The lady speaks on religion and the Founding. The trick here -- the magic trick, the illusion -- is the fact that there is no other faith but that which came out of the European, Christian tradition that is compatible with this particular kind of pluralism. America is a 'Christian nation' even if it is not: only Christianity, in 1776, could have considered a principle like anti-Establishmentarianism.
There is one clear competitor: China once knew a similar principle: it would permit Buddhists or Taoists or whatever other traditions of religion arose. Obviously that principle failed during the Maoist period. It seems to be reasserting itself now.
Still, Chinese pluralism was not in any sense at the root of the Founding; it is a similar tradition, but an entirely unrelated one. Our respect for its wisdom does not require us to set aside the fact that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual business of founding this nation, or establishing its fundamental principles.
We Know That You're Absolutely Correct
Mother's Day Poetry
So. This weekend is Mother's Day. All of you have mothers. Many of you have wives who are the mothers of your children.
Let's have a contest. Best sonnet in honor of a mother, yours or your children's, wins... well, the honor of the hall and a chance to win the Hero's Portion. My own entry won't count, so I can honestly judge them.
You've got a couple of days. Let's see what you can do. If you really don't like sonnets, I will certainly also accept Viking/Anglo-Saxon alliterative poetry. But you'd better know what you're doing, because I'll know if you're faking it. ;)
Viking Longspears
Via our friend Lars Walker's blog, this:
Note that the shield, hung over the shoulder, is of use even if you make no effort to articulate it. You may find that helpful to understanding a few passages of Medieval writing on war, if you are inclined to them.
Lars also has an interesting piece on the economics of the duel. This is much in accord with Louis L'amour's commentary on why it was right to shoot a man who called you a liar, in the West.
Chopper II
Since you folks liked the first post, here's another one I liked somewhat.
"Journalists! Like those two bloody poor blokes down in the mine! 400 F'ing journalists standing around... if half those journalists brought a f'ing shovel, they would have been out weeks earlier."
(STILL NOT safe. But a good point.)
Chopper Reed
A commenter at BlackFive mentioned this to me:
(NOT safe; language warning!)
"You're f'ing spot on, Devan."
Interesting thing about this comedy spot; it's based on a real guy. "Chopper Read" is a real guy. This guy:
You know, I kind of like that guy.
People disagreed with me.
Watch this:
Still think we aren't living in a police state?
(Reason via Instapundit)
The Greater Insurgency
There are two reasons peoples wage war on each other. The first is over what we might call matters of engineering; the second is over what we might call matters of identity.
The first kind are disputes over things like water rights, land, etc. Engineering disputes are easy to resolve in theory, though they may be impossible to resolve in practice: that is why they are 'engineering' disputes. The question is whether you can (and can afford to) craft and build a solution that allows an acceptable distribution of whatever is being fought over. Wealth, power, whatever: the only reason people are fighting is because they want more than what they have. If we can craft a better way to use and arrange access to what we have, we can often put an end to the conflict.
The second type of war is nearly impossible to solve, because it touches not mere practical goods, but matters of the human heart.
The AP describes the Times Square bomber as a man whose life seemed to unravel; but that is to take the passive voice. The truth is that he unraveled it. He had every success that a young man in Pakistan is taught to seek: he obtained an H1-B visa, giving him access to the opportunity to compete for wealth and work in the world's richest market. He obtained an advanced education, including an MBA. He had a nice home in the suburbs, a family, and even U.S. citizenship. He had it all: tens of millions in India and Pakistan are working and dreaming of what he got.
He let it go, choosing instead to return to Pakistan, seek out the training camps of the Jihad, to learn to build bombs and try to destroy the land that gave him such wealth, success, and stability.
This is not the first time. Remember Zacarias Moussaoui:
He holds a master's degree in International Business from South Bank University in London, having enrolled in 1993 and graduated in 1995.These are the people that al Qaeda sought out, and that radicals today still seek. They have the education and passports to move freely in the West. They are almost untouchable. Yet they are unsatisfied with the life of the West, hate it in their hearts, and long for something else.
Insofar as we do not understand just what it is they want, we won't be able to begin to address this problem. So here is a sketch: what they want is the story. They want the heroic epic. They want to be a hero fighting for God, in a clash of good against evil.
That is a conflict of identity. There is no engineering solution: you cannot give them greater access to wealth or resources, because they are already throwing away wealth and resources that are the very dream of millions and tens of millions. It is a question of who they want to be: it is a question of a fury at the core of the being, that comes from failing to be a man you can yourself respect.
Deficit commission & Constitution
News today comes that the left is planning to use the President's anti-deficit commission to push for amnesty for illegals. Let's remember why this is 'the President's' commission, and not the Senate's:
Obama's version of the commission is a weak substitute for what he really wanted: a panel created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.The weaker version of the panel doesn't have any such requirement; its recommendations do not automatically force a vote. That was what the President wanted.
Why? Allegedly because of concern that the Congress will otherwise avoid tackling the tough issues that we need to tackle in order to bring down the deficit. We see the immediate expansive view of that power, though: given 'an inch' to tackle this pressing problem, they immediately want to assume the power to pass laws addressing anything at all.
The idea of a limited Federal government apparently does not compute! T99 comments:
Some liberals have difficulty with the idea that government should have a limited role. They assume that everyone must choose between supporting an all-encompassing role or a non-existent one. Anything else strikes them as hypocritical.What is lost is the idea that there are rules about what the Federal government can or can't do: it has a defined role. Within that role it is free to act, but there are specified limits: there is nothing hypocritical about praising an action within that range, and condemning as intrusive another action that defies the lawful limits of authority. As Cassandra's post points out, limited government advocates can easily support a Federal role in the case of the BP oil spill: it's in the Constitution.
... conservatives understand that maritime affairs traditionally are within the purview of federal jurisdiction, see Article I, Section 10 and Article III, Section 2 of the document known as the United States Constitution.In a wide and diverse society like this one, where people have divergent values and backgrounds, clear Constitutional limits can inspire trust that would otherwise be lacking. The Federal government would be far more trusted, admired and respected if -- instead of chafing at limits on its power -- it was careful to demonstrate specific Constitutional authority for its every action, and showed clear deference to the limits imposed upon it.
The Tenth Amendment holds that powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. If a tragedy comes up that the Federal government legitimately cannot address, a state-based government response is therefore always possible. The Federal government might even assist the states at their request, and following their lead: but it would need to set aside its claim to power and authority, and merely help as directed.
Such a government, humble and obedient to the permanent will of the people as expressed and codified by our Constitution, would have both wide and deep support. A government that looks for every opportunity to bypass any limits on its power and authority is rightly regarded with suspicion.
MKH on the Bomber
My favorite part of this quote is not the part that everyone has been mocking -- you know, the bit about 'the health care bill or something.' No, my favorite line was this one:
"It looks like an amateurish job done by at least one person," he told Couric.I'm glad we can rule out nobody from our list of suspects, then.
Other good news today: apparently training to build bombs at a Pakistani jihad camp teaches you absolutely nothing about how to build an effective bomb. This bomb was a remarkable joke: the wrong kind of fertilizer, unmodified by any of the things that make fertilizer more explosive, with propane canisters that are designed not to explode, involving an initiation mechanism that was entirely inappropriate.
The Narrative
Or, not.
The ferocious oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is threatening President Barack Obama’s reputation for competence, just as surely as it endangers the Gulf ecosystem.
Majority supports Arizona on immigration law -- actually, in spite of the President personally attacking the state and its citizens, 51% think the law "is about right" and another 9% thinks it "doesn't go far enough." That's 60% in support of these or stronger measures. 36% think it goes too far.
Meanwhile, the Post has "storylines to watch" from today's elections. That's an interesting concept, but it's true: we all craft stories all the time. Storytelling is one of the arts, and arts are what makes us human: the fact that we make art wherever we go, and use it to define meaning and answer questions for ourselves that other kinds of creatures never ask.
Sometimes that gets missed; but it's true all the same. So of course we have "narratives" and "storylines" in politics -- even in things as disconnected as an oil rig here, and a special election there. To some degree these things all converge in the White House, but only because we have decided to tell the story that way. If we had made a different decision, an age ago, the White House would not now be in a position to consolidate so much power. They can because we have come to tell stories that make them the reflex point for all these disconnected things; and if they are to be held responsible, isn't it easy to argue that they obviously therefore must be allotted the power to control whatever events for which they're being held responsible?
That's worth thinking about. We should tell a different kind of story: about how this or that event should be considered on its own terms; and if we mention the White House, it should be to underline the fact that the affair is none of their business. Unless, of course, it's a delegated Article II power -- in which case, it certainly is.
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
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
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!
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?
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
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
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.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.
Optimism can be refreshing, however, even when it is neither correct nor justified.
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.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.
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.
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.
Spring Ales 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.
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?
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
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?
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.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.
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!"
Live to fight, love to fight. How could I fail to admire someone like that?
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
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.
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?
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
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
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...."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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Hooah
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.This just shows you how wise is the conservative habit of preserving old traditions. You never know when they might become useful again.
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!
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
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.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.
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.
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?