I have no doubt that my friends in the north are very tired of it, but for me, this is the first time I've seen falling snow since Baghdad. That was two winters ago, and in a way it's hard to believe I was ever there. I can remember that, when I was there, it was hard to believe I had ever been here. It was like remembering a different life, more than a different place.
When was the last time I saw snow in Georgia? Perhaps it was 2002, when we lived on Burnt Mountain, high enough that it snowed from time to time. It has been a while, to be sure.
The house is well-stocked, and there is the smell of roasting pork and apple, with cinnamon and wine. The snow is welcome.
Snowfall
Snowfall:
Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln:
A figure quite controversial at times, at other times treated as a kind of saint, Lincoln is today celebrated at Powerline. They quote his anti-slavery speech from the Republican national convention of 1860, but let's look at his military judgment instead.
A friend sends, via email, a selection from General Order #100. We can see several things in it that clarify what ought to be done with certain classes of unlawful combatants.
Art. 63.
Troops who fight in the uniform of their enemies, without any plain, striking, and uniform mark of distinction of their own, can expect no quarter....
Art. 83.
Scouts, or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.
Art. 84.
Armed prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or persons of the enemy's territory, who steal within the lines of the hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, or of destroying bridges, roads or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of cutting the telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war.
Art. 85.
War-rebels are persons within an occupied territory who rise in arms against the occupying or conquering army, or against the authorities established by the same. If captured, they may suffer death, whether they rise singly, in small or large bands, and whether called upon to do so by their own, but expelled, government or not. They are not prisoners of war; nor are they if discovered and secured before their conspiracy has matured to an actual rising or armed violence.
Forcing
"Forcing"?
Look, people tried to burden me with intolerable guilt for supporting the war in Iraq for several years. I don't recall feeling any actual guilt. I certainly felt some responsibility for the war, and a personal sense of duty to contribute to restoring peace and order to Iraq.
Why not guilt? Guilt comes from the inside. Someone may wish to make you feel guilt, but all they can actually do is bring the guilt you already feel to your conscious attention. If it isn't there, they can't create it.
If you find that you really feel "intolerable guilt" that you aren't spending more time with your child, perhaps you should listen to that. It isn't coming from them; they're just drawing it to your attention. The guilt is coming from inside of you, and you should probably draw off somewhere quiet and reflect on why you feel that way. It may save you regrets later in life.
If you don't find that you feel such guilt, their attempts to motivate you to feel guilty will certainly not create guilt in you. For someone who feels no guilt, such attempts sound -- I speak from experience -- more like a braying ass than the trumpet of judgment.
I mean, it is the French, but still...
Elisabeth Badinter, a leading French feminist, has warned the green movement is threatening decades of improvements in gender equality by forcing women to give up their jobs and become earth mothers.I'm not sure I recognize any part of that as "holy," though in general I think breast-feeding of infants is a fine idea, and "back to nature" is a concept that -- within certain reasonable limits -- could do a lot of good for a lot of people. Still, it's horrible to hear that they've forged themselves into so powerful an alliance that they can "force women" to give up their jobs. How are they accomplishing this?
Mrs Badinter claims a “holy reactionary alliance” of green politicians, breast-feeding militants, “back to nature” feminists and child psychologists is turning Frenchwomen into slaves to green “fads” like re-usable nappies and organic food.
In her new book, Conflit, la Femme et la Mere (Conflict, the Woman and the Mother), Mrs Badinter contends that this politically correct cabal is burdening mothers with intolerable guilt unless they stay at home and breast-feed for as long as possible.Guilt! Ah, well.
Look, people tried to burden me with intolerable guilt for supporting the war in Iraq for several years. I don't recall feeling any actual guilt. I certainly felt some responsibility for the war, and a personal sense of duty to contribute to restoring peace and order to Iraq.
Why not guilt? Guilt comes from the inside. Someone may wish to make you feel guilt, but all they can actually do is bring the guilt you already feel to your conscious attention. If it isn't there, they can't create it.
If you find that you really feel "intolerable guilt" that you aren't spending more time with your child, perhaps you should listen to that. It isn't coming from them; they're just drawing it to your attention. The guilt is coming from inside of you, and you should probably draw off somewhere quiet and reflect on why you feel that way. It may save you regrets later in life.
If you don't find that you feel such guilt, their attempts to motivate you to feel guilty will certainly not create guilt in you. For someone who feels no guilt, such attempts sound -- I speak from experience -- more like a braying ass than the trumpet of judgment.
Lightning Advisory
Lightning Advisory: Washington, D.C.
Not one of them had to do with this lot.
Robert Gibbs today tried to take credit for the success in Iraq even though both Biden* and Obama voted against the successful surge that stabilized the country. That’s not all. Biden caused rioting and protests when he pushed legislation to divide Iraq into three countries. Barack Obama told supporters in 2007 that, “Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.”2007 was the year of the Surge. A lot of things happened in Iraq in 2007 that gave us reason to hope for the future of that nation.
Not one of them had to do with this lot.
Mv2-lit fuse
Movement II: A Lit Fuse
So what does that leave? Admission of failure, combined with the cuts that are necessary to restore long-term solvency; or actual failure. Social unrest in the first case, war in the second.
Boom.
We have not only fixed nothing the so-called "coordinated actions" of so-called "world leaders" have set up a potential catastrophe originating in Europe.Hat tip to Dad29. One of his commenters points out an additional, serious problem: the tool of devaluation of currency is off the table in the Eurozone. As with the U.S. during the 1920s, tied to the gold standard, it's not an option.
More than two years ago I predicted that Europe was the most likely place where the second leg - the real "Oh.... My...... God" moment - would originate in this economic mess. These ratios were the reason for my prediction, and all that has happened over the last two years is that they've gotten worse.
Neither Germany or the rest of the EU can fix this without massive reform - read that as restructuring and/or default - of the external debt in these nations, including Germany itself....
The United States, ironically, is one of the better-positioned nations to survive what is coming. No, it won't be easy for us, but of the developed world there are few who have the internal capacity to pull in the horns and make it - not comfortably, but to survive.
So what does that leave? Admission of failure, combined with the cuts that are necessary to restore long-term solvency; or actual failure. Social unrest in the first case, war in the second.
Movement
Movement:
There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the states from running any kind of socialist program they want; that's a 10th Amendment issue. Is that the right response? "No, we're fine with you doing whatever you want for the poor at the state level, so long as you understand I'll be moving my business to a state that doesn't require me to pay confiscatory taxes. But anything you find that you can do for them, funded with such taxes as you can confiscate from those who cannot or will not move, go ahead and do."
It seems that globalization hates socialism; we can always move our business to somewhere cheaper! There are some advantages to remaining inside the United States, of course, but these turn out to have limits: for example, the advantage of easy access to markets can be overcome if transportation costs are cheap enough; the advantage of peace and good order can be overcome if the place we move to is willing for us to fund our own security services (and undermined by the increased efforts of our Federal government to act as a corporate shakedown racket).
Part of the answer, then, may be practical and budgetary: we have to make these changes, like it or not. Part is doctrinal, or legal: we ought to restore the idea of Constitutional limits to the central place in our public life. And part is a concession, so as to let the world make our argument for us: do what you can at the state level, freely, understanding that you'll be paying for it by having businesses flee you.
From the National Review:
Imagine if a Republican administration had proposed various cost control initiatives to trim the growth of Medicare spending. Does anyone doubt that Democrats would attack the notional cuts vociferously? Paul Krugman actually had a canned argument ready in case Republicans ever did follow through: while Democrats use cuts to fund coverage expansion, Republicans use them to cut taxes for the rich (cue evil laughter). Now, it's obvious that we're trapped in this dynamic because the median voter reigns supreme, and it is cheap and easy for incumbent interests to distort and oversimplify wrenching reforms on either side of the partisan divide.A fair point. It also means that the Tea Party movement -- if it becomes successful at achieving power -- is going to need a response to the charge that it is intending to wage war on the poor. All of the things it wants to do involve restoring the government to its constitutionally-specified role; this includes dismantling the social-welfare state, at least at the Federal level.
The only way out of this trap is to persuade the median voter of the central importance of achieving fiscal sustainability, even if that means short-term sacrifice. That is a tough job, and it's not clear that conservatives are willing to take it on. The good news is that many in the Tea Party movement understand the stakes and the difficult decisions that have to be made going forward. I'm far more skeptical about the Republican leadership.
There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the states from running any kind of socialist program they want; that's a 10th Amendment issue. Is that the right response? "No, we're fine with you doing whatever you want for the poor at the state level, so long as you understand I'll be moving my business to a state that doesn't require me to pay confiscatory taxes. But anything you find that you can do for them, funded with such taxes as you can confiscate from those who cannot or will not move, go ahead and do."
It seems that globalization hates socialism; we can always move our business to somewhere cheaper! There are some advantages to remaining inside the United States, of course, but these turn out to have limits: for example, the advantage of easy access to markets can be overcome if transportation costs are cheap enough; the advantage of peace and good order can be overcome if the place we move to is willing for us to fund our own security services (and undermined by the increased efforts of our Federal government to act as a corporate shakedown racket).
Part of the answer, then, may be practical and budgetary: we have to make these changes, like it or not. Part is doctrinal, or legal: we ought to restore the idea of Constitutional limits to the central place in our public life. And part is a concession, so as to let the world make our argument for us: do what you can at the state level, freely, understanding that you'll be paying for it by having businesses flee you.
Sports metaphor
Sports as a Metaphor for Life:
Here’s the New York Times article documenting the president’s pick, the Colts.Dennis the Peasant:
(Update: Joe in the combox points out that over a week earlier the President had apparently picked the Saints to win as well. So, ESPN is both wrong and right, and the President predicted both correctly and incorrectly. Just like in Neoplatonism, all apparent contradictions dissipate in the being of the One.)
But the classic line in all this nonsense is this:Of course it is. The president has always supported the House or the Senate bill, or anything else that could pass.“While he’s been very clear that he supports the House and Senate bills, if Republicans or anyone else has a plan for protecting Americans from insurance company abuses, lowering costs, reducing prescription drug prices for seniors, making coverage more secure, and offering affordable options to those without coverage, he’s anxious to see it and debate the merits of it,” the White House official said.Both of them? Both of them? How in the world can you support both of them? This is leadership?
Super Bowl Thread:
Peyton Manning is a fine young man, I have family connections to the University of Tennessee where he became famous, and the wife is from Indiana; but the Saints are surely the underdog, having never before seen a Super Bowl from the inside. So, I shall be a friend to the weaker party, as Ivanhoe's Richard the Lionheart avowed was always the duty of a true knight.
Good luck, Saints.
UPDATE: Congratulations, champions.
Since music seems to be the topic today, I came across this item.
I wonder what they'd think of Johnny:
But then, maybe he had some idea, because he did come armed.
The authorities do not know exactly how many people have been killed warbling “My Way” in karaoke bars over the years in the Philippines, or how many fatal fights it has fueled. But the news media have recorded at least half a dozen victims in the past decade and includes them in a subcategory of crime dubbed the “My Way Killings.”
I wonder what they'd think of Johnny:
But then, maybe he had some idea, because he did come armed.
A Boy Leaves Home
A Boy Leaves Home:
The opera is worked around an old Irish ballad, "The Star of the County Down." It is a rollicking piece when it is done as a folk song; but La Nef is probably right to think of it as something older. The tune is simple, and beautiful, and has probably lived long past the time that men can remember where its fountainhead lays.
Here is the folk song:
And here the opera's version:
Sir Perceval is originally the knight who finds the Holy Grail. In later versions it was Galahad, Lancelot's son, who did: a perfect knight, without flaw inside or out. We have lately discussed how Galahad borders on blasphemy; but Sir Perceval has no such troubles. He is full of flaws, and misunderstanding, but at last brings the quest to a close. "You have wars you hardly win, and souls you hardly save."
In Sir Thomas Malory's version, Perceval's sister is the exemplar of true virtue. She readily lays down her life to save a wicked lady who has preserved herself only by slaughtering maidens to drink their blood: but so little cares Perceval's sister for this world that she gives her blood freely, to save even a wicked life. I reflect on how such spiritual generosity might prepare one well for the next world, but poorly serves this one. Such kindness to the cruel and the wicked only empowers them. It is better to strike them down: the Bible says that God reserves vengeance to himself, but perhaps he might forgive us. What otherwise are we for, and what chivalry, and what justice?
Perhaps only to be forgiven; but, by God, to be forgiven for something.
In this scene from La Nef's "Perceval: La Quete Du Graal", Perceval asks his mother to get him something to eat... for he is leaving her, to follow a roving band of knights.
The opera is worked around an old Irish ballad, "The Star of the County Down." It is a rollicking piece when it is done as a folk song; but La Nef is probably right to think of it as something older. The tune is simple, and beautiful, and has probably lived long past the time that men can remember where its fountainhead lays.
Here is the folk song:
And here the opera's version:
Sir Perceval is originally the knight who finds the Holy Grail. In later versions it was Galahad, Lancelot's son, who did: a perfect knight, without flaw inside or out. We have lately discussed how Galahad borders on blasphemy; but Sir Perceval has no such troubles. He is full of flaws, and misunderstanding, but at last brings the quest to a close. "You have wars you hardly win, and souls you hardly save."
In Sir Thomas Malory's version, Perceval's sister is the exemplar of true virtue. She readily lays down her life to save a wicked lady who has preserved herself only by slaughtering maidens to drink their blood: but so little cares Perceval's sister for this world that she gives her blood freely, to save even a wicked life. I reflect on how such spiritual generosity might prepare one well for the next world, but poorly serves this one. Such kindness to the cruel and the wicked only empowers them. It is better to strike them down: the Bible says that God reserves vengeance to himself, but perhaps he might forgive us. What otherwise are we for, and what chivalry, and what justice?
Perhaps only to be forgiven; but, by God, to be forgiven for something.
Professor of Law
Professor of Law:
The lady gives him too much credit. It was not expertise in the law that led him to bait the Supreme Court before the unified Congress.
Instapunk is in despair.
Now, I tend to think Instapunk has been overwrought of late, but he's got a point here.
I want to know how the President says "Peace Corps" now.
Intellectual my ass.
Now, I tend to think Instapunk has been overwrought of late, but he's got a point here.
I want to know how the President says "Peace Corps" now.
Intellectual my ass.
Press does not know economics
Press: Actually, We Haven't The Slightest Idea What's Up With The Economy
For several months, every time an unemployment report showed unemployment remaining high or going up, the press reported it as happening "unexpectedly." That suggests that the expectation was that unemployment would go down, right? I mean, we spent all this TARP and stimulus money.
Today, good news on unemployment: it seems to have declined slightly. What's the press' reaction? How unexpected!
Come on, guys. Just admit that you have no real expectations, because you haven't any idea at all what's going on. It's OK: we know. Just report the facts, and quit trying to act like you understand the facts. People who were paid millions of dollars a year to predict the course of the economy blew it; there's no reason you should be expected to act as an oracle here either. Just say, "Unemployment is now at X%, up/down Y% from the last report." We'll be OK with that.
Nashville
Nashville:
Looks like fun.
As much as I like a kilt, though, I'm not sure it's all that effective as a political ploy.
One of the things that the media is making a big deal about is that this is a for-profit movement. That shouldn't be considered a negative: it should scare the crap out of the existing political class.
This removes one of the main obstacles to success for conservatives: normally having a full-time job, they can devote very little time to politics. Even though they have money to support such a 'habit,' they can't leave off their job for a year every two years to help contest the face of Congress.
If it proves that you can make a profit fighting for small government, though, a whole lot more people are suddenly free to do that full time.
The scariest thing in the world for the political class ought to be a for-profit movement to reform the government. That means it is a movement that is genuinely sustainable: it won't run out of money, because it's making money.
Wallop The Cat
The Beatings Will Improve Morale:
According to my morning's email, Tartanic has agreed to come down to play in Georgia for the first time. Who is Tartanic, you ask? They're not the band that likes to beat on cats.
They're the band that likes to beat on knights. (At least, those with a sense of humor.)
Should be a pleasant way to spend an afternoon, once the long winter is over and the spring has finally come. Ded Bob will be there, too.
Art & Duty
Art & Duty:
So, if the government collapses entirely, and there is now lawful army nor authority to which you might apply as a defender of your country, what really is your duty as a citizen? I think we might say that, in such cases, a man who is inclined to fight in the resistance might be praised for his courage -- but he is praiseworthy because he is doing more than his duty requires.
The laws of war, meanwhile, will not necessarily recognize him as a lawful combatant. Depending on his mode of fighting, he may be committing what are technically war crimes. Some of what the French resistance did was clearly against the laws of war, such as shooting soldiers while pretending to be civilians. We excuse this because they were Nazi soldiers, but the action is a war crime all the same. It undermines the principle of noncombatant immunity just as much when the French did it as when the Taliban does.
Finally, from the perspective of a Belgian, this was hardly the first time this had happened! The French and German governments had been invading each other since Napoleon's day. Joining the resistance to the German occupation, in any of these previous wars, was likely to lead only to French occupation instead of German. One can imagine a quiet-minded man, the sort who likes to sit and write children's books, for not feeling like he wanted to get killed over the ping-pong game of two poweful neighbors. 'Fine, let them fight each other if they must! I'll carry on with my books.'
All that would be fairly satisfying, if the Germany of the 1940s had not been Nazi Germany. Had it been simply a resurgent Imperial Germany, bent on reasserting German pride and claims, and revenging itself on France -- but not on extermination of peoples nor racist totalitarianism -- we could say that he had no further duty but to sit out the war. His country was caught between two powerful neighbors who were always fighting; there was no lawful army he might join, since his government had collapsed, and the resistance there was had chosen to fight in sometimes unlawful ways; and fighting against one of his country's neighbors would probably only lead to a new occupation by the other. Bad times, you might say, and let it go: except for the matter of evil.
A citizen needs only to defend his nation, but a gentleman has a duty to defend his civilization. Countries come and go, and governments; but evil is eternal, and we must always resist it. An artist, specially placed to be able to resist in powerful but subtle and nonviolent ways, is not excused from this duty. If anything, his power gives him a special duty.
What do we make of a case like this? (H/t: Arts & Letters Daily.)
[Children's book author Remi] chose to spend the war in his German-occupied homeland, where he continued to work unmolested, thanks to longtime links to right-wing figures. The help of powerful collaborators enabled him to publish new adventures in spite of a severe wartime paper shortage. Most damningly, he accepted work with a Belgian newspaper, Le Soir, which had been confiscated by the authorities to serve as a propaganda organ. The German-controlled paper published, among other things, defenses of fascism and anti-Semitic screeds. Hergé’s cartoons provided a great boost to the paper’s popularity in the face of a boycott of its pages by many well-known Belgian writers and artists. Indeed, his role led the resistance, on the eve of the liberation, to brand him one of the forty leading journalist collaborators....A citizen has a duty to defend his nation, but it's worth remembering how quickly the Belgian government collapsed. Indeed, the whole war gets one sentence in the Wikipedia article on Belgium: "The country was again invaded by Germany in 1940 during the Blitzkrieg offensive and occupied until its liberation in 1945 by the Allies." That's the whole war, right there, from the perspective of Belgium. Notice that the sentence is in the passive voice -- Belgium "was invaded... and occupied" until it 'was liberated.'
Even as a collaborator, Remi was relatively innocuous. His worst crime was going along where he ought to have resisted. He is a study not in the banality of evil but simply in the banality of the banal.
So, if the government collapses entirely, and there is now lawful army nor authority to which you might apply as a defender of your country, what really is your duty as a citizen? I think we might say that, in such cases, a man who is inclined to fight in the resistance might be praised for his courage -- but he is praiseworthy because he is doing more than his duty requires.
The laws of war, meanwhile, will not necessarily recognize him as a lawful combatant. Depending on his mode of fighting, he may be committing what are technically war crimes. Some of what the French resistance did was clearly against the laws of war, such as shooting soldiers while pretending to be civilians. We excuse this because they were Nazi soldiers, but the action is a war crime all the same. It undermines the principle of noncombatant immunity just as much when the French did it as when the Taliban does.
Finally, from the perspective of a Belgian, this was hardly the first time this had happened! The French and German governments had been invading each other since Napoleon's day. Joining the resistance to the German occupation, in any of these previous wars, was likely to lead only to French occupation instead of German. One can imagine a quiet-minded man, the sort who likes to sit and write children's books, for not feeling like he wanted to get killed over the ping-pong game of two poweful neighbors. 'Fine, let them fight each other if they must! I'll carry on with my books.'
All that would be fairly satisfying, if the Germany of the 1940s had not been Nazi Germany. Had it been simply a resurgent Imperial Germany, bent on reasserting German pride and claims, and revenging itself on France -- but not on extermination of peoples nor racist totalitarianism -- we could say that he had no further duty but to sit out the war. His country was caught between two powerful neighbors who were always fighting; there was no lawful army he might join, since his government had collapsed, and the resistance there was had chosen to fight in sometimes unlawful ways; and fighting against one of his country's neighbors would probably only lead to a new occupation by the other. Bad times, you might say, and let it go: except for the matter of evil.
A citizen needs only to defend his nation, but a gentleman has a duty to defend his civilization. Countries come and go, and governments; but evil is eternal, and we must always resist it. An artist, specially placed to be able to resist in powerful but subtle and nonviolent ways, is not excused from this duty. If anything, his power gives him a special duty.
Shut Them Out
Shut Them Out:
The fear that reality might scare people out of 'voting the right way' may not be all that's in play. Consider this poll, and confer it with this one from before the election.
What we see in every case is that Democrats, and also groups likely to vote democratic in disproportionate levels, have less actual knowledge about the world.
That may be a correlation, not a causation; but just in case, I can see why the President wouldn't want to take the chance!
The Politico reports:
President Obama's back is against the wall, so he's getting in touch with his inner Agnew, hitting the neo-nattering nabobs of cable and the net.Why would this be so important to his agenda? Well, stories like this one.
“If we could just -- excuse the press -- turn off the cameras," he told Democratic Senators at their annual retreat. "Turn off your CNN, your FOX, your MSNBC, your blogs, turn off this echo chamber … where the topic is politics. … We’ve got to get out of the echo chamber.
With the developments in Illinois and Indiana over the past 24 hours, the Cook Political Report now carries 10 Democratic-held seats in their most competitive categories -- meaning, theoretically, that if Republicans ran the table (and lost none of their own toss up seats in Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio) they could get to 51 seats and the Senate majority.Also this one, which demonstrates that a key myth that members of the Democratic Congress have been telling themselves is false: passing health care won't save them in November. That's got to be discouraging.
The fear that reality might scare people out of 'voting the right way' may not be all that's in play. Consider this poll, and confer it with this one from before the election.
What we see in every case is that Democrats, and also groups likely to vote democratic in disproportionate levels, have less actual knowledge about the world.
That may be a correlation, not a causation; but just in case, I can see why the President wouldn't want to take the chance!
Easy = True
Easy = True:
What he could do was take that knowledge and present it as a story. It was easy to join the story, and easy to follow it; and at the end, you had gone where he wanted to take you.
This is important to remember.
The Boston Globe has a story about how the brain handles difficulty. Short version: it's very suspicious of it.
A handful of scholars have already started to explore the ways that advertisers, educators, political campaigners, or anyone else in the business of persuasion can use these findings. And some of the implications are surprising. For example, to get people to think through a question, it may be best to present it less clearly. And to boost your self-confidence, you may want to set out to write a dauntingly long list of all the reasons why you’re a failure.This is part of why J. R. R. Tolkien has had such an outsized effect on culture versus, say, analytic philosophers like Williamson (below). Tolkien was no less intellectual. He knew deep things about the roots of languages, and the magic that underlies them.
Our sensitivity to - and affinity for - fluency is an adaptive shortcut. According to psychologists, it helps us apportion limited mental resources in a world where lots of things clamor for our attention and we have to quickly figure out which are worth thinking about.
Most of the time, the shortcut works pretty well....
Our bias for the familiar, however, can be triggered in settings where there’s little purpose to it. In the 1960s, Zajonc did a series of experiments that uncovered what he dubbed the “mere exposure” effect: He found that, with stimuli ranging from nonsense words to abstract geometric patterns to images of faces to Chinese ideographs (the test subjects, being non-Chinese speakers, didn’t know what the ideographs meant), all it took to get people to say they liked certain ones more than others was to present them multiple times.
More recent work suggests that people assign all sorts of specific characteristics to things that feel familiar. Like beauty. Psychologists have identified what they call the “beauty-in-averageness” effect - when asked to identify the most attractive example of something, people tend to choose the most prototypical option. For example, when asked to identify the most appealing of a group of human faces, people choose the one that is a composite of all the others....
One thing that fools us, for example, is font. When people read something in a difficult-to-read font, they unwittingly transfer that sense of difficulty onto the topic they’re reading about. Schwarz and his former student Hyunjin Song have found that when people read about an exercise regimen or a recipe in a less legible font, they tend to rate the exercise regimen more difficult and the recipe more complicated than if they read about them in a clearer font.
What he could do was take that knowledge and present it as a story. It was easy to join the story, and easy to follow it; and at the end, you had gone where he wanted to take you.
This is important to remember.
Putnam's Example
Putnam's Example:
Yes, indeed, professor, that does offer a complete explanation. Except...
We've been discussing Williamson's epistemology in the comments to a post below. The book is actually available online, if any of you are interested in considering his ideas in a more in-depth way.
One of his examples reminds me of this whole spending/belt-tightening thing. Can you explain to me how it is that, having just said you were going to make hard choices and tighten the government belt, you've instead presented a budget of massively increased spending and debt?
"Putnam's example," captured on page 76, is just this sort of problem:
Professor X is found stark naked in the girls' dormitory at 12 midnight. Explanation: (?) He was stark naked in the girls' dormitory at midnight -ε, and he could neither leave the dormitory nor put on his clothes by midnight without exceeding the speed of light. But (covering law:) nothing (no professor, anyhow) can travel faster than light.So, how did you promise belt-tightening but deliver an orgy? 'Well, we wrote out the budgetary bill, and we made the required number of photocopies, and then it was sent down in a van along with an escort to ensure that it arrived in an undisturbed form before the proper Congressional officials.'
Yes, indeed, professor, that does offer a complete explanation. Except...
Shorter than usual
Shorter Than Usual:
I can understand how you can believe two different, contradictory things. It can happen because there is no context that causes you to reflect on the fact tha these two principles you believe are actually in contradiction. It can also be an act of will: presumably at least some people who shoplift believe they are doing something wrong, but do it anyway because they put aside the sense of the wrongness in return for the immediate need or desire that they are gratifying. Doubtless you can both believe that it is wrong to drink to excess, and also "...believe I'll have another drink."
Still, this seems unusually abrubt and sharp. It's as if he said what he said in the hope that you wouldn't notice that he's doing what he's doing. It's the opposite of Clinton-style triangulation: instead of figuring out where the middle is and going there, you try to satisfy one side through speech, and the other side through action.
As long as the people you're trying to satisfy through speech don't realize you're playing them for suckers, that should work just fine. Only one problem: it's already too late to hope they won't realize.
Didn't we just hear the President say that government needed to tighten it's belt?
Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.That was just a few days ago, right? I mean, not even a week.
Released to Congress Monday morning, the president’s spending plan anticipates $5.08 trillion in deficits over the next five years and seems almost a cry for help in the face of what he sees as intransigent Republican opposition.If it's a cry for help, it may be a cry for some other kind of help.
I can understand how you can believe two different, contradictory things. It can happen because there is no context that causes you to reflect on the fact tha these two principles you believe are actually in contradiction. It can also be an act of will: presumably at least some people who shoplift believe they are doing something wrong, but do it anyway because they put aside the sense of the wrongness in return for the immediate need or desire that they are gratifying. Doubtless you can both believe that it is wrong to drink to excess, and also "...believe I'll have another drink."
Still, this seems unusually abrubt and sharp. It's as if he said what he said in the hope that you wouldn't notice that he's doing what he's doing. It's the opposite of Clinton-style triangulation: instead of figuring out where the middle is and going there, you try to satisfy one side through speech, and the other side through action.
As long as the people you're trying to satisfy through speech don't realize you're playing them for suckers, that should work just fine. Only one problem: it's already too late to hope they won't realize.
CPR
New CPR Method:
I have to admit, since this came from DL Sly, that I didn't look it at first in the assumption that it was a joke of some sort. That proves not to be the case; it is a method of lifesaving, which sounds reasonable on its face.
Something to consider, that you might better do your duty to be prepared to help those in great need.
GHBC 24-33
Grim's Hall Book Club: Bendigo Shafter, Chapters 24-33
Two things happen at the beginning of this section that are of special interest. The first is the letters that Ben gets while he is on his cattle drive. The second is his conversation with Henry Stratton, whose function in the story is to give an outside perspective on the town.
The letters move the plot substantially, but the conversation with Stratton is an interesting one. Stratton is a man of experience, a "watcher" who does not get involved in local affairs but who is capable of handling himself. He gives a verdict on the town: he does not think it will survive, or that it ought to survive.
Ben's reaction is to say, "A mistake is really only a mistake if you persist in it." Stratton avows that is a "rather profound remark."
In spite of this, at least for the moment Ben seems ready to double down on the town. He enters the election for Marshall, wins it, and begins to clean up the bad element that has entered his town. He buys a printing press, and obtains a contract to cut logs for the railroad. They settle in for a second winter.
The section ends with him being attacked by a mountain lion during a hunt for meat, and the aftermath of that attack. He is continuing to read everything he can find -- including newspapers, which give him a grounding in the greater world around him, to go with the deep historical perspective he has begun to gain from Great Books.
He begins to consider not just reading but writing: to add to the store of wisdom, now that he has a few things to say.
Questions for discussion:
1) Do you think that the town is a mistake? How long should he persist in it, if it is? How would you know when to cut loose?
2) This is an interesting account of writing. We teach children today to write fairly early, but Ben is only just about to start. He has an extraordinary experience of the world to inform his writing, though: rescuing children from a snowstorm, building houses, hunting elk, fighting mountain lions, a cattle drive, and being marshal of a small town. Louis L'amour himself was like this too. He read stories and lived stories for a long time before he began to tell stories.
How important is having something to say to being a good writer? In educating our children, should we focus less on teaching them to write, and more on making sure they have experiences that give them something to write about?
Klaven/Culture
Fantasy v. Reality:
I thought this video had some good points. Especially about 'Our old pal, the sacred Earth.' Not that the earth isn't sacred.... just as much as we are.
On Love
On Love:
Yet our critic is sympathetic to the author's basic view that modern relationships are not love at all, being bland and "safety-checked," and lacking the heroic quality. The critic ends by asking to be 'signed up' for such a cult of love as once ruled the West, and now survives only in certain echoes.
The critic is right to say that the vision wasn't Ovid's, but that it very much was the troubadour's. Lewis was right, I fear, to say that it was a vision that might die. Yet it need not die; it lies in our power to save it, if we dare.
Our last discussion on Chaucer took an emphatic, and unexpected, turn in the comments. For that reason I'd like to refer to this piece from the Nation on the subject of love.
It mentions feminism, but I'm not at all interested in what the author has to say about that subject. I am interested in the debate with C. S. Lewis.
Lewis considered Ovid to have written the Ars Amatoria as an "amusement," an "ironically didactic" poem that "presupposes an audience to whom love is one of the minor peccadilloes of life, and the joke consists in treating it seriously." Nehring describes Ovid's work as a "first-century self-help book" as well as "the first dating book ever written," though she recognizes that the "rambunctious" Ovid was "forever making fun." She points not to Lewis but unnamed "modern-day editors" who consider the work a "'tongue-in-cheek' parody." She asserts that "Ovid takes his subject seriously," and whether or not he did, it seems worth noting what Lewis sees as the distinction between Ovid's perspective and the troubadours'. According to Lewis, the "conduct which Ovid recommends is felt to be shameful and absurd," butThat love as we know it had been invented by these poets was important, Lewis argued, because that meant it was no product of human nature. What goes one way can go the other; and Lewis warned that love might not survive. There is reason to think we might be living at the end of its life even now.the very same conduct which Ovid ironically recommended could be recommended seriously by the courtly tradition. To leap up on errands, to go through heat or cold, at the bidding of one's lady, or even of any lady, would seem but honourable and natural to a gentleman of the thirteenth century or even of the seventeenth century[.]
"Real changes in human sentiment are very rare--there are perhaps three or four on record--but I believe that they occur, and that this is one of them," Lewis ventures. Earlier he reminds us that "it seems to us natural that love should be the commonest theme of serious imaginative literature: but a glance at classical antiquity or at the Dark Ages at once shows us that what we took for 'nature' is really a special state of affairs, which will probably have an end."The author of the book being reviewed takes a substantial beating from her critic, and it seems she deserves much of it. Her ignorance of C. S. Lewis' argument, when she undertook to dress him down, is the sort of thing that merits an academic beating. (I read another such review recently, Francis Lee Utley's "Chaucer and Patristic Expressions," which reviews D. W. Robertson's A Preface to Chaucer. Utley remarks, "[O]ne is tempted to dismiss it simply as a strange hodgepodge of patristics and puzzle-solving, insulting to the community of scholars and, indeed, to the twentieth century itself." Well, and doubtless it was partly that; the question is whether the twentieth century merited the insult.)
Sixty years later, in The End of the Novel of Love (1997), the critic Vivian Gornick argued that what Lewis prophesied had finally come to pass. When Gornick was a girl, she recalls, the whole world believed in love. This was the Bronx, New York City, sometime around World War II. The mothers had various advice for their daughters about the nature of love and its embodiments of greater or lesser disappointment, but whatever their admonishments, "love" itself was the creed, a simple operating principle in an unpredictable world. "It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor man"; "Don't do like I did. Marry a man you love"; "You're smart, make something of yourself, but always remember, love is the most important thing in a woman's life."
When Gornick was a girl, love wasn't just meaningful--it was the quality that gave life meaning.
Yet our critic is sympathetic to the author's basic view that modern relationships are not love at all, being bland and "safety-checked," and lacking the heroic quality. The critic ends by asking to be 'signed up' for such a cult of love as once ruled the West, and now survives only in certain echoes.
We should embrace love, she tells us, as ecstatic, risky, transgressive, unequal and perhaps violent. It is, she has said, a faith, a demon and a divine madness, but the suffering it induces may be the crucible in which we refine our souls.That vision is just the one I endorse. Tom asked if I might be mad to do so. Well, indeed I might be. A man who follows love may well go mad -- it is one of the most regularly repeated features of the tales. That may be part of the point.
The critic is right to say that the vision wasn't Ovid's, but that it very much was the troubadour's. Lewis was right, I fear, to say that it was a vision that might die. Yet it need not die; it lies in our power to save it, if we dare.
Jim Webb
Jim Webb For President?
Back when he was first running for Senator, I supported Jim Webb. I admired him for his career of service and for his book Born Fighting, which offers a remarkable account of the contribution of the Scots-Irish to the United States of America.
Since his election, I've taken a lot of heat from those of you who didn't support him, and probably rightly so. He hasn't exactly been what I had hoped to see him become, which was a second Zell Miller: we had every reason to hope that he might likewise stand up for Jacksonian principles and the dignity of the conservative Democrat, but instead we've seen some very odd behavior. I don't have a good explanation for how a man of distinguished service, and an insightful author, should prove to be so apparently unstable and unreliable. He has done some good things in Washington, too, like his work on his G. I. bill, but I can't say that I'm as happy with him as I had hoped to be when I supported his candidacy.
So now word comes that the Senator from Virginia is bedeviling President Obama, and that suggests he may be interested in a primary challenge. My thoughts on this are these:
1) Sen. Webb, in spite of his strange behavior, might still represent an improvement. His patriotism and love of country are undeniable, and he would clearly support the nation's interests in foreign policy.
However,
2) His actions over the last few years suggest a certain instability that makes me wonder if he is genuinely fit for the office. Since he would have a full two terms to serve, whereas a re-elected Obama would have only one, there is a concern that his primary challenge might actually succeed.
If I still thought he was the man that I thought he was in 2006, I would be enthusiastic about his candidacy. Now, I'm not even sure if I feel it is a good idea to support him in a primary run against President Obama. Most likely I would, but I have strong reservations about doing so.
What do you think?
Really?
Really?
No, really. College football. It is apparently critical that the US Department of Justice spend time making sure there is an equitable outcome in the ranking of college football teams.
Pop quiz: Which Founding Father was it who said that Federal government would ensure just outcomes in every aspect of life?
Wasn't this story in the Onion a few months ago?
The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday[.]I thought this was a joke when I saw it. "Ha, ha! I get it! Obama thinks the government should be involved in everything! Sure seems that way, but..."
No, really. College football. It is apparently critical that the US Department of Justice spend time making sure there is an equitable outcome in the ranking of college football teams.
Pop quiz: Which Founding Father was it who said that Federal government would ensure just outcomes in every aspect of life?
Public Choices, Public Money
Money and Choice:
Does anyone think the government is going to step in and force Speaker Pelosi to, ah, cut back a bit?
Of course not. She's an important figure in the Inner Party. But surely the rest of us will receive similar treatment?
If I had time I'd write a near-future science fiction novel where all these government benefits prove to be un-cuttable. Rather than forcing us to adopt slimmer lifestyles, it's easier simply to start behaving like the Empire we're always accused of being: using our military might to force other nations to pay tribute to support our benefit programs here at home.
If I'm paying for something, I get to be in charge of how that thing is delivered. Right? Yes, if and only if I am in the market. Once government gets involved... no, they choose.
Consider the following clip, in which Reason's Nick Gillespie has a clash with a very energetic woman who is outraged that he doesn't want the government to step in between us and our kids.
Now, he makes a convincing argument that this is a very good reason to abolish socialized medicine as a concept, and find ways to phase out Medicare and Medicaid over time. Yet I'm not sure he's completely correct to say that the government will use control of the purse to force us to abandon unhealthy behaviors.
For example, what it came to our attention that someone drinks a lot of booze?
Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.Now, not every penny of that grand-a-week is booze, but there's quite a lot of expensive stuff on that list. Who's paying for it? The government.
But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.
Does anyone think the government is going to step in and force Speaker Pelosi to, ah, cut back a bit?
Of course not. She's an important figure in the Inner Party. But surely the rest of us will receive similar treatment?
If I had time I'd write a near-future science fiction novel where all these government benefits prove to be un-cuttable. Rather than forcing us to adopt slimmer lifestyles, it's easier simply to start behaving like the Empire we're always accused of being: using our military might to force other nations to pay tribute to support our benefit programs here at home.
Prophecy and Global Warming
Prophecy in the Modern Age: Economics and Global Warming
Nassim Taleb speaks of a kind of statistical modeling that cannot work. It is what he calls "the Fourth Quadrant." There are three others; they are arranged on a square grid. In the first and third quadrants, decisions are binary: yes or no. In the first and second quadrants, there is very little difference from the mean. That is to say, if you say 'yes' and you are wrong, or if you say 'no' and are wrong, the consequences are not that very different from if you were right.
So, in the third quadrant, there is a great difference between being right and being wrong: but you have a simple, binary decision. Yes, or no.
In the fourth quadrant, the decisions to be made are complex, and also the difference in being right or wrong is great. Mankind does not know how to build models that work in this place, Taleb says. There are two reasons why. The first is that we cannot imagine everything that might affect the model: if we are building a model of the economy, what if there are massive snows that year? How does the model compute the possibility, and account for the costs to production of having various roads closed? Did you even think to include that in your model at all?
The second is that we haven't lived long enough to have reasonable ideas about what probabilities are. If we say that something should happen 'once in a century,' how do we know? By looking at how often that thing has happened before, of course. But how many centuries have we had an industrial society? Less than two? Six, if you are very generous? We have nothing like the data set we'd need to build truly accurate models.
As a result, he says, when you are in the Fourth Quadrant you must stop making models. They don't work, and they can't work. We don't have adequate imaginations to work in every possibility; and even when we successfully imagine the possibilities, we don't have adequate experience to know how to compute the real odds of the thing occurring.
So, we must stop making models in this area: wherever there are complex decisions, and the range of possible outcomes is large.
Taleb has been writing about economics, but it works very well for climate change.
All those models of how the climate works? If Taleb is right, every single one of them is necessarily wrong. His theory, if correct, is a sufficient condition for discarding every single one of them.
People hate this. "All you're telling us is that our models are bad, but we still have to make decisions," they say. "Tell us how to make better models." But he can't do that; the thing to be learned is that no model can work at all here. Prophecy is not to be trusted.
At the least, we must say that we have absolutely no idea whether the models are correct -- nor even a capacity for guessing how likely it is that they are correct.
The whole environmentalist movement is based on Fourth Quadrant models. Rationality says that, unless someone can demonstrate that Taleb is wrong -- and I cannot see any way in which that could be demonstrated even in theory -- we must set every one of those models aside. They are necessarily unreliable, and cannot guide us.
Congratulations to Doc Russia
Congratulations, Doc!
By the way, Doc, what did you decide to name her? You didn't say, although given the lack of sleep that I recall from my own first few weeks as a new father, that's quite understandable.
UPDATE: We raised a toast in the hall tonight to you and yours, Doc. One of us toasted with Hi-C, but I trust you will understand and not mind.
To the lady.
May very great good cheer, and even greater good fortune, follow you and your newborn daughter. He writes:
And before I forget, let me fail to describe what I experienced when I first held her in my arms. Something happened. I cannot describe it, but it was like something reached up out of nothingness, grabbed my very existence and shook it awake.Now here, at least, is a man who fell in love at the first sight of a girl whose rightness is certain. Hail the young lady, and welcome!
By the way, Doc, what did you decide to name her? You didn't say, although given the lack of sleep that I recall from my own first few weeks as a new father, that's quite understandable.
UPDATE: We raised a toast in the hall tonight to you and yours, Doc. One of us toasted with Hi-C, but I trust you will understand and not mind.
To the lady.
Two Visions of Women
Visions of Women:
So, here are the women who are in some respects the chief characters of each tale. The Knight says this of his lady:
And there is another, for whom the woman is 'like a weasel' -- doubtless he means that in a good way -- whose perfection is her form. No detail of her physical body escapes his careful eye, but otherwise he has little to say of her.
Chaucer could capture both views, having the eyes to see both and the ears to hear how different men spoke of women. That's a rare gift. Most of us see only our own way, and are not able to understand that the world looks different to others. His knight had a heart that could be broken; his miller only had eyes.
Geoffrey Chaucer is one of the more interesting voices to survive to us from the Middle Ages. He wrote a great deal about women, who were of obvious interest to him; and well they might be! But he also wrote in the voice of members of many different social classes and stations, and he did so with remarkable clarity. It's easy to imagine that he was really able to see things as his characters might have seen them, and use their own words to describe them.
Here are two descriptions of two women, the first from "The Knight's Tale" and the second from "The Miller's Tale." The Knight is described as a true adventurer and a grim man:
A KNIGHT there was, and what a gentleman,The miller, by contrast, was a thief, a boor, and a drunkard.
Who, from the moment that he first began
To ride about the world, loved chivalry,
Truth, honour, freedom and all courtesy.
Full worthy was he in his sovereign's war...
His steeds were good, but he was not gaily dressed.
A tunic of simple cloth he possesed
Discoloured and stained by his habergeon;
For he had lately returned....
But first I make a protestation roundThis is a story about how a scholar made a cuckold by committing adultery with the wife of a carpenter. It's a ribald story, unlike the Knight's high and noble tale.
That I'm quite drunk, I know it by my sound:
And therefore, if I slander or mis-say,
Blame it on ale of Southwark, so I pray;
For I will tell a legend and a life
Both of a carpenter and of his wife,
And how a scholar set the good wright's cap."
So, here are the women who are in some respects the chief characters of each tale. The Knight says this of his lady:
In honour of the May, and so she rose.And here is the Miller's:
Clothed, she was sweeter than any flower that blows;
Her yellow hair was braided in one tress
Behind her back, a full yard long, I guess.
And in the garden, as the sun up-rose,
She sauntered back and forth and through each close,
Gathering many a flower, white and red,
To weave a delicate garland for her head;
And like a heavenly angel's was her song.
The tower tall, which was so thick and strong,
And of the castle was the great donjon,
(Wherein the two knights languished in prison,
Of whom I told and shall yet tell, withal),
Was joined, at base, unto the garden wall
Whereunder Emily went dallying.
Bright was the sun and clear that morn in spring,
And Palamon, the woeful prisoner,
As was his wont, by leave of his jailor,
Was up and pacing round that chamber high,
From which the noble city filled his eye,
And, too, the garden full of branches green,
Wherein bright Emily, fair and serene,
Went walking and went roving up and down.
This sorrowing prisoner, this Palamon,
Being in the chamber, pacing to and fro,
And to himself complaining of his woe,
Cursing his birth, he often cried "Alas!"
And so it was, by chance or other pass,
That through a window, closed by many a bar
Of iron, strong and square as any spar,
He cast his eyes upon Emilia,
And thereupon he blenched and cried out "Ah!"
As if he had been beaten to the heart.
Fair was this youthful wife, and therewithalIt's a fair bit of art, to capture the distance between those views so well. Here is one, who takes but little notice of the elements of beauty -- the long hair is mentioned, and not much else of the physical. It is "bright Emily," whose image burns a man's heart and strikes him down. In the next piece of the story, he goes on to declare to his companion that he is unsure if he has seen a woman, or a goddess walking the garden.
As weasel's was her body slim and small.
A girdle wore she, barred and striped, of silk.
An apron, too, as white as morning milk
About her loins, and full of many a gore;
White was her smock, embroidered all before
And even behind, her collar round about,
Of coal-black silk, on both sides, in and out;
The strings of the white cap upon her head
Were, like her collar, black silk worked with thread,
Her fillet was of wide silk worn full high:
And certainly she had a lickerish eye.
She'd thinned out carefully her eyebrows two,
And they were arched and black as any sloe.
She was a far more pleasant thing to see
Than is the newly budded young pear-tree;
And softer than the wool is on a wether.
Down from her girdle hung a purse of leather,
Tasselled with silk, with latten beading sown.
In all this world, searching it up and down,
So gay a little doll, I well believe,
Or such a wench, there's no man can conceive.
Far brighter was the brilliance of her hue
Than in the Tower the gold coins minted new.
And songs came shrilling from her pretty head
As from a swallow's sitting on a shed.
Therewith she'd dance too, and could play and sham
Like any kid or calf about its dam.
Her mouth was sweet as bragget or as mead
Or hoard of apples laid in hay or weed.
Skittish she was as is a pretty colt,
Tall as a staff and straight as cross-bow bolt.
A brooch she wore upon her collar low,
As broad as boss of buckler did it show;
Her shoes laced up to where a girl's legs thicken.
And there is another, for whom the woman is 'like a weasel' -- doubtless he means that in a good way -- whose perfection is her form. No detail of her physical body escapes his careful eye, but otherwise he has little to say of her.
Chaucer could capture both views, having the eyes to see both and the ears to hear how different men spoke of women. That's a rare gift. Most of us see only our own way, and are not able to understand that the world looks different to others. His knight had a heart that could be broken; his miller only had eyes.
Oddly Enough
The Original:
Oddly enough, I was just watching the original of that video a few minutes ago. As a service to any readers who haven't seen the original -- since it happens to be readily available in my internet history -- here it is:
UPDATE: Actually, since we have quite a few readers who won't have any idea what a Bushmaster ACR is, here's this too:
Exit question: Why would they keep the 5.56mm as standard, in a weapon that can readily switch between several calibers? NATO, of course. So how much is NATO worth these days, compared to having a better round?
Bill Competition
Uh-Oh: Bill T's Got Some Competition
Not to suggest that I approve of such humor, but the wag commenting on this post deserves some kind of a prize. Perhaps a marmoset.
George Bernard Shaw
George Bernard Shaw:
Chesterton said many things about Shaw, but he felt his best was this:
I was looking through Arts & Letters Daily in the hope that they'd have a nice collection of Zinn obituaries for our reading pleasure. However, what I found instead was an old movie of "The World's Outstanding Literary Genius," George Bernard Shaw.
Complete with praise for Mussolini's 'kindly nature'!
But confer with this, starting at the four minute mark (h/t Dad29):
Now, how great a 'genius' do you have to be to appreciate that? But at least you know why he was giving the fascist salute. That part was merely playful. The rest appears to have been in deadly earnest.
G. K. Chesterton and Shaw managed to be great friends, plying their considerable wits against one another.
Chesterton: I see there has been a famine in the land.They also had remarkable debates that infuriated much of the population and interested other parts of it. Perhaps it was easier to take Mr. Shaw's remarks on having 'gentlemanly gas chambers' as merely a transgressive idea before certain regimes began actually to employ that idea. Yet Chesterton did not do so: he said that he thought Shaw was the most serious of men, that 'even his jokes are serious.' Fortunately, perhaps, Chesterton died before the reality of his friend's ideas was laid bare before the world.
Shaw: And I see the cause of it.
Shaw: If I were as fat as you, I would hang myself.
Chesterton: If I were to hang myself, I would use you for the rope.
Chesterton said many things about Shaw, but he felt his best was this:
And there is no more subtle truth than that of the everyday phrase about a man having "his heart in the right place." It involves the idea of normal proportion; not only does a certain function exist, but it is rightly related to other functions. Indeed, the negation of this phrase would describe with peculiar accuracy the somewhat morbid mercy and perverse tenderness of the most representative moderns. If, for instance, I had to describe with fairness the character of Mr. Bernard Shaw, I could not express myself more exactly than by saying that he has a heroically large and generous heart; but not a heart in the right place.It ought to be terrifying to see just how far a "heroically large and generous heart" can carry you.
Loser
Giving the Lie, Again:
The opposition party gets to respond formally at the end of the speech, so a certain amount of political grandstanding towards them is fine. (Less fine: calling your opponents liars to their faces, then acting like you're the one who deserves an apology when they give you the lie right back.)
The Supreme Court has no such opportunity to speak directly to the People. They may not, by protocol, even applaud things they like from the President's speech, nor stand to applaud, nor cheer. They are supposed to be outside of politics, and they cannot answer the blow.
It does not help that the President's claim about just what they had done was a... well, it was 'not true.'
The Justices did not deserve to be treated in that way. It was an honorless insult, and a cowardly act.
The President slammed the Supreme Court to its face last night.
Nearly every president finds something to criticize about the Supreme Court, but not every one gets to do it to the justices’ faces, on national television, in the State of the Union speech.Actually, pretty much every President has the chance to do it, since the Supreme Court normally has at least one member present. The fact that it doesn't usually happen has to do with the fact that it's cowardly and unfit to strike someone who cannot strike back.
The opposition party gets to respond formally at the end of the speech, so a certain amount of political grandstanding towards them is fine. (Less fine: calling your opponents liars to their faces, then acting like you're the one who deserves an apology when they give you the lie right back.)
The Supreme Court has no such opportunity to speak directly to the People. They may not, by protocol, even applaud things they like from the President's speech, nor stand to applaud, nor cheer. They are supposed to be outside of politics, and they cannot answer the blow.
It does not help that the President's claim about just what they had done was a... well, it was 'not true.'
The Justices did not deserve to be treated in that way. It was an honorless insult, and a cowardly act.
Pope and Patriarch
Pope and Patriarch:
Sometimes, though, things can go the other way. A Christianity that is set upon by external pressures may start to cling together more than it did at other times. One might not be so shocked to see it start to pull together; and from that, it would not be shocking to see it flower anew.
Here is an amazing story about people who may really fix a social problem that is many centuries old. (H/t: Dad29.)
The international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches started discussing this text in Paphos, on the island of Cyprus, from October 16-23, 2009.This is one of those things like having discussions between the United States and England over us rejoining the Commonwealth. You'd tend to think that there's just no possibility that an egg so badly broken can be restored.
It has started to examine the preaching of Peter and Paul in Rome, their martyrdom and the presence of their tombs in Rome, which for Irenaeus of Lyons confers preeminent authority on the apostolic Roman see.
From there, the discussion continued by examining the letter of Pope Clement to the Christians of Corinth, the testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who identifies the Church of Rome as the one that "presides in charity," the role of popes Anicetus and Victor in the controversy surrounding the date of Easter, the positions of St. Cyprian of Carthage in the controversy over whether or not to rebaptize the "lapsi," meaning the Christians who had sacrificed to idols in order to save their lives.
The intention is to understand to what extent the form that the primacy of the bishop of Rome had in the first millennium can act as a model for a rediscovered unity between East and West in the third millennium of the Christian era.
In the middle, however, there has been a second millennium in which the primacy of the pope was interpreted and lived, in the West, in increasingly accentuated forms, far from the ones that the Churches of the East are willing to accept today.
And this will be the critical point of the discussion. But the delegations from the two sides are not afraid to face it. Benedict XVI himself said this last January 20[.]
Sometimes, though, things can go the other way. A Christianity that is set upon by external pressures may start to cling together more than it did at other times. One might not be so shocked to see it start to pull together; and from that, it would not be shocking to see it flower anew.
Book Review
The Time It Never Rained:
What I find odd is how many of the people are in the South, outside of urban areas. I realize that the rural South is poor, but it's a good place for growing food -- one would think that there would be less need for rural Southerners to buy food. Even poor, you'd expect that they would (as we do) substitute much of their food needs out of what they can produce.
Freakonomics says that may not be true:
Seeds are not that expensive, if you're talking about 'enough food to feed a family of four,' for example. Many things like seed cups can be made out of re-used jars or other things that might have been thrown away (soda cans? Yogurt cups? Paper cups?). If you're starting with the model of making an expensive luxury item like ice cream, sure; but if you're just talking about staples, of course we can grow them cheaply at home. This is how most people live worldwide, where population density is often much higher.
It's also how we used to do things here, before the idea came along that the government would pay you to do nothing. Charity is a great virtue, when it comes to helping those who can't help themselves. I'd hate to think that one in fifty Americans really can't, and some of them living on good earth that could bring up corn or wheat, vegetables, fruits and peppers.
Folks in the cities, sure, I understand you can't grow your own food. I grew up in poor, rural Georgia though, and I know perfectly well that most of us could.
Joel Leggett has posted a short book review of a story about a man who refuses to take Federal handouts. I remember this story from the New York Times about people who live on nothing but food stamps:
About six million Americans receiving food stamps report they have no other income, according to an analysis of state data collected by The New York Times....The map breaks down the data in several different ways.
Their numbers were rising before the recession as tougher welfare laws made it harder for poor people to get cash aid, but they have soared by about 50 percent over the past two years. About one in 50 Americans now lives in a household with a reported income that consists of nothing but a food-stamp card.
What I find odd is how many of the people are in the South, outside of urban areas. I realize that the rural South is poor, but it's a good place for growing food -- one would think that there would be less need for rural Southerners to buy food. Even poor, you'd expect that they would (as we do) substitute much of their food needs out of what they can produce.
Freakonomics says that may not be true:
Is it cheaper to grow your own food? It’s not impossible but, as my little ice cream story above illustrates, there are huge inefficiencies at work here. Pretend that instead of just me making ice cream last weekend, it was all 100 people who live in my building. Now we’ve collectively spent $1,200 to each have a few scoops of ice cream. Let’s say you decide to plant a big vegetable garden this year to save money. Now factor in everything you need to buy to make it happen — the seeds, fertilizer, sprout cups, twine, tools, etc. — along with the transportation costs and the opportunity cost. Are you sure you really saved money by growing your own zucchini and corn? And what if 1,000 of your neighbors did the same?I have trouble buying that. Specialization is efficient, yes, if there is work to do. However, there aren't really any "opportunity costs" if you're otherwise unemployed. This is true especially in a region like rural Kentucky where there are few new jobs coming online, so there's little reason to devote a lot of time to looking for work.
Seeds are not that expensive, if you're talking about 'enough food to feed a family of four,' for example. Many things like seed cups can be made out of re-used jars or other things that might have been thrown away (soda cans? Yogurt cups? Paper cups?). If you're starting with the model of making an expensive luxury item like ice cream, sure; but if you're just talking about staples, of course we can grow them cheaply at home. This is how most people live worldwide, where population density is often much higher.
It's also how we used to do things here, before the idea came along that the government would pay you to do nothing. Charity is a great virtue, when it comes to helping those who can't help themselves. I'd hate to think that one in fifty Americans really can't, and some of them living on good earth that could bring up corn or wheat, vegetables, fruits and peppers.
Folks in the cities, sure, I understand you can't grow your own food. I grew up in poor, rural Georgia though, and I know perfectly well that most of us could.
Who Are You?
"Who Are You?"
From the archives, October, 2008:
"The most dangerous question Sen. Obama has ever had to face is, 'Who are you?'"
From the New York Times, today:
"Who is Barack Obama?"
The danger isn't, though, the one that Bob Herbert expects: that we'll answer the question for him in a way that will be a negative for his agenda.
The danger is that there may be no answer at all.
Potential Disruption
Potential Disruption:
Apparently my beloved Haloscan comments system is dying. I've been told that we (along with all other Haloscan users) will see it end on 10 FEB.
The company that took them over is called Echo, and they say they are willing to let me try their system for free for 30 days. You can see an example of an Echo comment system here.
I can also export the comments (actually, I did that already this evening), to be imported to another system later. Complication: no other system is currently designed to import old Haloscan comments, so there's no guarantee I'd be able to do that.
The comments are the most important part of this operation, since there's much less of value in what I have to say than in the pleasure of conversing with this fine company. So, take a look at the Echo blog, if you would, and see if you can stand it. If not, we'll try something else.
Suggestions? Hit the comments (while they're still there!).
I Love Fight Club
I Love Fight Club References:
So, regarding Mr. Klein, the question is are you Tyler Durden? (h/t Indy.)
Not nearly.
The thing, though, is that Mr. Klein and company really ought to be afraid of those of us who might be. We don't really need them. The country doesn't need them. Our civilization doesn't need them. We can tear this thing down any time we want to, because it depends on us.
It doesn't depend on Time magazine writers. The ones who have fought for it, built it, know how it works? Well, that was Tyler's point when he spoke to the mayor: we're the ones they depend on.
It's best not to mess with us.
Pirates v. Ninjas
Pirates v. Ninjas: Presidential Edition
Now, what I'd like to see is the presidents v. Congress. That would be entertainment.
I wasn't going to post this over the top of Eric's tribute to the late Jean Simmons, but with the Peasant to serve as a buffer, I think it's safe.
Via Southern Appeal:
So let’s get it on: 43 men enter, one man leaves. No “over the top rope” battle royale, because Taft and Cleveland would have an unfair advantage. All men are at the physical peak of their presidency, because Wilson deserves a chance. No firearms.I think it's Old Hickory, easy. He beat the Creeks, the Seminoles, the British veterans of Waterloo, and fought 13 duels besides.
We are sticking with the classics: 43 men on a remote island, forced to fight to the death in a series of individual battles with a soundtrack by Stan Bush. It will be called Beyond Capitoldome, and it will cost $49.95 on pay-per-view. Who wins?
Now, what I'd like to see is the presidents v. Congress. That would be entertainment.
Dennis the Peasant tears Joe Klein a new hole. (warning: strong language)
Richly deserved, I might add.
Richly deserved, I might add.
Normblog had 3 interesting posts today:
1. He notes the passing of the actress Jean Simmons. As Grim has a habit of noting the cultural ideals and what not of classic Hollywood films, it seems appropriate to note some of Simmons' movies:
Guys and Dolls
I have a soft spot for this movie, having been in the play in high school. Marlon Brando, unfortunately, cannot carry a tune to save his life.
The Robe
Nice smile as there as they're being led off to get martyred. This is the sort of movie that nobody would get caught dead making anymore, but seemed to be a staple of 1950's Hollywood.
Elmer Gantry
This is a interesting film that can be looked at a number of ways. I'll leave it each to get what they want from it.
But it shows I think, how Simmons was one of those 'visions of beauty' that Grim was on about.
RIP
2. Norm also notes Martin Amis behaving badly. Pleading it was 'just satire' is both weak and craven.
3. Norm also notes the British government behaving badly. Which I suppose, is nothing particularly new, but as he notes, the cynicism is rich. Neat trick if you can pull it off.
1. He notes the passing of the actress Jean Simmons. As Grim has a habit of noting the cultural ideals and what not of classic Hollywood films, it seems appropriate to note some of Simmons' movies:
Guys and Dolls
I have a soft spot for this movie, having been in the play in high school. Marlon Brando, unfortunately, cannot carry a tune to save his life.
The Robe
Nice smile as there as they're being led off to get martyred. This is the sort of movie that nobody would get caught dead making anymore, but seemed to be a staple of 1950's Hollywood.
Elmer Gantry
This is a interesting film that can be looked at a number of ways. I'll leave it each to get what they want from it.
But it shows I think, how Simmons was one of those 'visions of beauty' that Grim was on about.
RIP
2. Norm also notes Martin Amis behaving badly. Pleading it was 'just satire' is both weak and craven.
3. Norm also notes the British government behaving badly. Which I suppose, is nothing particularly new, but as he notes, the cynicism is rich. Neat trick if you can pull it off.
Situation #1
Situation #1:
Looks like the evidence is coming hard and fast, which is suggestive of a 1 or 3 situation rather than a 2 (see comments of the post below). Per Bthun, here's some circumstantial evidence pointing to "an international PR firm."
They mention the "Ethan Winner Affair" in the post. What is forgotten about that, but was the most important part of the story, was that the connection between that matter and the government of France.
That would explain the regularity of the Baltimore Chronicle being targeted. The Chronicle is ideal if one of your overarching goals is moving America to yield some of its sovereign authority to the ICC (as is a standing front-page goal of the Chronicle's).
So: although this evidence is circumstantial, I'd say it creates an even stronger probability of a #1 situation (which was always the most likely of the three).
What remains is to finish proving it, and then decide what to do about it beyond making it public knowledge. It might be hard to make a criminal case out of it, for example; which part is illegal?
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia:
Patterico asks a question:
Ed Morrissey forwarded me an e-mail he received from Ellie Light several days ago. The mail appears to have been routed through the IP address 212.24.236.50, which comes back to Saudi Arabia.Actually, there's another question that's just as interesting if we assume "Ellie Light" is really writing from Saudi Arabia. Either way, it's a mystery that requires some explanation; though, if it is merely foreign allies of the President's attempting an information operation on his behalf, but without his knowledge, there's nothing illegal about it.
Saudi Arabia??
I assume this is some sort of masking or spoofing device and not the actual location of “Ellie Light.” Which makes you wonder: why does a grandma writing letters on behalf of Obama use an IP spoofer?
Bendigo Shafter 4-23
Grim's Hall Book Club: Bendigo Shafter, Chapters 4-23
At this point Bendigo is reading Montaigne, while trying to show mercy to a man who wants to kill him. This is also a culture clash: there is no reason to believe that the indian would do the same for him. It is Christian ethics that drives him here -- L'amour makes only passing references to the religious meetings the town holds, but never shows us one. The religion is a background influence, present and powerful but not in the foreground of consciousness.
There is a discussion of theology in this section, though: the point where Indians are said to be unmentioned in the Bible, and Bendigo points out that the Bible doesn't mention the English either. L'amour views the proper role of religion as humane, and is annoyed by religious prejudice, whether it is toward Mormons or Indians or just people in the community who are different.
How does this comport with your own view of the proper role of religion?
The rest of this section is taken up with the beginnings of the cattle drive. We see that the reputation of his town has spread. A lot of time passes here with only a few words, so when the letter reaches him at the end of this section, it reminds us that he's been gone for months. While he has been gone, things are changing at home.
We start right off with an examination of the culture clash between the Indians and the Americans.
No Indian could get a wife or be counted a warrior until he had taken a scalp, and Indians were celebrated among themselves for their victories, just as were the knights at King Arthur's court.While that is true for at least some of the Indian nations, it doesn't hold for all of them. What L'amour does here is provide a frontiersman's viewpoint, I think; but it is important also to realize how much we changed the Indians we encountered. The Lakota changed rapidly with the introduction of the horse, becoming a power that swept the plains of many other nations. The Commanche achieved their almost imperial power in part because of their relations with the Spanish in Mexico and points south. The greatest of the Indian nations became powerful because of their interactions with the West; that was where they absorbed the wealth and power to go on to conquer their neighbors. The standard narrative -- that the Indian was there, more or less unchanged, until the White Man came to steal his land -- ignores that fact entirely. The great nations had only just finished stealing that same land from someone else, using horses or rifles or wealth that they got through trading with Europeans. The powerful, city-based Indians that De Soto had discovered on his voyage were already gone, collapsing either through disease or their own internal wars.
At this point Bendigo is reading Montaigne, while trying to show mercy to a man who wants to kill him. This is also a culture clash: there is no reason to believe that the indian would do the same for him. It is Christian ethics that drives him here -- L'amour makes only passing references to the religious meetings the town holds, but never shows us one. The religion is a background influence, present and powerful but not in the foreground of consciousness.
There is a discussion of theology in this section, though: the point where Indians are said to be unmentioned in the Bible, and Bendigo points out that the Bible doesn't mention the English either. L'amour views the proper role of religion as humane, and is annoyed by religious prejudice, whether it is toward Mormons or Indians or just people in the community who are different.
How does this comport with your own view of the proper role of religion?
The rest of this section is taken up with the beginnings of the cattle drive. We see that the reputation of his town has spread. A lot of time passes here with only a few words, so when the letter reaches him at the end of this section, it reminds us that he's been gone for months. While he has been gone, things are changing at home.
What is that old saying about a woman scorned?
I wonder if it was worth it.
On first glance, it could be the ultimate Valentine's Day card -- a gigantic billboard that towers over New York's Times Square, featuring a happy couple with the text: "You are my soulmate forever, Charles & YaVaughnie."
But as every scorned lover knows, looks can be deceiving. This billboard -- which also has gone up in Atlanta and San Francisco -- is the ultimate act of revenge -- a very public retaliation by a dumped mistress aimed at a very wealthy, and married, businessman who is an adviser to President Obama.
I wonder if it was worth it.
The Passenger
The Passenger:
I was going back through some old archives tonight. A few months ago, Eric posted this video, which has a lot to do with the "vision of beauty" that once defined our nation.
If there is a clear message in it, it is this: There is joy in a life boldly lived; and yet we are all going to pass, and therefore die. God save us!
And, given that, let's ride.
UPDATE: For the ladies, and the brave ones: Cassandra calls.
"Let's see what's mine." What is?
UPDATE: Looking through that video this morning, I realize that the sense of 'we are all going to pass' is something that comes from sitting in a place where all of these things have passed. At the time they made these films, they were meant to be vibrant statements of how to live now.
In some ways, we learn from our place in this late hour. They were right about how to live. We'll be gone someday, as they are now, and should try to leave such a legacy. 76. Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies one's self;
But a noble name will never die,
If good renown one gets.
77. Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies one's self;
One thing I know that never dies,
The fame of a dead man's deeds.
Grim's Tour Guide to Iraq
Grim's Tour Guide to Iraq:
Oh, well. Did you want to live forever?
Hey, I've been to several of these places!
Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination, study finds.For example, here I am at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Facility just about a year ago:
Oh, well. Did you want to live forever?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)