you to lead the discussion on books that you are personally well-prepared to discuss: for example, Eric might lead the discussion on Plutarch, and Major Joel Leggett might take the discussion on Blackstone. That way, even if everyone can't read every book, we'd all benefit from the project.
Most of the subsequent books should be available online, as well as through libraries, which will keep the cost of participating in the club to a minimum. I think it would be illuminating.
Who would like to participate?
Security and Travel
Security and Travel:
Too, the military prefers that you keep your rifle with you; and permits any knife under three inches in length as well. Since we still teach pugil stick fighting in the services, every one of those rifles remains a powerful weapon even without ammunition. I'd like to see the jihadi who could hijack a SAMS flight.
The TSA's personnel are less impressive than the military's; and its mindset is purely reactive. This latest nonsense about not having reading material in your lap during the last hour of the flight, for example -- the Christmas bombing was supposed to happen during the last hour of the flight, 'So obviously we need to lock that down!'
Yet the 9/11 hijackings, please recall, were designed to happen during the first hour of flight, when the planes would still be full of fuel. That was what made the planes such explosive and powerful weapons, capable of taking down skyscrapers. By focusing your eye on the last bombing, you've forgotten the first one. By obsessing about this latest threat, you've created a new opening for an attack based on the more dangerous model. They're in your OODA loop, as Ymar likes to say.
This time, that wasn't enough. The very thing that saved this last flight was jihadi inventiveness -- their very innovative bombing design didn't work, as prototypes often do not when first tried under field conditions. Their adaptiveness both allowed them to get the bomb on the plane, but was the source of the bomb's failure. This isn't the first time this problem has arisen for them, and it won't be the last.
We've got some good tools to apply to the problem -- our counterterror intelligence efforts had this guy's number, for example, if only someone had listened to them.
Meanwhile, why not take the train? At 217 MPH, you could link Atlanta to Boston in five hours; six, if you include a few minutes for stops in each Charlotte, Greensboro, Richmond, D.C., Philadelphia, NYC, and then Boston itself. We'd get a lot more out of such a line than China will out of its train: if you built it robustly enough, it could handle a substantial amount of the day-to-day business travel in America. If you're looking for a jobs program in a difficult economy, I can think of worse ones; unlike most government spending, we'd be getting something tangible out of it.
Meanwhile, train cars can be stronger than a plane's body, and can be made smaller: you can contain a bomb with one, I mean to say, segmenting the maximum amount of damage a single bomb can do. It's not a good answer for trans-Atlantic flights, but you could redirect a substantial amount of our national air travel onto high-speed rails, while foiling terrorist designs and benefitting the manufacturing and labor sectors of our economy at the same time.
John Derbyshire remarks that the future of commercial airline travel does not appear bright:
If, as seems likely, we are in an arms race between, on one side, crazy jihadis fired up with visions of paradise, and on the other, bored airport-security personnel on minimum wage, it looks inevitable that sooner or later the jihadis will score one. What's to be done?The military actually handles this whole business of trans-Atlantic flights much better. I've taken military-chartered aircraft across the pond several times, and I'm always impressed with how well it compares to civilian flying. The military protocols make it much easier to do thorough security checks, smoothly and efficiently.
• Stop issuing visas to citizens of Muslim countires? No, the jihadis are all over. This next batch is British-born.Cops fear that 25 British-born Muslims are plotting to bomb Western airliners. The fanatics, in five groups, are now training at secret terror camps in Yemen … The British extremists in Yemen are in their early 20s and from Bradford, Luton and Leytonstone, East London. They are due to return to the UK early in 2010 and will then await Internet instructions from al-Qaeda on when to strike.• Stop issuing visas to Muslims? Identified how? By name? What about this guy?
• Trust the feddle gubmint to maintain efficient databases on terror suspects? Ha ha ha ha ha!
• Trust the Department of Homeland Security to keep one step ahead of jihadi ingenuity? Woo-hoo hoo hoo!
• Vanquish evil at its source? Okay, how's that going? Not so well.
It seems to me that the future of commercial air travel is not bright. The business is already part-militarized; and military protocols don't mix well with commerce. A rash of successful terrorist bombings could kill off the whole industry.
Too, the military prefers that you keep your rifle with you; and permits any knife under three inches in length as well. Since we still teach pugil stick fighting in the services, every one of those rifles remains a powerful weapon even without ammunition. I'd like to see the jihadi who could hijack a SAMS flight.
The TSA's personnel are less impressive than the military's; and its mindset is purely reactive. This latest nonsense about not having reading material in your lap during the last hour of the flight, for example -- the Christmas bombing was supposed to happen during the last hour of the flight, 'So obviously we need to lock that down!'
Yet the 9/11 hijackings, please recall, were designed to happen during the first hour of flight, when the planes would still be full of fuel. That was what made the planes such explosive and powerful weapons, capable of taking down skyscrapers. By focusing your eye on the last bombing, you've forgotten the first one. By obsessing about this latest threat, you've created a new opening for an attack based on the more dangerous model. They're in your OODA loop, as Ymar likes to say.
This time, that wasn't enough. The very thing that saved this last flight was jihadi inventiveness -- their very innovative bombing design didn't work, as prototypes often do not when first tried under field conditions. Their adaptiveness both allowed them to get the bomb on the plane, but was the source of the bomb's failure. This isn't the first time this problem has arisen for them, and it won't be the last.
We've got some good tools to apply to the problem -- our counterterror intelligence efforts had this guy's number, for example, if only someone had listened to them.
Meanwhile, why not take the train? At 217 MPH, you could link Atlanta to Boston in five hours; six, if you include a few minutes for stops in each Charlotte, Greensboro, Richmond, D.C., Philadelphia, NYC, and then Boston itself. We'd get a lot more out of such a line than China will out of its train: if you built it robustly enough, it could handle a substantial amount of the day-to-day business travel in America. If you're looking for a jobs program in a difficult economy, I can think of worse ones; unlike most government spending, we'd be getting something tangible out of it.
Meanwhile, train cars can be stronger than a plane's body, and can be made smaller: you can contain a bomb with one, I mean to say, segmenting the maximum amount of damage a single bomb can do. It's not a good answer for trans-Atlantic flights, but you could redirect a substantial amount of our national air travel onto high-speed rails, while foiling terrorist designs and benefitting the manufacturing and labor sectors of our economy at the same time.
May God Defend the Right
May God Defend the Right:
Trial by combat pit a miracle of God each time, by invoking his aid in bringing about a just settlement to a case decided by wager of battle. Surely the mullahs would join such a prayer today, would they not?
This is the point at which the entire Bush-and-Clinton administration strategy for Iran is coming to a head: to pressure the regime while offering at least rhetorical support to those Iranian people who seek democracy in their hearts. The current administration wanted a different strategy, of engagement with the regime; and therefore, has chosen to allow the regime to isolate the people we once encouraged.
There is little we can do but pray, as the levers of power belong to those who have set that course. We must abide the result of the prayer, and the wager it represents.
Ashura, by the way, is the day of mourning for the martyrdom of Ali, who stands at the fountainhead of Shi'a Islam. Modern men, born centuries after the battle in which Ali was killed, cut and whip themselves to shed their blood in sorrow for the fact that 'we were not there to defend you.'
Mark that well. It may be we will one day wish that we had been there, now, when it mattered.
Arctic Explorers - Reminder
Arctic Explorers and a Reminder -
I see that this week's WSJ "five best" is about books on Arctic Explorers. The fifth is by Roald Amundsen, the Norwegian explorer who was also the first to the South Pole.
Some years ago, I read The Last Place on Earth, a parallel biography of Amundsen and the English explorer Robert Falcon Scott. This account points very strongly to this conclusion: Amundsen spent his whole life preparing for his explorations, from his youthful cross-country skiing through an extended sojourn among the Eskimos through several Arctic voyages. Scott, by contrast, was ill-prepared, inefficient, and egotistical (thinking Amundsen should refrain from seeking the Pole because it was somehow "his"), and as you know his expedition all died (amongst other things, Amundsen managed to keep his dog teams for the entire journey; Scott brought ponies, who were all killed for food, and sent his dogs back long before the trip was over, hauling gear by human muscle). Yet Scott has been an inspiration to many - even to Ralph Vaughan Williams, whose Sinfonia Antarctica started as the score to Scott of the Antarctic - and was buried under stirring words from Tennyson: "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
In exploration as in warfare, there is something to be said for the fanatic, who will perform prodigious feats of endurance and bravery. But it is the professional who wins, and brings his men home alive.
I see that this week's WSJ "five best" is about books on Arctic Explorers. The fifth is by Roald Amundsen, the Norwegian explorer who was also the first to the South Pole.
Some years ago, I read The Last Place on Earth, a parallel biography of Amundsen and the English explorer Robert Falcon Scott. This account points very strongly to this conclusion: Amundsen spent his whole life preparing for his explorations, from his youthful cross-country skiing through an extended sojourn among the Eskimos through several Arctic voyages. Scott, by contrast, was ill-prepared, inefficient, and egotistical (thinking Amundsen should refrain from seeking the Pole because it was somehow "his"), and as you know his expedition all died (amongst other things, Amundsen managed to keep his dog teams for the entire journey; Scott brought ponies, who were all killed for food, and sent his dogs back long before the trip was over, hauling gear by human muscle). Yet Scott has been an inspiration to many - even to Ralph Vaughan Williams, whose Sinfonia Antarctica started as the score to Scott of the Antarctic - and was buried under stirring words from Tennyson: "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
In exploration as in warfare, there is something to be said for the fanatic, who will perform prodigious feats of endurance and bravery. But it is the professional who wins, and brings his men home alive.
A thought
A Thought Worth Considering:
Bthun and I were discussing a recent article on the subject of a constitutional convention, as called by the states. There might be some promise in that; the math of the convention is the math of the electoral college, whereby the states are equal regardless of population density. That might permit a right-of-center revision of the Constitution, though not far right; but it could avoid a runaway constitution that decides to find a 'right to health care' and 'right to housing,' and instead focuses on rebalancing the power between the Federal government and the states.
Nevertheless, dissolving the union in this fashion is not a suggestion wholly without merit. It would use Constitutional means to prevent further abuses of the Constitution. It would preserve it, by ending it faithfully on its own terms, rather than suffering to see it ignored and abused and deformed by the base political class we seem blessed with today.
The Constitution would pass into history, but it would be safe there. No one could do it further harm. The loss of the union would have severe economic consequences, but so does continuing the union under such leadership as we have had -- not only in this Congress, but in the previous ones, Republican and Democrat alike. We are left to wonder whether the loss of unity could impose worse costs than the Federal government's enforcement of beggaring debt upon the states, and upon future generations.
There is also the specter of war, which seems more real every year. We are deepy divided against each other, and in the worst way: our visions of beauty are different. That, above all differences, will lead to blood. Our vision of beauty is the thing most important to us, the thing we will fight for even against ourselves. Against others? Oh, readily.
I will not dismiss the option, as John does. It may not be the worst thing that could come of this. The worst thing is civil war: that is the one thing that must be avoided at all costs. A civil, Constitutional decision by the several states to go their separate ways would be far preferable to a collapse into war. It would let us keep our oaths, and prevent us from having to see the Constitution treated as dead paper by the government it was meant to bind.
The oath-bound among us might consider the Donovan's correspondent:
[M]aybe we should beat them to the punch...convene, "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States," a Constitutional Convention, not for the purpose of amending the Constitution, but instead, dissolving the Union.I was touched to see that he cites not only the language that is present in both the oath of enlistment and the military officer's oath of office; but also the Boy Scout oath.
Bthun and I were discussing a recent article on the subject of a constitutional convention, as called by the states. There might be some promise in that; the math of the convention is the math of the electoral college, whereby the states are equal regardless of population density. That might permit a right-of-center revision of the Constitution, though not far right; but it could avoid a runaway constitution that decides to find a 'right to health care' and 'right to housing,' and instead focuses on rebalancing the power between the Federal government and the states.
Nevertheless, dissolving the union in this fashion is not a suggestion wholly without merit. It would use Constitutional means to prevent further abuses of the Constitution. It would preserve it, by ending it faithfully on its own terms, rather than suffering to see it ignored and abused and deformed by the base political class we seem blessed with today.
The Constitution would pass into history, but it would be safe there. No one could do it further harm. The loss of the union would have severe economic consequences, but so does continuing the union under such leadership as we have had -- not only in this Congress, but in the previous ones, Republican and Democrat alike. We are left to wonder whether the loss of unity could impose worse costs than the Federal government's enforcement of beggaring debt upon the states, and upon future generations.
There is also the specter of war, which seems more real every year. We are deepy divided against each other, and in the worst way: our visions of beauty are different. That, above all differences, will lead to blood. Our vision of beauty is the thing most important to us, the thing we will fight for even against ourselves. Against others? Oh, readily.
I will not dismiss the option, as John does. It may not be the worst thing that could come of this. The worst thing is civil war: that is the one thing that must be avoided at all costs. A civil, Constitutional decision by the several states to go their separate ways would be far preferable to a collapse into war. It would let us keep our oaths, and prevent us from having to see the Constitution treated as dead paper by the government it was meant to bind.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)