The Minstrel Boy

The Minstrel Boy:

Those of you who follow BLACKFIVE probably noticed that I pulled a video clip from The Man Who Would Be King this weekend. Some of you might be wondering about the song.

There's a history of the tune here; but the words don't belong to it. The words belong to another hymn, "The Son of God Goes Forth To War."

Some young ladies follow The Man Who Would Be King by conflating the two songs.



Here is a video of a newer version of "The Minstrel Boy" made by the 2d Platoon "Regulators," 2nd of the 87th, Tenth Mountain Division:



And here is the hymn:

Presidential Humor

Presidential Humor:

The Washington Post has a good article on the kind of jokes a President should tell, and the kind he shouldn't. Gerald Ford had one of the best lines:

"So much has happened since I accepted your kind invitation to be here today," Ford said. "At that point I was America's first instant vice president, and now I find myself America's first instant president. The Marine Corps band is so confused, they don't know whether to play 'Hail to the Chief' or 'You've Come a Long Way, Baby.'"

The point of the article is that previous Presidents have normally tended to self-deprecation, unlike the current President. They call him, "Barack Obama, the Insult Comic President."

The article has a noteworthy omission: Reagan. Here he is in 1988.



Pretty even mix, there. "Dukakis got great news today about the Jimmy Carter endorsement..." Good lines on the Panama situation, too.

The closing remarks, though, are full of class. I miss that about the man.

Time for another Met Trip

Time for Another Met Trip, DB:

The New Criterion has a review of an exhibit:

[A]rt made almost six centuries ago stars in some of this spring’s most compelling exhibitions—a trio of remarkable, more or less concurrent, shows: “The Art of Illumination: The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry” and “The Mourners: Tomb Sculptures from the Court of Burgundy,” at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and “Demons and Devotion: The Hours of Catherine of Cleves” at the Morgan Library Museum.

I know you wouldn't want your friends and companions to miss out on that.

Ranger!

IPAs of Spring: RANGER!

Today's entry is from New Belgium, which makes a very good porter in their 1554. Their IPA is called "RANGER!!!!!!"... er, "Ranger," named after the friendly beer rangers of the Pacific Northwest. Not the high-speed death machines. Who fight tigers.

(I must have seen that RANGER!!!! video a hundred times in Iraq. People just kept sending it out, or showing it to you when you'd walk into the room because it was new to them. A battalion S-3 who was a ranger had a version made for him by his captains, called "RANGER!!! -- Special Field Grade Edition." Another Major I knew would call out "Ranger!" every time he saw anyone with a fresh haircut.)

I'd place this one right below the Sierra Nevada. It's got almost the same richness of flavor. Someone who likes a drier ale might prefer this one to the Torpedo. Your call.

Paleolithic?

Progress and Stability:

Once in a while, you will meet a Muslim who will defend Islam's position on women in something like the following terms: 'Islam represented a great advance for women's status in the region. Before the Prophet Muhammad, the treatment of women was much worse. Islam's rules raised women's stature a great deal.'

Historians and anthropologists might contest the claim to some degree, but for the sake of argument let's say that it's perfectly correct. Islam, in the seventh century, vastly raised the status of women. It also created a stable floor, so that women could never again be traded like cattle. This progress had real value for the lives of women in that era, and the stability has continued to protect each new generation of women since then. Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume all this is exactly true.

The problem is that the same stability that continues to protect women from being treated like chattel slaves -- which we are assuming that Islam does, for this argument -- also prevents any further alteration. To the degree that you undermine that stability in order to change women's status for the better, you also risk undermining the positive change. Perhaps you will enjoy the change you say you want; but it's also possible that you will enjoy the change you didn't want. As women are -- even under this system -- less powerful than men, undermining the stability is a dangerous proposition. It might more easily result in a backlash against women that lowers their status below the floor they currently enjoy, than force society to adhere to these new standards.

The one thing that might prevent that collapse is a stern preservation of the Prophet Muhammad's reasoning for the "floor" position. If you're struggling for progress, it would be easy to see these people fighting for stability as your enemy. Yet actually they are not: your enemies are the ones who are pushing for a backlash. The people who are fighting for stability are your allies even if you find yourself clashing with them, because they are your backstop against a serious backlash. Given that the people pushing for progress are necessarily weaker than the forces that could impose a backlash, those who want progress should never forget the value of those who merely want stability.

The stable foundation they preserve is, after all, what you're pushing off from in your attempt to achieve some greater height. It'd be best not to undermine that foundation.

Mutatis mutandis, this is a point that I wish certain New York progressives understood as well. Of course, as Mr. Kristof notes, the difference is that in much of the developing world, the Catholic Church is not simply holding the line and preserving stability. It is the primary force advancing the cause.

Yet even here at home, the people who want stability are not the enemy of the progressive. As frustrating as stability may be for those who want change, it is the stable foundation that they are pushing against. If that foundation gives way, there's a long fall to the bottom.

Car Bomb

Car Bomb in Times Square:

A fuel-air bomb of "an amateurish" sort is still a significant threat. America does not realize how lucky it has been to go this far without these things being common in our cities; if they are hard to stop in Baghdad, with divisions of the US and Iraqi armies controlling approaches and manning checkpoints, there's honestly nothing at all to stop them in New York except good luck.

One reason horrible crimes often set off copycats is just that there are always horrible people who hadn't thought of it yet. Seeing it done is enough to wake their minds to the possibility that it could be done.

A shooting rampage, or a stabbing rampage like the one cited above, can be stopped while in progress by armed citizens -- indeed, even just by brave citizens. Car bombs aren't like that. You can harden society against them -- look at Ireland or Israel, or Baghdad -- but they are a different order of threat.

UPDATE: Allah at Hot Air remarks:

Read this Time magazine piece from five years ago about Al Qaeda capo Dhiren Barot’s “Gas Limo Plot,” which involved packing limousines with tanks of compressed gas, driving them into underground garages, and detonating them to create a fuel-air concussion that would bring down the building. As I understand it, an enclosed place is ideal for maximum damage from a bomb like that, but obviously not essential.

Well, in fact that's true for any kind of explosive. The force of an explosion is the pressure wave, at the edge of which gas or shrapnel is being thrown away from the blast. If it hits a wall, that wave will reflect back upon you. Thus, if you get hit twice by the pressure wave, it roughly doubles the amount of pressure that you are subject to.

The force of the pressure of a bomb above regular atmospheric pressures is called "overpressure." Enclosure is one way to increase it, but not the only way. Fuel-air bombs have a longer pressure wave than many kinds of bombs, so the concept of generating overpressure by reflection is even more useful with them.

American Interest on Europe

On Europe:

The American Interest has an article on Europe which begins:

Of late most predictions, especially those coming out of Europe, have been on the dour and pessimistic side. So it is refreshing to come across a book like Steven Hill’s Europe’s Promise, which reaffirms the earlier optimistic take: The European model is not only superior to the American in almost every possible way, but also, as its subtitle proclaims, the world’s “best hope in an insecure age.” According to Hill, Europe’s vastly superior stores of smart power will even allow it to solve the problem of the Iranian bomb.

Optimism can be refreshing, however, even when it is neither correct nor justified.

It's a pretty snide piece after that. That isn't to say that the piece is not balanced; it has lots of snide things to say about America, too.

In this he is joined by Mark Steyn, who points out that we are accepting one of the things that undid Europe -- mass immigration -- at the same time that our, ah, "leadership" is interested in installing the other -- massive new social welfare programs -- at the same time that our existing entitlements are about to balloon out of control. Immigration was touted as the solution in Europe, once:

Almost every claim made for the benefits of mass immigration is false. Europeans were told that they needed immigrants to help prop up their otherwise unaffordable social entitlements: In reality, Turks in Germany have three times the rate of welfare dependency as ethnic Germans, and their average retirement age is 50. Two-thirds of French imams are on the dole.

But wait: What about the broader economic benefits? The World Bank calculated that if rich countries increased their workforce by a mere 3 percent through admitting an extra 14 million people from developing countries, it would benefit the populations of those rich countries by $139 billion. Wow!

As Christopher Caldwell points out in his book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, “The aggregate gross domestic product of the advanced economies for the year 2008 is estimated by the International Monetary Fund at close to $40 trillion.” So an extra $139 billion works out to a spectacular 0.35 percent. Caldwell compares the World Bank argument to Austin Powers’s nemesis, Dr. Evil, holding the world hostage for one million dollars! “Sacrificing 0.0035 of your economy would be a pittance to pay for starting to get your country back.” A dependence on mass immigration is not a gold-mine or an opportunity to flaunt your multicultural bona fides, but a structural weakness, and should be addressed as such.

Most Greeks and Turks are good folks. Their culture was never worse than Germany's culture; it was just different. The Germans had an equilibrium of savings and hard work that allowed for a certain level of social programs, especially since their national defense was being outsourced to the US Army. The Greeks had a different culture, but accepted a lower standard of living. With the coming of the EU to Greece, these cultures were suddenly blended; the Greeks were able to spend like Germans without having to adopt the German culture.

Now we see the results; but it isn't that Greece is morally flawed. Everyone is morally flawed. That is what it means to be human. The difference is that the equilibriums of these two cultures were both ruined by the sudden mixing of the cultures. The Greeks weren't getting any better, but they weren't getting any worse. Before easy credit was put in front of them, apparently for free, they accepted a lower standard of living in return for their culture of relative ease. The Germans worked harder but saved and spent more, even if they weren't really being honest with themselves about how much of their freedom to engage in social spending was being financed by the US military and taxpayer.

Then came the EU, and the sudden change in rules was not accompanied by a sudden change in behavior. The law can be changed overnight. People change slowly. This fact was somehow not written into anyone's plan.

Why were investors so complacent? The answer was that almost everyone believed that historical precedents were irrelevant. Greece was now part of Europe, and even more important, since 2001 part of the eurozone—sharing a currency with its more affluent neighbors. And that changed everything. Except that it didn’t.

Armed Liberal at Winds of Change tells a joke that's on point.

Greek Armor

Spring Ales IV

IPAs of Spring IV:

So, one of ya'll recommended Dogfish's "60 Minute IPA." I happened to be traveling the other day, and found a little store that sold a few things that aren't available locally. This was one of them!

The Dogfish is much drier than the Sierra Nevada I wrote about recently, but that is not a bad thing. It's got a similar spicy character. Good stuff, but in a different way.

Oh, Man

Oh, Man:

This is the sort of thing that really tries a man's temperance and moderation.

Some Links

Some Links:

I've begun working Eric's plethora of links into the sidebar. Also, at the very bottom of the sidebar, you'll find a new way of accessing the archives. I found the code in some ancient Blogger files today. It only works because I've never updated anything, but hey: it works!

There's no such thing as "backwards compatible" if you refuse to move forward. :)

What Was That Again, Pat?

What Was That Again?

Isn't the usefulness of this analysis outweighed by the irony?

"We have a deadlocked democracy," said Pat Buchanan, a conservative commentator and three-time presidential candidate. "Both parties, held hostage by their extremes, are incapable of tackling the issues that threaten this country."

So, Pat "Ride to the Sound of Guns" Buchanan, leader of the "Buchanan Brigades," complains that the two major parties are each captured by their extremists? If that's the case, why aren't you "Former President Pat Buchanan"?

I thought this was a much better analysis of what's really going on. The reason Pat Buchanan couldn't capture the GOP's leadership position isn't that he isn't an adequately extreme conservative. It's that he wasn't the insider candidate. If the Tea Party is successfully purging the GOP of many insiders, I'll be amazed, but hardly displeased.

Cathedral of May

In the Cathedral of May:

But how many months be in the year?
There are thirteen, I say;
The midsummer moon is the merryest of all
Next to the merry month of May.
IN summer time, when leaves grow green,
And flowers are fresh and gay,
Robin Hood and his merry men
Were [all] disposed to play.

Then some would leap, and some would run,
And some use artillery:
'Which of you can a good bow draw,
A good archer to be?

'Which of you can kill a buck?
Or who can kill a doe?
Or who can kill a hart of grease,
Five hundred foot him fro?

Queen Guinevere's Maying

We Ought To Love Her

We Ought To Love Her:

Why, yes, this is what I like about her, although I find your formulation interesting:

Republican primary voters like macho candidates and no one is more macho than Sarah Palin.

In a way the fashionista and mother of five evokes more toughness than any man regularly mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in the GOP. Palin is visceral, in your face, relishes combat, and won't be shamed. (Her hobbies include ice fishing, snowmobiling, running, and hunting.) These are traits usually and stereotypically associated with men - and they're especially endearing to Republicans, who like to see President Obama hit with the most force possible....

Republicans know she won't bow to what they think are elite sensitivities or political correctness. Say she was "going rogue" as a diss? She'll make it the title of her book. Dismiss the GOP as the "party of no?" Palin will rename it "the party of hell no!"

Note that it isn't the right saying that this is 'unladylike' behavior. We're saying, "We love that lady." I don't think she's even intending to run at this point; but she is serving as a great stalking horse, drawing all the fire away from those who probably will run. She's getting rich doing it, and having fun doing it.

Live to fight, love to fight. How could I fail to admire someone like that?

IPAs of Spring, III:

The best of the three I could lay to hand, by far, was Sierra Nevada's Torpedo "Extra" IPA.



It's close to their "Celebration Ale," which is the best beer in the world.* It makes use of different hops during the brewing process, but ends up with a similar character. While it lacks the perfection of Celebration Ale, it's a fine substitute for the rest of the year. (After all, there ought to be something special about Christmas!)

You can see the rich character in its color. For me, it's as good as I expect an ale to be, outside of the Yuletide.


* In my opinion.

Woof

Woof:

I'm almost scared watching her try to manage these rigs.

Having taught a few women, of several ages, how to use a firearm... I'm thinking they "set her up for failure," as the military saying goes. And that's on them. It's on them.

Bladework and related subjects:

I found the following list at a group called "Western Martial Arts" on Facebook.

So, as it says:

Here are some links for your reading pleasure:

Info and Forums:

http://www.myarmoury.com
http://www.swordforum.com
http://netsword.com/
http://www.thearma.org/forum/
http://www.bladesignforum.com/
http://www.oldswords.com/
http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/
http://www.armourarchive.org
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB2/index.php

A HEMA print periodical:

http://www.wmaillustrated.com/

To save me typing out the rest of them go here to find more links to many different websites and groups who study HEMA/WMA:

http://www.myarmoury.com/links.html

Groups represented in WMA (many of them have websites and you know that http://www.google.com is your friend ;-)

KdF - UK, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden
http://www.swordfighting-kdf.org/

Schola Gladiatoria - UK
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/

The Grange - UK
http://www.suspensionofdisbelief.co.uk

European Historical Combat Group - UK, Denmark, Sweden, Eire and Germany
http://www.ehcg.net/

Boar's Tooth Fight School - London
http://www.fightmedieval.com

Selohaar Fechtschule - USA
http://www.selohaar.org/fechten.htm

The School of European Swordsmanship - Finland
http://www.swordschool.com/

Schola Saint George - USA
http://scholasaintgeorge.org/

Academia Duellatoria - USA
http://academiaduellatoria.com/

Academy of Historical Fencing - UK
http://www.historicalfencing.co.uk/

Dawn Duellists - UK
http://www.dawnduellists.co.uk/

Association for Renaissance Martial Arts - USA and Europe
http://www.thearma.org

Society for Medieval Martial Artists - USA

Ottawa Medieval Sword Guild - Canada
http://www.ottawasword.com/

Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts - Canada
http://www.aemma.org/

Melbourne Swordplay Guild - Australia
http://www.msg.swordplay.org.au/

Summer Knights (childrens summer camp) - USA
http://www.summerknights.com/

Western Swordsmanship Technique & Research - USA
http://www.westernswordsmanship.com/

De Taille et d'Estoc - France (Holders of the famed International HEMA Gathering)
http://www.detailleetdestoc.com/

British Quarterstaff Association - UK
http://www.quarterstaff.org/

GHFS (Gothenberg Historical Fencing Society and hosts of the hopefully soon to be annual Swordfish HEMA event) - Sweden
http://www.ghfs.se/

Saint George Fencing Group - Serbia
http://www.akademija.co.yu
http://www.youtube.com/user/SaintGeorgeFencing

PBSMCS - South Africa
http://www.swordfighting.co.za

Society for the Study of Swordsmanship - UK
http://www.ssswordsmanship.co.uk/

The Company for Historical Combat - UK
http://www.mymartialheritage.org

Academy of Historical Fencing - UK
http://www.historicalfencing.co.uk

Aisle O'var Backswording Clubbe
http://www.backswording.co.uk

Medieval European Martial Arts Guild - USA
http://www.memag.net/

Academy of European Swordsmanship - Canada
http://www.the-aes.org

Frie Duellister / Free Duellists Norway, Bergen.
http://www.frieduellister.no/

New Zealand Schools of European Martial Arts
http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz

Academia della Spada - USA
http://www.academiadellaspada.com/

Martinez Academy of Arms - USA
http://www.martinez-destreza.com/

Northwest Academy of Arms - USA
http://www.northwestacademyofarms.com/

Chicago Swordplay Guild - USA
http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/c/

English Fighting Arts - UK
http://englishfightingarts.com/

Company of Maisters
http://www.maisters.demon.co.uk/

Facebook Classical Fencing Group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24902207605

Kuzgun Spor Turkish Hema Group - Turkey
http://www.kuzgunspor.com
http://www.kuzgunlar.tr.gg

Kuzgun Spor Turkish Hema Group Facebook
http://www.new.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=38490005866

Willington Backsword Club - USA (looking for Rapier enthusiasts in New England Area)
http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=25336021161

Pirate Dojo - USA
http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13646587031

Virginia Academy of Fencing - USA
http://vafinc.com/programs/hist.htm

The Academy of Arms - USA
http://www.AcademyofArms.com

MACS (Medieval Armed Combat Society) - South Africa
http://www.armoury.co.za/

Mid-Atlantic Society for Historic Swordsmanship - USA
http://www.mashs.org/

Academie Duello - Canada
http://www.academieduello.com

Roanoke Valley Sword Guild - USA
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=31188018702&ref=mf

HEMA cph - Copenhagen, Denmark
http://www.hema-cph.dk

Die Schlachtschule - USA
http://www.schlachtschule.org

Meyer Frei Fechter Guild - USA
http://federfechter.com

Krigarenve - USA
http://www.krigarenve.com

LaFratellanza della Spada - USA
http://www.lafratellanza.com/
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/FratellanzadellaSpada/

Glima - Denmark
http://glima.dk
http://internationalglima.com

Durban Sword and Shield Club - South Africa
http://www.swordclub.za.org

Jojo de Pau Club - Portugal
http://www.jogodopauportugues.com/

Historical Fencing School - Vienna, Austria
http://www.klingenspiel.at/

Loyal Order of the Sword - Phoenix and NY, USA
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=78328979429#/group.php?v=info&gid=78328979429

School of Traditional Medieval Fencing - UK
www.ringeck.org

Ochs - historische Kampfkünste - Germany
http://www.schwertkampf-ochs.de/

Iran on the Women's Rights at the UN?

Iran Ascends to Leadership Position on Women's Rights:

In recognition of Iran's leadership on the issue, the United Nations has elevated that republic to its commission governing the rights of women. The vote was by acclamation, as no nation could see any reason to object. This is a proud day for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The U.S. couldn’t muster a word of opposition — not even call for a vote. That would be because . . . why? Because our policy is not to confront and challenge the brutal regime for which rape and discrimination are institutionalized policies. No, rather, we are in the business of trying to ingratiate ourselves, and making the U.S. as inoffensive as possible to the world’s thugocracies.

It wasn't long ago we talked about these matters in other terms.

Cadence Quiz Answer

Cadence Quiz Answer:

At least one other tune is present in the cadence piece besides "Scotland the Brave." Right at the beginning, they play this jig:

Adam Smith's Other Work

Adam Smith's Other Work:

Via Arts & Letters Daily, a review of the relevance of Adam Smith's other work, largely forgotten today because of The Wealth of Nations. Yet he also wrote about his Theory of Moral Sentiments:

First, even though Smith was in many ways the pioneering analyst of the need for impartiality and universality in ethics (Moral Sentiments preceded the better-known and much more influential contributions of Immanuel Kant, who refers to Smith generously), he has been fairly comprehensively ignored in contemporary ethics and philosophy....

The spirited attempt to see Smith as an advocate of pure capitalism, with complete reliance on the market mechanism guided by pure profit motive, is altogether misconceived. Smith never used the term "capitalism" (I have certainly not found an instance). More importantly, he was not aiming to be the great champion of the profit-based market mechanism, nor was he arguing against the importance of economic institutions other than the markets.

Smith was convinced of the necessity of a well-functioning market economy, but not of its sufficiency. He argued powerfully against many false diagnoses of the terrible "commissions" of the market economy, and yet nowhere did he deny that the market economy yields important "omissions". He rejected market-excluding interventions, but not market-including interventions aimed at doing those important things that the market may leave undone.

"Market-including interventions" are not a bad approach: they may include things like targeted small business loans designed to help people enter a market for which they are well suited, if they were too poor to afford the entry costs. More locally to Smith's own time, you could read the Colony of Georgia as such an intervention: Sir James Edward Oglethorpe's attempt to give some 'worthy poor' in debtor's prison a chance to build a new life, by giving them land to work.

Of course, Oglethorpe eventually ran afoul of the profit instinct: the clashes he had here had much to do with those who wanted to own, and not merely control, resources. Smith could learn from both impulses: the need to respect the profit instinct as reasonable and moral, but also the need to give a helping hand to those who would work hard, but didn't have the means to get started.

IPAs of spring II

IPAs of Spring, II:

Our second IPA is by another local brewery, this time local to Athens, Georgia instead of Atlanta: the "Hopsecutioner" by the Terrapin Beer Company.



As you can see, the color is a bit richer than the Sweetwater ale, and that is reflected in the taste. It has a good smell to it (if you like the smell of hoppy beer!). While it lacks the richness of flavor that beer #3 will have, I find this to be a very acceptable beer. Terrapin makes a few other robust ales of the 'big hops' type, which is an approach I like a great deal.

A Post for Ymar

A Post for Ymar:

Yesterday we were talking about analytic v. synthetic a priori concepts in ethics, and I said that synthetic a priori was as close as you could get to 'a priori' in ethics. After all, true analytic a priori principles are supposed to be derived merely from "an analysis" of a concept -- that is, breaking the concept down to see what it contains. Ethics requires more than concepts, but real situations that necessarily involve particular things, people, and cases: so even those philosophers, like Kant, who want to do 'a priori' ethical thinking end up with synthetics. For example, Kant's famous "categorical imperative" is supposed to be synthetic a priori.

However, I am reminded this morning that Kant did believe that he had at least one analytic a priori principle at work in his Doctrine of Right: the principle of right. This principle doesn't deal with ethics precisely -- Kant explicitly divides his Metaphysics of Morals into "The Doctrine of Right" and "The Doctrine of Virtue," the latter of which contains his moral system:

...the system of the doctrine of duties in general is now divided into the system of the doctrine of rights (ius), which deals with duties that can be given by external laws, and the system of the doctrine of virtue (Ethica), which treats of duties that cannot be so given...(6:379)

"The Doctrine of Right" is about what we might call law: cases in which coercive force can be used.

Dr. Allen Wood wrote, in "The Final Form of Kant's Practical Philosophy," that:

Kant declares that the concept of right is not made up of two elements -- namely, an obligation to act in accordance with universal law and also an authorization to coerce others to fulfill this obligation.... [Gottlieb] Hufeland had derived the authorization to coerce those who would violate rights from an alleged natural obligation to increase our own perfection. Kant insisted that this would have the absurd consequence that one may not refrain from enforcing all one's rights to the full. Instead, he argued that the authorization to coerce another who hinders one's rightful actions is already contained analytically in the concept of the action as rightful.

So, the idea is that if I have rights at all, the authority to use force to enforce those rights is contained in the concept of 'what it is to have a right.' The answer to the question 'do I have any rights?' is supposed to be analytic as well, but I'm not sure that's really true. Aside from a right to die, it's hard to think of anything that the world really provides you as a right.

The rest we get from God, if you follow the Declaration of Independence account; or else from valor alone, which is empirical. I mean by that: we would not have the rights we do if it hadn't been for the particular chain of events that we can trace to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence, and the various wars that were fought to enforce and extend those concepts.

Hey, Life on Mars

Hey, Life on Mars!

It's amazing what gets reported below the fold these days. There was a time when this would have been the top story of the day.

Rex quondam, rexque futurus:

Perceval's Oath - Le Serment d...

Hooah

Cadence to Arms:

An old piece from the Dropkick Murphy's:



So: "Scotland the Brave" is very obvious, but what are the other tunes embedded there?

IPA 1

IPAs of Spring:

The spring brings many joyous things, but also -- to many of us -- allergies. One of the few good cures is a fine hoppy ale, of which the India Pale Ales (IPA) are the hoppiest. As a service to you, the readers, I have undertaken a review of a few IPAs on sale here in the local market. Here is the least of the three I considered, Sweetwater IPA.



Sweetwater IPA has a taste that I would describe as flat and empty compared with the other candidates. It's not exactly unpleasant, but it seems to be missing quite a bit of the robust flavor that the others have to offer. Pity, because I'd like to praise a native Georgia brewery; but you can probably do better.

Don't Scare the President

Don't Scare the President:

I know nobody's really happy to see him traipsing around the heartland, but it's rude to scare your guests. I mean, if you bring out such dangerous crowds, it's only natural that they'd call in the SWAT Team.

Seriously, though, what on earth is this? Ever since my eye doctor, Sal Culosi, was shot and killed by a SWAT Team for 'gambling on sporting events,' I've had a very baleful notion of calling out the SWAT team for anything except the special cases that SWAT teams are really intended to address. Calling them out, as seems to be common, for serving ordinary warrants is wrong; calling them out because a few senior citizens are engaged in a perfectly peaceful First Amendment exercise is indefensible.

If the President is this afraid of Americans, he should resign. If the Secret Service is this afraid of Americans' First Amendment rights, they need to seriously revisit their doctrine.

UPDATE: A friend of Sal Culosi's writes to object that he would not want to be associated with my sentiments. Insofar as the political sentiments are involved, that may well be true; I cite him only in the paragraph about SWAT teams. All politics aside, he was a good man and I liked him. I think of him whenever I see cases of SWAT-type teams being used outside of the very rare and special cases for which they were designed. While they may be necessary in that limited context, they are not appropriate to be used against ordinary citizens engaged in peaceful lives. It's simply reckless to field that kind of force against normal people who mean no harm.

Way Up in the Sky

Way Up In the Sky, The Little Birds Fly:

So, for about a month, every morning at first light I have been awakened by this cardinal with a throat like a siren. The first time he piped up in the dim pre-dawn, I leaped out of bed. I had never heard a bird with a voice like that, or a song like that -- it sounded more like a SPACE INVADERS game on loudspeakers than any living creature.

Apparently he got the girl, though.

The Concealed Carry Debate in 1872

The Concealed Carry Debate in 1872:

Douglas sends a link to a Volokh piece on the debate regarding concealed carry in 1872 Philadelphia. As he says, it's remarkably similar to the debate today -- except, I note, that the debate then was concealed v. open carry, while the debate today is normally concealed carry v. banning the carrying of arms entirely.

Open carry is something I've long advocated, and still do. Our society would be better off if it got over its fear of weapons in the hands of law-abiding and honorable men and women. A lot of that is just a question of being accustomed to seeing people carrying arms, so that it becomes a normal thing. It's a service, then, to carry openly -- appropriately, and where you can do so legally.

Dressed to Kilt

Let a girl post and she posts about fashion.

Somehow when I saw this I thought of all of you. I know you'll appreciate - as I do - the comeback of the non-metrosexual male. Or do we call that just a regular guy?

I didn't even have to invent the "glamor" tag. Interesting!

Immigration II

The Immigration Law, Again:

Gracious.

OK, so the full and final version of the law does nothing but provide police with instructions to seek immigration status during already lawful stops. It doesn't, as we might have thought from earlier versions, create a new kind of 'stop and frisk' rule for people who look like they might possibly be aliens.

It does contain an anti-racial-profiling clause about which Richard Cohen is probably correct: "Since this law is aimed at illegal immigrants from Mexico, the cops are almost certain to bend over backwards to avoid any suggestion of racial profiling and will, as a matter of fairness, stop and frisk the odd Scandinavian." As it happens, as a Stetson-hat-wearing Southerner, I was invariably given the "special" treatment every time I flew anywhere for a few years after 9/11. It was necessary, you see, so they'd have the numbers right in order to be free to search people who did match the profiles. You know, the profiles they aren't allowed to have, but also don't need to formalize since everyone understood that they were looking for Muslims from the Middle East, not, say, Mexican immigrants. (Or me.)

Now, Mr. Cohen also says that this is a kind of tea party moment. That's right -- and it's the point that Eugene Robinson missed, although it is possible that Mr. Robinson has never understood the Tea Party's real complaint. The Tea Party is a "small government" movement only by accident; it's really a strict-Constitutionalist movement. If the Federal government is exceeding its specified Constitutional authority, it needs to be restrained. Since, mostly, that is what the Federal government is doing, the Tea Party is mostly a small-government movement.

However, here we have an area where the Federal government is failing to perform its Constitutional duty! So here, the Tea Party is a large-government movement. That is, the Tea Party wants the Federal government to perform all and only its specifically authorized duties, using only specifically authorized powers. If it tries to exceed its mandate, it needs to be checked. If it fails to perform its duty, it needs to be spurred and driven.

I am hoping this particular spur does the trick, though I'm not sure I see how it possibly can. The overwhelming problem is that the government will have to start serving the interests of the citizens instead of the political interests of the ruling faction. I honestly doubt if this government is at all capable of doing that.

We've talked at times about the importance of a state-led Article V Constitutional Convention, to rebalance the power relationship between the states and Federal government to something more like what the Founders intended. There also has to be a reform of the Federal government itself. That will be easier to do when it is less powerful, because there will be less opposition from interest groups (insofar as they will have less to gain!). On some of these points, it will be difficult. If a Congressman wishes to pass a law addressing this issue, he will ask his staff to help compose it. They will go to interest groups and lobbyists who are contributors, and get draft text from them.

Even if the Congress wished to do the right thing, to look out for the People instead of their interest groups, I'm not sure they have the capacity. I don't think they would know how to begin.

Endorsement

Endorsement:

I don't know that any of you will be voting in the Parliamentary election in Salisbury, but if you are, by all means vote for Arthur Pendragon. A member of the Stonehenge Druid movement, he apparently hauls one of those "Excalibur" reproductions around everywhere. The Guardian notes that there is a rule specifically forbidding Members of Parliament from bringing their swords into the chamber. Fear not, however! The traditional accommodation has not been abandoned:

There are two parallel red lines woven into the carpet that run the length of the chamber, one each side. The distance between them is about two sword lengths plus six inches.

Members must speak from their side of the line and may not cross it. They must toe the line! Anyone standing from the front row who does allow a foot to stray across towards the opposite side, is frequently ordered back quite sharply. It is a good tactic to disconcert the Member who is speaking.

It dates from days when Members carried swords into the Chamber as part of their daily dress, and were not afraid to use them against those opposite when passions were aroused. Nowadays of course, Members are not allowed to take swords (or any other weapon) into the chamber, but the lines persist.

As do little ribbon loops dangling from the hangers in the Members’ cloakroom by their private entrance, designed to hold their swords. The swords they are not allowed to take into the chamber!

This just shows you how wise is the conservative habit of preserving old traditions. You never know when they might become useful again.

It's the distiributor cap.

Dennis the Peasant beautifully deconstructs a post by Matthew Yglesias on what should be done with the banking industry:

He's under the hood of the engine of finance - pulling on wires and touching things - and all the while his readership, which knows even less about banking than he does (if that is indeed possible), is standing there waiting for some sort of reassurance. All they know is the engine isn't running and they can't do anything to change that situation themselves. And Matthew, being the bright boy that he is, has figured out about banking what I've figured out about cars:

Sometimes the important thing is to let others pretend you know what you're talking about.

As instapundit says: "Read the whole thing."

A Joke from Afghanistan

A Joke From Afghanistan:

I guess the question is, why did he think this joke was a useful way to introduce the subject at hand? There's nothing wrong with telling a joke, if it is to introduce a serious point: sometimes, the shock effect that jokes produce can open the mind to new possibilities, or clear a ground for discussion.



The transcript of the general's remarks is here. What was the point this joke was supposed to introduce?

I am honestly unsure what he meant to convey by it. Yet these remarks include the strongest statement yet from this administration about the Israeli/American alliance.

America’s commitment to Israel will endure. And everyone must know that there is no space—no space—between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable. It is as strong as ever. This President and this Administration understands very well the environment—regionally and internationally—in which Israel and the United States must operate. We understand very well that for peace and stability in the Middle East, Israel must be secure.

The United States will never waiver in defense of Israel’s security. That is why we provide billions of dollars annually in security assistance to Israel, why we have reinvigorated our consultations to ensure Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, and why we undertake joint military exercises, such as the Juniper Cobra ballistic missile defense exercise that involved more than 1,000 United States servicemen and women. We view these efforts as essential elements of our regional security approach, because many of the same forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States.

I can also say from long experience that our security relationship with Israel is important for America. Our military benefits from Israeli innovations in technology, from shared intelligence, from exercises that help our readiness and joint training that enhances our capabilities and from lessons learned in Israel’s own battles against terrorism and asymmetric threats.

Over the years, and like so many Americans—like so many of you here tonight—I’ve spent a great deal of time with my Israeli partners, including my friends in the IDF. These partnerships are deep and abiding.

Perhaps the joke is a joke that the general learned from one of his Israeli partners, at some point in these deep and abiding friendships. It's not a joke on the Jews, after all (although I understand the sense being expressed this morning by this Jewish blogger that the joke plays on stereotypes he'd rather leave behind). The joke is on the Taliban, who finds himself entirely at their mercy in spite of his anger.

Obviously there are few Jews selling ties in Afghanistan, because the Taliban would simply kill them and take whatever water they required. This joke is really about how poorly adapted the Taliban mode is to a certain kind of life in which violence has lost its force. We are pleased to call this "the modern world," but the Taliban's world is just as "modern" as ours chronologically. Violence is still the currency there, as it is in much of the modern world.

There real question in front of us is: will the parts of the world where violence is the currency shrink, or grow? When the "modern" world is a few years older, will it be more violent or less? What probability would you assign? Would you go as high as 'even money'?

UPDATE: Beltway confidential responds to Jones' remarks thus:

"Somehow I can't envision a scenario where the White House would make a similar joke about Islam. This is doubly true since Jones has a reputation has prominent Israel critic"

That would be a fair point, except that this is a joke about a Muslim (the Taliban who ends up being the butt of the joke) as much as it's a joke about a Jew. It's not a joke about Islam, but neither is it a joke about Judaism. It trades on stereotypes -- but of the Muslims as angry but impotent as much as of Jews as merchants and manipulators.

The stereotypes are doubtless offensive; but jokes are allowed to be offensive, if there's a serious point they can help us understand. The question is, did Jones have a point? Or was he just telling a joke?

Financial Reform

Financial Reform:

I suppose this is the business of the day. Financial reform is not among my chief interests, but a citizen ought to try to develop a basic understanding of critical matters even where he is not interested in them. We do have to advise our representatives, and keep watch on them as well as we can.

So, here are two interesting pieces, and one comment:

This piece by an IMF 'old hand' was very interesting, and I think you should all consider it. We might discuss it here, to see how plausible his analysis is. If he's right, something like a 'bank tax' is nonsense; the banks are quite undercapitalized as it is. He recommends nationalization, bank breakup, and a turnover of our 'elites' in this society so that the US government is no longer captured by the financial industry. Radical stuff; but he says that other nations that have taken such radical measures have enjoyed rapid turnarounds. The US is unlikely to do so, because our financiers don't want to be turned out, and they control the government; plus, unlike many third world nations, we pay our debts in our own currency and can therefore simply print more of it. That way lies disaster, he says.

Another piece suggests that 'global rules' for capital might be in order. This is in keeping with the IMF hand's general concept that an internal US political solution would need to be more radical than Washington is likely to support. The bankers themselves were consulted, and here is where I would like to comment:

One participant at a US Federal Reserve meeting this month to discuss the new regime said “full and frank” did not do justice to the furious response from some industry delegates.

The reaction from capital hawks was that a blunt backstop might be better than an overreliance on the sophistication of risk models and regulators. They also said banks would be given plenty of time to adjust to the new system, perhaps several years, to minimise the immediate impact on credit provision.

Now that is very plausible, given Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Fourth Quadrant argument, which I find highly persuasive. Risk modeling in these cases is doomed to failure, if the 4Q argument is correct: thus, any reliance on 'sophistication of risk models' is overreliance.

Sometimes blunt instruments are the right tool for the job; there are things one can do with a sledgehammer that cannot be done with a scapel. If you insist on using only the scapel, you will eventually fail at the task.

The Heroic Life

The Heroic Life:

Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? “Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account.”

And Abraham replied, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?”

And He said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.”

He spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose forty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it on account of the forty.” Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” And he said, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.”

Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?”

And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.”

But there were not ten. There was only one.

In Praise of the Boy Scouts

In Praise of the Boy Scouts:

The NYT has a piece today by a man who was once a Boy Scout, and remembers it fondly.

But we were keenly aware that being a Boy Scout allowed us to shoot guns, build fires and take overnight camping trips on our own. In every sense it was revenge of the nerds. You have a curve ball; I can hit a bull’s-eye with my .22.

We were bookish, but in nonacademic ways. My interests were fingerprinting, Native-American skills and customs, rock climbing, map reading, canoeing and marksmanship. All of those represented merit badges that I studied for and earned. My Indian Lore badge taught me more about that aspect of American history than I was learning at school. And this wasn’t warmed-over “cowboys and Indians” fare: from the beginning the Boy Scouts taught respect for Native Americans, their values, as well as reminders of their victimization — indeed, their genocide.

Stifled by the hearty and the homoerotic in jock culture, I found refuge in the Boy Scouts, and an outlet for my love of hiking and swimming and solitude. It was important for me to separate myself from my parents. While other mothers and fathers cheered on their children at ballgames, we were on our own — two or three of us on an all-day hike, or target shooting up at the Stoneham sandpits.

Even Scout camp involved minimal authority, and its relative chaos was salutary. I earned badges for rowing and sailing — skills that have served me to this day. My lifesaving badges and Red Cross certification not only got me jobs at ponds and swimming pools in the Boston area, but enabled me, over the years, to rescue a number of hapless swimmers.

As might be expected from a writer for the Times, he ends up advocating that the Scouts should abandon certain traditional standards. Well, as to that, reasonable men can differ. Overall, a very nice piece.

Strange Days

Strange Days:

In a government that prides itself on its democratic roots, we've entered some strange days. Arizona passes a law that seventy percent of its citizens support, only to draw an immediate rebuke from the President of the United States.

The rebuke is understandable. This law sounds terrible: giving police the ability to stop people for no reason at all and demand they produce papers and identification is not something I support. I've never liked the anti-DUI checkpoints at which drivers are stopped and identification demanded, for example. I have my identification, of course, and it's merely a momentary irritation; and preventing DUI is a perfectly reasonable public policy goal that protects both lives and property.

Is immigration in Arizona a public policy problem at the same level as DUI? That is, does the threat to life or property rise to anything like the same level? It's hard to say. I've looked around this morning to try and get a sense of why there is such a high level of support for this law, but information is not easy to find. Missing from the coverage of this law in Arizona is any sense of why so many of her citizens feel that this is also a public policy goal that merits such intrusive measures. Is it because the offenses are so numerous and regular that they have ceased to be newsworthy?

The closest thing I can find is in this story, which also doesn't provide numbers, but says that there are "epidemic" spikes in "home invasion and kidnapping" associated with cross-border drug gangs; hundreds of people a year dying in the wilderness areas; and "numerous" police officers having been killed by illegal border crossers. That sounds like a public policy problem of at least the DUI level, does it not?

So what is the Federal government intending to do to answer the concerns of the citizens? This same President, with a unified Congress, just passed a health care law that was opposed by a majority. In February, Rassmussen found that only 21% said the US government has the consent of the governed. This month, Pew found that nearly eighty percent don't trust the government. The reason these citizens are feeling so negatively is that the government's interests are its own interests -- it doesn't seem to be tethered to what the people want (nor to its own Constitutional limits; but we'll leave that for the moment). Will the Federal government act in the interest of the people of Arizona, or in the political interest of the Democratic party at the national level? To ask the question is to answer it.

If there's a better way of dealing with these problems, fine: I don't like the idea of police stopping people and demanding papers either. The concerns of the 30% of citizens opposed to the new law also deserve consideration. Yet it won't do to simply wave your hand at Arizona and say, "Bad!" The fact that a supermajority of its citizens are ready to support such strong measures should be a warning that we need to take serious and careful action to solve the problem that is driving them.

Unhelpful and Uninteresting Ideas

Unhelpful and Uninteresting Ideas:

I imagine this kind of thing doesn't seem 'interesting or relevant' to many; but we'll see how they feel about it in November.

It's interesting to me that this comes from the Republican Governor's Association. This is a pretty intense ad for state governors to post up about the activity of the Federal government. Eric has often pointed out that state resistance to Federal authority would be one of the signs of serious tension; so here is another example.

UPDATE: Guy Fawkes! That's funny -- I didn't catch the reference at all. The story is somewhat obscure in America, if you didn't see "V for Vendetta" (as I have not).

Passengers

Passengers:

Eric Blair's old favorite:



And another:




"The cops are comin'.... You can hear it too, if you're sincere."

Take a ride.

Madness

Madness:

So, once again -- I think this question gets asked by various liberals at least ten times a year -- are conservatives nuts?

Serious thinkers on the right have finally gotten around to a full and open debate on the epistemic closure problem that's plaguing the conservative movement. The issue, to put it in terms that even I can understand, because I didn't study philosophy much in college: has the conservative base gone mad?

Fortunately, I did study philosophy a bit. Let's get clear on exactly what "epistemic closure" means.

Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article here. If you don't want to work through it, though, the easy way to understand the issue is this: let's say you know a thing or two. Doesn't really matter how you know it, for our purposes: epistemology is the study of knowledge. Exactly how you come to know things, and what you can claim to know, are serious, deep subjects we can set aside for the moment. For now, let's say you do know something. What can you do with it?

Well, one thing we'd normally like to say that you can do with it is reason from it to other things you'd like to know about. You can make deductions, which is to say, you can reason down: I know that I have a dollar, so I know that I have some money (as a dollar is a kind of money). You can also make inferences: I know that I have a dollar, so I know that someone is printing money.

Closure is normally related to deduction. It is meant to have limits: there are only so many things I can deduce from a given piece of information. Once I have approached it from all possible sides, I've reached closure. This means that, given what I knew, if I have reached closure, there are some other things I ought to know.

This is the closure principle:

SP: If person S knows p, and p entails q, then S knows q.

Is that right? No; no one thinks it is. The interesting aspect of the question is how you can fail to know q, if you know p and p entails q. Are you making an error, or is it natural that people don't chase everything down logically? Why do people hold beliefs that might not sort logically?

What does all this mean? Well, one thing it means for the current debate is that people are throwing around a philosophical concept very loosely. The idea that is being put forward is that conservatives have accepted a 'closed set' of beliefs, and are not accepting as knowledge anything that is not entailed by that set of beliefs.

That's not what closure really means, though. Refusing to learn new things might be a kind of madness, but the closure principle has nothing to do with that.

I offer this just for the record. Speaking as someone who might be described as a conservative, and who actually does understand these terms that are being so blithely tossed about by people who (sometimes even openly admit that they) don't: you might be a little less cocksure about your claims.

Now, is it the case that conservatives refuse to learn anything new? Well, speaking only for myself -- assuming I qualify -- I find the idea laughable. You can think what you like, but thinking it doesn't make it true. (And how many of you bothered to look up "epistemic closure" this last week or so, before you used the phrase in your articles? Fine time to complain about other people not bothering to learn new ideas.)

Proposals

Proposals:

The WSJ would have you believe that people don't propose marriage anymore.

In 1972, on a park bench in Birmingham, Ala., Garner Lee Green's father proposed to her mother. The proposal came out of the blue. She said yes.

"That doesn't happen to people anymore," says Ms. Green, who is 30. And it certainly wasn't the way her husband asked her to marry him several years ago. The two of them talked for a long time about how and when the proposal would happen. "I was ready before he was, so we had to come to a meeting of the minds about a time frame. The negotiations lasted about six months," Ms. Green says.

I don't know about "Ms." Green, who is 30; but since she's talking about something that happened "several years ago," we're planning to celebrate our 11th anniversary this summer. I proposed in just this way:

It was the day before Christmas eve. My girlfriend -- how odd it seems to say that, instead of "my wife"! -- had booked a flight to take her home for Christmas. She was down in Savannah, working on a Master of Fine Arts in painting; she wanted to be with her family over the holidays. They're dead now, both her parents; younger readers, take note. That can happen fast, and her deep wish to be home was wise.

I hadn't been around Atlanta much in several years, but my father was still trekking downtown regularly. I asked him for advice on how to get her to the airport that morning. The advice he gave me sent me into the worst traffic I'd seen in years. We missed her flight by half an hour, easy.

As we were in the traffic, before we reached the airport far too late, she began to panic. I told her, to calm her down, that if we missed the flight I'd just drive her to Indiana. Well, we missed the flight; so I drove her to Indiana.

Her father put me up on the floor of his house, downstairs by the door.



Watch him: he says, "Bei." That means: "Drink."

After he went to bed, she crept downstairs and slept on the floor next to me. That was the night I asked her if she would mind my asking her father's permission to seek her hand. She agreed; and the next morning, he agreed, saying that he'd raised her to make her own decisions.

That was eleven years ago. We were married the next June. I might love another, in the course of my life; but I will never fail to love this one, as long as I live.

The movie Rob Roy says that 'honor is a gift a man gives himself.' That's a lie; honor is something quite different, and it takes a community to give it. Yet romance is a gift that a man gives himself; and he gives it, at the same time, to another. It makes life worth living. Love is not a small thing. It may be the most important thing.

Posting a Scoundrel

Posting a Scoundrel:

MikeD sends a link to an example of an old tradition. Posting was supposed to be done only in cases of honor when the duel had either been refused by another gentleman, or if they had agreed to a duel and then not shown up for it.

There's an interesting backstory to this particular posting. General Leigh Read refused this duel partially on the grounds of being a poor shot, but partially because he didn't feel that Tradewell was his equal. He accepted the duel offered by Tradewell's superior within the Whig party, one Augustus Alston, whom he killed.

Tradewell was right to be furious, as the claim that Read was too good to fight him was not proper. European nobility might disdain to fight a 'mere gentleman' on the grounds that they would duel only with equals; but in America, where nobility did not exist, the tradition was that all gentlemen were on a par. Saying that Tradewell was not good enough for him to fight was a tremendous insult.

Leah acquitted himself well, though -- far better than Alston's brother, who chose to pursue revenge through murder. He made two attempts on Leah's life, both dishonorable, and finally succeeded by shooting the general in the back.

He was later killed himself by a lynch mob, for murdering a doctor who rightly derided his honorless conduct. An interesting story all the way around.

The Collapse

The Collapse:

Africa's "forever wars" seem to offer a terrible picture of what human nature might be like. These groups are brigands, but somehow the brigands fail to provoke the response you would expect even in places where all governmental authority has failed: a few local families or tribes getting together and going out to hang the bunch for the common good. These are not soldiers they are fighting, after all, but criminals.

The Cold War's end bred state collapse and chaos. Where meddling great powers once found dominoes that needed to be kept from falling, they suddenly saw no national interest at all. (The exceptions, of course, were natural resources, which could be bought just as easily -- and often at a nice discount -- from various armed groups.) Suddenly, all you needed to be powerful was a gun, and as it turned out, there were plenty to go around.

That is not all you need, though; one thing we know from our own Dark Ages is that resistance is possible even when the walls collapse. Organized resistance can be successful in building a wall against such predation that, even if it is not universally effective, raises the costs of predation to such a degree that the predators go elsewhere.

This doesn't have to entail high costs; we saw the Anglo-Saxons resist Danish raiding with a fire beacon system and a small but organized group of people who would respond to raids when they saw the fires lit. The Danes were far more powerful and organized, in turn, than these African bandits. Saying that the system has collapsed explains the opportunity for violent predation. It doesn't explain how new systems don't spring up to resist those predators.

Sir Walter Scott

Sir Walter Scott's Influence:

Is it true that everyone read Scott, but no one was influenced by him? It seems to me that he was tremendously influential, and remains so.

There are essentially two sorts of novel, the open and the closed, even if many straddle the frontier that divides them. The closed novel is self-sufficient, free of the influence of public events. In the open novel, such events become characters in the action. The open novel is exposed to the winds of the world, its characters actors in history or victims of history. Given the difficulty of understanding the confusion and turbulence of the ever-changing present, it is natural that authors drawn to the open novel should turn to the past. Hence, in our present uncertainties, the attraction of the historical novel and the vogue it once again enjoys. Meanwhile, the Waverley novels that delighted several generations wait on the shelves to be discovered by those who have never known them, to be read again by those who, like Virginia Woolf, already love them.

My favorite line from the Waverly novels comes when they are contemplating an attack on British forces from a position of superior height. The phrase "even a haggis can charge downhill" is apparently a Scottish Gaelic proverb; though whether it was one before Scott wrote Waverly, I could not say.