Continuing the theme.

Submitted for your listening pleasure, because, unlike the music of most bands formed in the ‘70s, Jethro Tull’s was meant to be *listened* to rather than danced to. The songs tell stories. They’re meant to draw you to the tale-teller on an individual basis as a listener rather than a participant – which, I guess, is the reason Jethro Tull never caught on with the “I Didn’t Understand The Words, But I Can Dance To It” Crowd™.

Eric gave you a plethora of riches from Steeleye Span, and bade you choose one or all, as suited you.

I’ll give you only two, but these are of my choosing. Moths, the first selection, throws an interesting twist to Grim’s question: “If you did this song on an electric guitar, it would be more interesting and better than any 'dude music.' How much of that is the viewpoint, and how much is the music itself?”

The music is complex and mixes modern instruments with old – Ian Anderson is credited with being the first to introduce the flute into Rock, and the only musician to use it as the lead instrument – and the lyrics would not be out of place at gentlefolks’ table.

No visual, but the sound quality is the best of those I previewed, and I previewed for the *listening*.

Of course, if I thought your attention span was as short as mine, I might have

Hmmmmmm.

Ummmm – anybody know where was I going with this?

And the first moths of summer
suicidal came
to join in the worship
of the light that never dies
in a moment's reflection
of two moths spinning in her eyes.

The second is Broadsword. The music has a more dramatic theme, and the choice of instruments – still a mix of old and new -- reflects it. The lyrics are those of a warrior lord – instructions to his squire, prayers before battle followed by orders to his soldiers as to the location of the battlefield and their formation on it. Although the melody wouldn't be out of place today, the words would be anachronistic -- and probably abhorrent -- to a typical modern audience.

And, as befits a heroic tale, some heroic scenery. The volume isn’t the best, but the words are clear, and the viewing doesn't detract from the listening.

Tull and Tolkein. I think JRR would approve.

Bring me my broadsword and clear understanding.
Bring me my cross of gold as a talisman.
Bless with a hard heart those who surround me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind. Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on for the motherland.

Universal themes frozen in a moment.

Thoughts?

There is an embarrassment of riches with Steeleye Span.


From the album "Below the Salt":

King Henry


Gaudete (this was a #1 hit in the UK)


Royal Forester


John Barleycorn


From the album "Parcel of Rogues", Came Ye Oer' From France (I think this is is about the '15, not the '45)


To compare, the same song by the Corries:


From the album "Ten Man Mop", Captain Coulston:


From the Album "Please to See the King", Cold haily, windy rainy night:


From the album "Rocket Cottage", Fighting for Strangers:


From the album "Hark the Village Wait", The Lowlands of Holland:


One of my favorites: "All around my Hat" (for you levellers out there) with video of Maddy in full cry:


I think this is from the album "Please to See the King", Female Drummer:


If you can't find something there that pleases, then yer dead.

Dude Music

"Dude Music"

Actually, I hate this stuff too.

This is what I call “dude music.” To clarify, just because music is made by men doesn’t mean it’s dude music. And just because music is made by women doesn’t mean it’s not dude music. No, dude music is music that prioritizes the status quo, that prioritize men’s voices, men’s experiences, and the experiences of people in power and who benefit from the current power structures in our society. Dude music is music that can ever be described as “noodling.” Dude music is post-rock, and prog-rock, and rock that exists not to say anything, but to showcase how awesome the men in the band are at playing guitar. Dude music is music that has nothing to offer people who are disenfranchised or oppressed, because it either is totally uninterested in their disenfranchisement/oppression, or actively profits from it. Dude music is “I went to your concert and I didn’t feel anything.”

I wouldn't say it was wrong to write a song that 'prioritizes men's voices/experiences,' but I also don't think it's wrong to write a song that prioritizes a woman's. One artist might do one and another artist the other without fault; although, perhaps, the best artist might be able to do both. That aside, this entire branch of music is horrible, and she's right to dislike it.

Could it be improved by including women's viewpoints more? Well... that's another question. Let's examine it. On the one hand, a 'dude music' version of "Watkin's Ale" would still be more interesting than anything being written in this genre. I'm going to give you two versions of it, one with a female singer and one with a male. (The female version has the lyrics in subtitles.)





The viewpoint does make a difference. The maiden gets some good lines: "What do you care?" "Your ale, I see, runs very low." It also offers a warning that the women are in a peril that the young men are not, because of the reality of pregnancy, and the ability of the man to simply walk away. The song (as Renaissance and Medieval bawdy songs often do) ends up expressing a moral that is somewhat conventional; but it doesn't show the "maiden" as a wicked or unpleasant person for allowing herself to become pregnant.

This may be an example of a balanced song. The song doesn't really 'prioritize the experience' of either men or women; it's a song about a man and a woman, showing them being young and foolish. It shows the man as being irresponsible and the woman as saddled with the consequences, but that's the reality of anonymous sex. The song can be sung well by men or women.

So, this is a set of advantages it has over modern music. There's another, though: it's just better music. If you take the vocals out entirely, and just look at the music itself, it's objectively better than the 'dude' music that she's talking about. It's more complex, takes more skill, and is composed in a way that more naturally harmonizes with our nature. That is, it's easy to find people who are bored or irritated by 'dude music,' or country music, or hip-hop, or any of the modern 'dance' musics. This kind of music is just naturally pleasant; whether it's "great music" or "folk music," the music itself is really better.

If you did this song on an electric guitar, it would be more interesting and better than any 'dude music.' How much of that is the viewpoint, and how much is the music itself?

Well, I suppose the test for that would be to take a 'dude music' piece and set it to better music. How much would it be improved? Probably this would only serve to make clear just how horrible the lyric writing is: the kind of lyrics these bands write would only deface music of this quality.

I think we have to give the point to the lady. What do you think?

Thank You, Mr. President

Thank You, Mr. President:

We should be ashamed.

President Barack Obama struck a hyperpartisan note Thursday, telling Democrats that he was "amused" by the Tax Day Tea Party rallies.

Obama, addressing a Democratic National Committee (DNC) fundraiser in Miami, did little to endear himself to the Tea Party groups protesting around the country, saying "they should be saying thank you" because of the tax cuts he has signed into law.

I'm glad you're amused. Also, thank you for being so concerned about our taxes.

A Repeat

"The Boys Won't Leave The Girls Alone"

We did this one a few months ago, but it's worth a repeat.



After the title is given, the man says: "Thank God." And indeed.

CCP Dies

The Death of the CCP:

World Affairs Journal considers the fate of the Chinese Communist Party. They share our view (mine and Eric's, that is) that China isn't quite the rising power that it's said to be in much of the press; its days are numbered.

Seriously?

Seriously?

This is genuinely hard to believe.

Last week Jonathan Allen at Politico reported that the Democrats in Congress might not pass a budget resolution this year. "Indeed, some Democratic insiders suspect that leaders will skip the budget process altogether this year — a way to avoid the political unpleasantness of voting on spending, deficits and taxes in an election year — or simply go through a few of the motions, without any real effort to complete the work," Allen wrote. "If the House does not pass a first version of the budget resolution, it will be the first time since the implementation of the 1974 Budget Act, which governs the modern congressional budgeting process."

So what does that mean?

The practical consequences of failing to produce a federal budget for next year are about the same as they are for a family that doesn’t set a plan for income and spending: Congress doesn’t need a budget to tax or spend, but enforcing discipline is harder without one. And, like a family that misses out on efficiencies because it hasn’t taken a hard look at its finances, Congress can’t use reconciliation rules to cut the deficit if the House and the Senate don’t adopt the same budget.

So they give up reconciliation; that is the tool that allows them to pass laws on a 51-49 vote instead of a 61-39 vote. Why would that be rational?

If you already expect to lose the Senate this year, it makes sense. It means your opponents can't use reconciliation when they are in the majority.

Underfunded Public Pensions

Underfunded Public Pensions:

Are you fully satisfied with the quality of public education in our country today? Soon, it'll get worse!

Although it is generally acknowledged that education is the foundation of every modern society’s future prosperity, schools unfortunately will have to compete with retirees for scarce dollars. This competition is uneven, because retirees have a legal claim on promised pension benefits that supersedes schools’ budgetary needs. Consequently, Americans can look forward to higher taxes and cuts in services, resulting in fewer teachers, bigger classes, and facilities that are allowed to deteriorate. In several states, these developments have already arrived.

So: we'll soon be paying $933 billion dollars more for retirees not to teach, at the expense of hiring and funding paying active teachers.

That's no problem, though, because there's an infinite supply of money in the world. Stuff grows on trees.

Fertility In the Spring

Spring Fertility:

Of course, to optimize the result, you'll have to enjoy some beer too.

Up the Militia: Ancient Britain

Up the Militia: Ancient Britain

One of the things we've talked about from time to time, over the years, is how effective a militia is (and is not). On the one hand, the Saxon "hue and cry" system worked reasonably well; on the other hand, there is the Battle of Maldon. At least at Maldon, though, the 'militia' was made up of men who were trained as warriors. George Washington's difficulty with the militia, which Eric normally mentions when we talk about this subject, was not unique.

For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth describes how a militia was raised to fight the raiders in Albany, near the wall. The speech was stirring; the results were not.

Hesperion

Hespèrion:

Neil Armstrong Speaks

Neil Armstrong Speaks:

A name that was, to my boyhood self, greater than Odysseus' or almost any other you could name -- he has spoken today. I honestly hadn't thought of him in years; I didn't know he was even still alive.

There will come a time -- I trust and hope -- when space matters again, in a way it has ceased to seem to matter now. We are fools to pass it up, for any reason.

Warning

A Warning Sign:

Among the military, the number of Republicans declines sharply. They aren't becoming Democrats: they're becoming independents.

One of the great stabilizing forces of our country has been the two party system. If you don't like Party A, try Party B. Because you can always elect someone of Party B (Scott Brown!), that keeps disputes within the realm of politics. Third parties aren't like that.

If the uniformed military is rejecting the two party system, we're in for an interesting ride.

What on earth is this?

What On Earth Is This?

Here is a musical instrument I have never seen before.



It's obviously got a 'drone,' like a bagpipe; and clearly the crank is being used to generate air pressure. Anyone know what this is, or what it's history might be?

UPDATE: Apparently it's called a "hurdy gurdy." The drone is right, but those keys that look like valves aren't releasing air pressure; the wheel is moving against strings that the keys are modulating (except the 'drone strings'). I've seen the words "hurdy gurdy" before, but not the instrument!



This tune is the "horse brawl" (Branle des chevaux).

The Pope Should What Now?

Why Should the Pope Stand Trial?

Dr. Richard Dawkins opines that the Pope should stand trial for... well, see for yourself.

Pope Benedict XVI is the head of the institution as a whole, but we can't blame the present head for what was done before his watch. Except that in his particular case, as archbishop of Munich and as Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (what used to be called the Inquisition), the very least you can say is that there is a case for him to answer...

It is completely clear that, together with a nod to the welfare of the "young" priest, Ratzinger's primary concern, and the reason he refused to unfrock Kiesle (who went on to re-offend) was "the good of the universal church".

Dr. Dawkins' interest in this matter is what? He's an atheist, so it's not that he is a stakeholder in Catholicism. He's a biologist by training. Why is he interested in this?

A good reason to be interested would be care and concern for the victims. Is that his motivation?

If it is, fine for him. But it seems it is more likely, given his work and extensive writing on the subject, that he is riding his anti-religion hobby horse. His motivation, in other words, would then not be the good of the victims, but "the harm of the universal church."

If then-Cardinal Ratzinger's decisions on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were wrong in this matter, it was not because of having an interest in "the good of the universal church." At least he was working for the good, rather than the harm, of something valued by more than a billion people. No, his fault was in putting that good above justice; and indeed, perhaps in misunderstanding where "the good" really lay.

In using the victims as a means to pursue his own agenda, Dr. Dawkins is guilty of every moral failing he accuses the Pope of having. You might say, "Well, but he is merely opining; the Pope was responsible," but that isn't right either: Dawkins is offering to use his status as a citizen to enforce an arrest, which means that he is assuming a responsible role. He assures us he is serious about it. He must, then, be held to account for how he uses the power he claims.

Militia

The Militia:

There's nothing wrong with state lawmakers organizing a militia. As long as you don't....

...some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.... the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates.

Well, it can't.

Article I of the US Constitution holds that Congress has the power:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II states:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So, the state has a perfect right to form a militia. However, Congress has the power to call that militia into Federal service, which places them under the direct command of the President of the United States.

You simply cannot Constitutionally create a state militia for the purpose of resisting the Federal government. The Constitution clearly establishes the authority of the Federal government to command any such militias, explicitly in the case of insurrection.

Sparkling Water

Sparkling Water in the Spring:

Mine Is An Evil Laugh

BWHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha.

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law.

Allahpundit adds, "Who knew that when Pelosi said they’d have to pass the bill so that people could find out what’s in it, 'people' meant Congress?"

Interesting

Interesting:

It's become a working assumption of our culture that there are real differences between men and women, but that racism is really a sort of falsehood that we carry around with us. An odd report lends some credence to the idea that might be the case.

Never has a human population been found that has no racial stereotypes. Not in other cultures or far-flung countries. Nor among tiny tots or people with various psychological conditions.

Until now.

Children with Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that makes them lack normal social anxiety, have no racial biases. They do, however, traffic in gender stereotypes, said study researcher Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg of the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

So, a disorder can block racial prejudice; but people continue to recognize and impute importance to sex differences even here.

Which, by the way, what are the "gender stereotypes" at work here?

That is, 99 percent of the 40 children studied pointed to pictures of girls when asked who played with dolls and chose boys when asked, say, who likes toy cars.

Unlike the racial stereotype questions, that is a question with a fairly high predictive value. The probability of X given Y is the test here: does the probability of a child being naughty (X) vary substantially given their race (Y)? Not that I know of, factoring for socioeconomic differences. Yet the probability of playing with dolls instead of cars (X) really does vary substantially given sex (Y). While far from a perfect predictor, sex does offer substantial predictive value here.

That's why the race questions are questions about prejudice. In order to test whether they are prejudiced about sex -- rather than merely performing rational calculations, as well as a child might be expected to do -- we'd need similar questions. Yet sex proves to be a reasonable predictor for "naughtiness" too!

A Paradox of Defense

A Paradox of Defense:

George Silver, a seventeenth century gentleman, wrote:

Set two unskillful men together at the rapier and dagger, being valiant, and you shall see, that once in two bouts there shall either one or both of them be hurt. Then set two skillful men together, being valiant at the rapier and dagger, and they shall do the like. Then set a skillful rapier and dagger man, the best that can be had, and valiant man having no skill together at rapier & dagger, and once in two bouts upon my credit in all the experience I have in fight, the unskillful man, do the other what he can for his life for the contrary, shall hurt him, and most commonly if it were in continuance of fight, you shall see the unskillful man to have the advantage. And if I should choose a valiant man for service of the prince, or to take part with me or any friend of mine in a good quarrel, I would chose the unskillful man, because unencumbered with false fights, because such a man stands free in his valor with strength and agility of body, freely takes the benefit of nature, fights most brave, by loosing no opportunity, either soundly to hurt his enemy, or defend himself.

But the other standing for his defence, upon cunning Italian wards, Punta reversa, the Imbrocata, Stocata, and being fast tied unto these false fights, stands troubled in his wits, and nature thereby racked through the largeness or false lyings or spaces, whereby he is in his fight as a man half maimed, loosing the opportunity of times and benefit of nature, & whereas before being ignorant of these false rapier fights, standing in the free liberty of nature given to him by God, he was able in the field with his weapons to answer the most valiant man in the world, but now being tied unto that false, fickle uncertain fight, thereby has lost in nature his freedom, is now become scarce half a man, and every boy in that fight is become as good a man as himself.

Now, we know that doesn't prove out: but it is definitely the case that you go through a period in which you become less effective when you are learning a new art. The man who walks in off the street will throw a punch or a kick without thinking about it; after he has been taught for a while, he will be focusing his mind on every aspect of the punch and the kick, trying to plan his next moves, and thereby lose all these advantages that Silver describes.

This is why boxers practice combinations: so they can train their body to react without thought, but bring the art into their subconscious. This is why the Zen martial arts practice "no mind," for the same reason. And it is why Bruce Lee said, "Before I learned martial arts, a punch was just a punch and a kick was just a kick. When I studied martial arts, a punch was no longer just a punch and a kick was no longer just a kick. Now I understand martial arts, and a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."

A Georgia SCOTUS Justice?

A Georgia SCOTUS Justice?

I'm sure that none of the President's potential nominees are going to be wholly acceptable to me, but it isn't to be expected that they should be. That said, this one sounds much better than the others I've read about:

Former Georgia Supreme Court chief justice Leah Ward Sears is also on the short list, a senior White House official tells ABC News.‬

Sears, who will turn 55 in June, was the first female African-American chief justice in US history, and when nominated for the state supreme court by then-Gov. Zell Miller in 1992, she became the first woman and the youngest person to ever sit on the court.‬

She stepped down from the court last year and currently practices law at Schiff Hardin.‬

A graduate of Emory University Law School, Sears was on President Obama’s short list last year. A member of the left-leaning American Constitution Society, she is also a friend of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.‬

Two things about her are good things to know. The first is that she was appointed by Zell Miller, who -- while certainly not a Republican-style conservative -- was no leftist even during his centrist period, when he believed more in governmental activism than he did later. Second, her ability to maintain a friendship with Clarence Thomas suggests that she is not predisposed to despise conservatives, as so many on the left seem to do. That quality -- the ability to see past our differences and maintain a friendship in spite of philosophical disagreements -- is one that we should value very highly in a potential Justice.

Of course, all I know about her is what I've read in the source linked here; this is merely an initial impression. Still, given that the President is certain to appoint someone with whom I have strong disagreements on judicial and legal philosophy, this one sounds initially like the sort of opponent I would prefer.

Avrix

Avrix mi Galanica:

Avrix mi galanica: Avrix mi ga...

Helmets Galore

Helmets Galore:

Thanks to Dellbabe, we have an impressive selection of helmets, with a few statues to boot.

Handouts

Handouts:

An odd thing to say during tax week: "No one I’ve met is looking for a handout" JWF reminds us of some of Obama's supporters, who very much were looking for a handout.

Yet what struck me about the line was something different: why would a tax refund be a "handout" in any case? I'll be getting a tax refund this year, partially because I paid withholding at a higher rate than proved to be necessary, and partially because we bought a house and were eligible for the tax credit associated with that.

In the first case, it's not a "handout," because the government is simply returning money of mine that they've held onto for a year or so, collecting the interest (which they will be keeping).

In the second case, it's not a handout, because the government is still returning my money. It's just decided, for policy reasons, that they might like to have me spend my money directly to help stabilize the housing market, rather than spending my money for me. All that money was paid by me into the fund, though, and they held onto it. If they send it back, it was mine to start with.

It's important to understand how this works, because this 'health care' business is going to work the same way. The government decided to make itself a party to my transaction, in order to make housing purchases more attractive. We bought the house back in the fall. The government will, they say, return the tax credit to me soon. So essentially I fronted the money twice: once to the government (in taxes), and once to the bank (for the house). The government held onto "their" portion of that money for another six months (collecting the interest!). Now presumably they'll consent to keep their part of the bargain by refunding "their part" of my money to me.

This was Dennis the Peasant's explanation of how your forced health insurance purchases will work. If you are in the income range to be eligible for government "assistance," it comes as a refundable tax credit. So, this is the deal:

1) You front the money, both by paying taxes and paying for the insurance.

2) Maybe we'll pay you back the tax part.

3) We keep the interest.

4) We kindly imply, on tax week, that we don't think you're "looking for a handout" by collecting your refund.

What a deal!

Politically Correct Stoics

Politically Correct Stoics:

In the opening pages of Dr. Lara Denis' "Kant's Conception of Virtue, we find an interesting account of the Stoic position on happiness.

No matter how poor, ill, or hated the virtuous person is, Stoics claimed she is happy.

I would love to see the citation for any Stoic writer who "claimed she" would be happy.

I understand that the idea behind this sort of locution, and I realize that it's probably the editors of the journal applying a "standard" to the author's text. Nevertheless, in the interest of making female readers feel good about being included, or perhaps making the point that women should always be included, they have introduced an inaccuracy into the text.

You might say that's a small thing, but philosophers have written papers over whether "London is pretty" and "Londres est jolie" can be said reliably to express the same belief. Not only does substituting "he" and "she" fail to express the same proposition, one of the propositions is true and the other is false.

Aside from the political correctness that bedevils academic writing these days, the piece is a good one; it offers a brief history of how the concept of "virtue" has evolved, at least as far as Kant. However, I think she misses the real truth about these different visions of virtue: they aimed at producing different kinds of people. Particularly with the ancients, it won't do to say that Aristotle thought X was virtuous, and St. Thomas Aquinas added Y to the concept. Aristotle was trying to create a man who was a Homeric hero, with a love of wisdom ("Cunning as the gods in council," as they said of Odysseus), personal courage, friendships and magnificence. St. Thomas Aquinas was ready to dispense with magnificence in the Homeric sense of the term, defined wisdom completely differently, and in addition added Christian charity (caritas), faith, and hope.

Sedition

Sedition:

'If the EPA gets no budget... if HHS gets no budget...'

Well, actually, that would be a revolution in and of itself.

Should we defend Israel?

Should We Defend Israel?

I don't mean, "Should America defend Israel?" with this question. It's plain enough, under this administration, that America won't.

What I mean is, should we? We remember the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and the Lafayette Escadrille: so we could consider the option of an independent military response by American fighting men, who act as free citizens without reference to our government.

Is this something we should consider? American Jews might well do so, for reasons of religion and community; but what of the rest of us? If so, why? If not, why not?

Benvenuto Cellini

Benvenuto Cellini:

I have a few more pictures of the Met, thanks to Dellbabe, that I will post up over the weekend. Today I wanted to put up something a little different. Italian artist Benvenuto Cellini produced some of that type of Renaissance sculpture that once fired the world's imagination. It combines heroic realism with the ancient myths, as in this statue of Perseus with the head of Medusa.



In addition to his sculpture, painting, and goldwork, he wrote an autobiography that an email group I read has been discussing this week. It's a fascinating piece, which has seventy-nine mentions of the word "sword" and fifteen more of "dagger," including here:

Walking with all haste, I passed the bridge of the Exchange, and went up along a wall beside the river which led to my lodging in the castle. I had just come to the Augustines—now this was a very perilous passage, and though it was only five hundred paces distant from my dwelling, yet the lodging in the castle being quite as far removed inside, no one could have heard my voice if I had shouted—when I saw four men with four swords in their hands advancing to attack me.

It's a remarkable piece, more like The Three Musketeers than any work of nonfiction. There are duels and murders, revenge and brawls, necromancers calling forth demons, vanished lovers. There is also a description of the business of making art, especially certain medals of steel that were desired by the Pope.

Go get 2 big mirrors.

Put them opposite one another.

Stand between them and look into one.

Seems to go on forever, right?

That's sort of the feeling I get when I read articles like this.

Music for a Thursday

Music for a Thursday:

Let's start with an interesting piece, not exactly like anything you'll probably have heard lately.

Hiemarmene - Eyvind Kang

And now a Spanish piece:

Jota (Arpa & Perc.) (Anónimo, ...

Just right for spring, I'd say. Perhaps a cup of sangria would go with it, in the long afternoon.

Phronesis

Phronesis:

This is the kind of thing that breaks a man's heart:

Where does morality come from? The modern consensus on this question lies close to the position laid out by the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume. He thought moral reason to be “the slave of the passions”. Hume's view is supported by studies that suggest that our judgements of good and evil are influenced by emotional reactions such as empathy and disgust. And it fits nicely with the discovery that a rudimentary moral sense is universal and emerges early. Babies as young as six months judge individuals on the way that they treat others and even one-year-olds engage in spontaneous altruism.... I predict that this theory of morality will be proved wrong in its wholesale rejection of reason. Emotional responses alone cannot explain one of the most interesting aspects of human nature: that morals evolve.

That would be a shocking, revolutionary idea except that Aristotle came up with it. The process is called phronesis.

Constitutional Convention Roundup

Constitutional Convention Roundup:

The idea that the states should call a constitutional convention -- supported here, as regular readers well know -- is apparently starting to pop up in a lot of places. Here are a few places that are talking about the idea.

The Wall Street Journal

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein (opposed, naturally)

The Epoch Times: "In South Carolina, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is asking state lawmakers to support a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution and overturn 'socialized medicine.'"

Politics at Gather.com

FOX News

See also this piece on "the Virginia Plan," which demonstrates that the Founders considered and rejected the idea that the Congress should be able to overturn state legislation.

An Oakeshott Type XVI:

This sword type is the kind Ewart Oakeshott classified as a XVI.





Albion Swords makes several modern versions of this type, including this one. You can see all the plates from the I:33 manual that they mention thanks to ARMA.

Trial by Ordeal

A Defense of Trial by Ordeal:

I was interested by this paper on trial by ordeal (h/t: Instapundit). The author uses economic theory to suggest that trial by ordeal actually sorted outcomes correctly. The concept is that belief in the reality of miracles would cause innocent men and women to choose the ordeal; guilty men and women would refuse. Priests would judge whether the person choosing an ordeal was sincere or cynical, and then manipulate the ordeal so as to ensure the correct outcome.

Several counterarguments arise immediately in one's mind, but he seems to offer an explanation for all of them as you go through the piece. Are they sufficient explanations? I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

What I would like to add is that the idea of priestly manipulation of justice goes very well with our debate from last year about trial by combat. One of the reasons that priests would have objected so strongly to being forced into trial by combat was that it put justice in the hands of the warrior class, instead of in the hands of fellow priests. One of the reasons that the warriors might have been so staunch in their insistence on trial by combat as a final appeal was to preserve their independence from such manipulation.

This works if warriors are cynical about priestly manipulation of the ordeals, but also if they are not. An innocent warrior might reasonably prefer to fight than to carry a hot iron bar, trusting God to protect him in either case, but being more comfortable in his vocation. A guilty warrior, expecting God to convict him, might reasonably prefer to die with honor than to be burned by boiling water, and then disgraced by execution. With cynical warriors of either type, the odds of success must seem higher in trial by combat, where they need only do what they have spent their lives training to do.

An interesting piece. Good work.

Discussion Plutarch.

Ok, I hope everybody has had a chance to read the lives mentioned here.

So, what do you all think? Was Plutarch's comparison apt?

Discuss. Support your arguement.

UPDATE: Bumped to the top by Grim because of the importance of the discussion; newer posts below.

The Met, IV:

An opinion on Iran

An Informed Opinion on Iran:

Michael Totten has an interview with a CIA agent from Iran's Revolutionary Guards. He has an opinion on the subject of why Iran wants nukes.

MJT: So do you think if they acquire nuclear weapons they will actually use them?

Reza Kahlili: They will.

MJT: Against Israel?

Reza Kahlili: You have to look at the parallel projects that they're working on, the missile delivery system and the nuclear project. Currently they cover part of Europe. Their goal is to cover all of Europe. They're not going to announce they have a bomb unless they have overcome the glitches of putting together a nuclear bomb and a nuclear warhead. But once they do that, they will make enough bombs so that all of Europe is under their coverage. Then they will begin their most aggressive behavior in trying to control the Middle East, moving toward the goal of destroying Israel, bringing the imperialistic system of economics to a halt, creating chaos, and waiting for the Mahdi to appear. It's all right out in the open. Just look at their Mahdi philosophy.

What does he think we should do about it?

Immediately, the Western countries should cut off all shipping lines and air lines, and deport all Iranians who work in offices connected to the Iranian government. They're Quds Force members. They're intelligence guys. Deport them. And stop sending refined oil to Iran. They rely on that.

Corner the country and give them a deadline. And if the Iranian government doesn't give up its program, take it out. Do not allow this country to become nuclear armed. Sanctions are not going to work.

In the worst case scenario, if there is a military confrontation, do not invade the country. Do not destroy the country. Take the Revolutionary Guards out. If you take the Revolutionary Guards out, this government can't last 24 hours.

We know all their bases. We know all their officers. We know all their buildings. If they move in convoys, take them out. And that will be the end of this government.

Predictions like that are common: often it proves that an enemy you expect to destroy quickly and easily proves much more dangerous than you expected. Collapsing central authority with no ground forces to restore order would be, essentially, the same core mistake made in Iraq when we disbanded the Iraqi army and put nothing in its place.

Could the Iranian people restore order themselves? It's possible. It's also possible that different factions could spark a civil war that would consume the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands.

While I have no desire to wage war with Iran, though, I do believe he's right about their penchant for confrontation. There is no doubt that Iran has been hip deep in supporting every kind of terrorism and insurgency, and their weapons -- planted by insurgents they trained -- have killed many American soldiers and Marines. Why wouldn't they use a nuclear weapon, when they've never hesitated to use any other weapon that came to their hand?

Zen and Racism

Zen and Racism:

The National Post sent someone to attend an anti-racism seminar, at which some remarkably bad advice was given.

Sandy, Jim and Karen work at a downtown community centre where they help low-income residents apply for rental housing. Sandy has a bad feeling about Jim: She notices that when black clients come in, he tends to drift to the back of the office. Sandy suspects racism (she and Jim are both white). On the other hand, she also notices that Jim seems to get along well with Karen, who is black. As the weeks go by, Sandy becomes more uncomfortable with the situation. But she feels uncertain about how to handle it. Test question: What should Sandy do?

If you answered that Sandy's first move should be to talk to Karen, and ask how Jim's behaviour made her feel, you are apparently a better anti-racist than me.

That, for what it's worth, was the preferred solution offered by my instructor at "Thinking About Whiteness and Doing Anti-Racism," a four-part evening workshop for community activists, presented earlier this year at the Toronto Women's Bookstore.

My own answer, announced in class, was that Sandy should approach Jim discreetly, explaining to him how others in the office might perceive his actions. Or perhaps the manager of the community centre could give a generic presentation about the need to treat clients in a colour-blind manner, on a no-names basis.

The problem with my approach, the instructor indicated, lay in the fact that I was primarily concerned with the feelings of my fellow Caucasian, Jim. I wasn't treating Karen like a "full human being" who might have thoughts and worries at variance with the superficially friendly workplace attitude.

Moreover, I was guilty of "democratic racism" -- by which we apply ostensibly race-neutral principles such as "due process," constantly demanding clear "evidence" of wrongdoing, rather than confronting prima facie instances of racism head-on. "It seems we're always looking for more proof," said the instructor, an energetic left-wing activist who's been teaching this course for several years. "When it comes to racism, you have to trust your gut."

A number of problems with this approach leap to mind, especially the idea that we should dispense with due process before throwing around charges of racism; but let's focus on just one specific problem. If I go to Karen in the way the speaker suggests, I am forcing her into a role that is based on her being black. Far from treating her as a "full human being," I'm treating her as an explicitly black human being. After all, why am I assuming that she has "thoughts and worries" about Jim, with whom she is apparently friendly and on good terms? Because she's black. Why should she be the person I go to, instead of the person who is exhibiting behavior that may (or may not) be racist in motivation? Because she's black.

My own answer to the test question would have been more along the lines of, "Mind your own business," but I imagine that was not an option on the quiz. If Karen is indeed a "full human being," however, surely she ought to be trusted to handle her own problems -- if indeed she has problems, which she doesn't seem to have; and if indeed she is worried or secretly angry at Jim, which she shows no sign of being.

Now, how about an answer to a better question: not, "How should I respond if I suspect racism in others?" but the real question these young activists should ask, "How should I respond if I suspect racism in myself?"

[M]ost were involved in what might broadly be termed the anti-racism industry -- an overlapping hodgepodge of community-outreach activists, equity officers, women's studies instructors and the like. Most said they'd come so they could integrate anti-racism into their work. Yet a good deal of the course consisted of them unburdening themselves of their own racist guilt.

Well, how should you respond to that? Ideas about race have been a factor in our society, with a deep and troubled history; and so many people remain focused on the notion that race is real and important that it's difficult to move about without rubbing up against someone who really wants you to be conscious of his or her race (as they define it, of course).

(Cf. with the person in this story who objects, in the strongest terms, to people attempting to be 'color-blind.')

So you're aware of race, because of the history and because it continues to be brought forward as relevant by people you meet. On the other hand, you wish to treat people as -- well, let's stick with the term "full human beings." So how do you do this?

Anyone who has done Zen-type meditation knows the answer. You can't really control what you think: conscious control of consciousness is surprisingly limited. For example, if I tell you not to think of a purple elephant, at once you are forced to think of one: there's nothing you can do about it. By the same token, learning to quiet you mind in meditation is quite hard, as thoughts continue to arise long after you've decided to stop thinking and breathe.

What you're supposed to do, to make it work, is just this: recognize the thought you're having, and let it go. Go back to doing what you're supposed to be doing, which in the case of zazen meditation is just sitting and breathing.

In a while, you'll probably have another thought, but it's no big deal. Just recognize it, and let it go. There's no penalty for failure, because there's no failure; we don't have perfect control over our thoughts. Just let it go, don't worry about it, and get back to what you're supposed to be doing.

Race is like that too. You know how you're supposed to treat people. Do that. If you find yourself having a race-oriented thought you don't want, recognize it... and let it go. Get back to what you're supposed to be doing, which is talking to and working with another human being.

Anybody who's been in the military understands all this. It's funny, because these same anti-racist/anti-capitalist activists doubtless consider us the worst kind of oppressors (and racists!). Yet the American military's actual behavior has stood as an example before the entire world of what true anti-racism looks like, and of practical friendship between peoples of different origin.

Met III

The Met, Part Three:

Easter

Easter:

This is the first Easter that has found me at home in three years.

When I was a boy, Easter was not something about which we made a big deal. My family were Christmas-oriented, and it is easy to see the allure of Christmas over Easter: it is easy to celebrate the birth of a beloved child, which is a natural time for joy unmixed by sorrow. On Easter, we focused on the 'coming of spring' aspects, as I recall: hunting eggs, and white dresses for the girls.

Easter is far more problematic as a holiday. For one thing, it requires a different kind of faith: not faith that a particular child might have been engendered by God for some purpose, but faith that a given man, condemned as a criminal and put to death, rose from the grave as a living God. Yet it is a claim that has quite a history: the number of myths along these lines, with holy weeks about the coming of spring, is formidable. Why this one, among them?

I have nothing to add to the words of better men, who have written on the subject with greater wisdom. The best that I can do is turn your attention to an old book review, by the famous "Spengler," on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Children of Hurin.

Tolkien knew far more about the pagan past than [T. S.] Eliot; as the great philologist of his time, he produced the first readable translation of "Beowulf", as well as seminal editions of the most important Anglo-Saxon classics. He loved the material more than any man living.... Readers who enjoyed The Lord of Rings as a work of fantasy (which it most surely is not) will find the present volume tough going, for it comes out of the world of Anglo-Saxon epic. As the editor reports, Tolkien originally cast it as poem in alliterative verse in the Anglo-Saxon fashion.

What did he want to say in that poem? You'll have to read the rest of the review -- or the book itself, if you prefer.

Or you may listen to the sound of what might almost be angels, or faerie. The greatest truth lies in beauty, I have heard.



Happy Easter, and a joyous spring. May God save this merry company, and all mankind.

Continuing to Eat the Hero's Portion

The Met Collection, II: Viking Swords

Dellbabe sends some more of the photos she took for us. These swords include an Ulfberht blade: a name many of you will recognize right away. Unfortunately the inlay is not visible, but it must have been impressive when the sword was new and cared-for by a fighting man.

Good Friday

Good Friday:

There are many celebrations today, to which I can add little. However, Dad29 posts a song that I happen to know. Here is the Baltimore Consort performing a very good version of it.

Tomorrow Shall Be My Dancing D...