Your Brain Makes up What You See

Your Brain Makes up What You See

From Not Rocket Science, some optical illusions that you'll swear are a trick. In the image below, the spirals look pink, green, and blue. Each is actually made up of stripes: green/orange, orange/violet, and violet/green. The amazing thing is that you'd swear that the green next to the violet is really sky-blue. In reality's it's the same color that's next to the orange, as will become apparent if you zoom in on the picture far enough.

Here's one that's even harder to swallow:



The "light" squares within the shadow are the same color as the "dark" squares outside of the shadow. I couldn't blow up a screen-capture of the checkboard image far enough to make the illusion go away; I had to print it out and fold the page over to convince myself.

Here is a screen capture for your printing and folding purposes, those of you who (like me) couldn't be bothered to go into Photoshop and capture the hexadecimal value of the colors, as several of the commenters on the linked site did:

The Great Debt Experiment

The Great Debt Experiment

Does public debt work only when the citizenry values so highly what the debt will buy that they're willing to give up private or consumer goods for the duration? And then only if, when the debt-funded emergency or project is over, they are willing to give the public project up before they return to funding the private goodies?

This Foreign Policy article posits that the U.S. and Great Britain recovered quickly from WWII debt levels because their people drastically cut down on private debt while the war debt was ballooning. When the war was over, there was a painful re-tooling process, but wartime production was shifted over to meet a pent-up consumer demand. In contrast, recent decades have witnessed an explosion of public debt, not for temporary war emergencies or even long-term infrastructure like railroads, but for long-term unfunded pension and healthcare programs, even while consumer debt kept on expanding to fund larger houses, cars, and gadgets:

The heyday of Keynesian economics came to an end in the stagflation of the 1970s. But curiously, budget deficits actually grew after Keynesianism fell from favor -- not only in the United States, but throughout the Western world. The explanation lies partly in a covert acceptance of deficit spending even by governments nominally hostile to Keynesian doctrine, but also in part in the increasing pressures on public spending created by the second ingredient in the great debt experiment: unfunded long-term financial promises to voters.

The post-war era witnessed not only the triumph of Keynesian economics, but also the establishment of public pensions throughout the Western world. Almost all these pension plans were set up on a pay-as-you-go basis that provided high rates of return to the first generation of pensioners (which, perhaps not coincidentally, was the generation that voted them into existence) at the cost of an unfunded commitment to later generations. Public pension plans are the biggest element in the off-balance-sheet obligations of states, which also include unfunded health-insurance liabilities and the 2008 guarantees to the banking system. In most countries these "implicit" public debts dwarf their traditional obligations traded in the bond market. In the United States, the total long-term commitments for Social Security, public sector pensions, and Medicare have been estimated at over 300 percent of GDP on the basis of current policies.

The author appears queasy about the recent revolt against Keynesian policies by both lenders and voters, which is leading to brand-new austerity measures in nearly every developed country. Although he protests that no one can predict what will come of this about-face, he acknowledges that something had to give:

The markets have highlighted a fundamental shortcoming in Keynes's ideas: He assumed that governments would always be able to borrow. If they cannot, then Keynesian economics is dead in the water.

Bows

Public Service Announcement:

The first cool mornings are upon us, and I saw a fat herd of deer on Thursday's four-mile run around the rural roads near the Hall. Many of you will be getting in shape for the archery season, which starts in about three weeks.

Let's not forget some basic safety tips! Here we have a useful video on avoiding common user errors with a compound bow.



Here is a video by "Captain Tactical," who didn't abide by those rules.



The "no-dry-fire" rule applies to crossbows as well.



On the other hand, you do have to give that fellow credit for his extraordinary self-control under the circumstances.

Best In Life

"Conan: What Is Best In Life?"

I saw the new Conan movie. It will not survive.



It may be closer to Robert E. Howard's vision than the famous version with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Certainly Howard would have appreciated the Joe Bob Briggs element, which includes a nearly uncountable number of both breasts and decapitations. It also lacks the humor of the original, which occasionally passes the point of what is appropriate (as when Conan's head falls in the gruel while he is drunk: Howard's hero would never have been in so undignified a position).

What it misses is two things. The first is the music. There is nothing to compare with the score of the original. Certainly no moment captures joy or wonder, like this:



The second is the mythic element that the original managed to capture. "What is best in life?" is a question this Conan does not ponder; his only remark to the question is that "I live, I love, I slay, I am content." This fails to capture the glory of Arnold's remarks; but it isn't the only such failure in the film. There is nothing that approaches this moment:



The one thing that Conan cannot afford to lose is the power of myth. There is no origin story; there is no haunting beauty. Lacking those things, there is little beyond the pleasure of a good thumping, and the beauty of the women they talked into participating.

You may nevertheless find it worth seeing once, for those simpler pleasures. They are abundant, but they are all that it has.

The Friar's Tale

The Friar's Tale:

Along the line of the last post, some modern friars just as determined to smite evil as the one in Chaucer's tales.

A group of Franciscan friars furious at the theft of bibles from their church in Florence have taken the unusual step of praying for the thief to be struck down by diarrhoea.

Friars at the 15th century church of San Salvatore al Monte, which was a favourite of Michelangelo, were irritated when a rare and expensive bible disappeared from the lectern, and they flew off the handle when a replacement bible donated by a worshipper also went missing and within a few hours.

In a note, pinned up in full view of worshippers, the friars say they hope the thief sees the error of his ways. But in case he does not...

...and the frying pan, too!

Hell and Beauty

Hell and Beauty:

Via Arts & Letters Daily, an investigation into claims that the famed blues guitarist Robert Johnson might have sold his soul to the devil. The claims are well known, but long dismissed by academics who study the music. They are too quick, writes Ted Gioia.

This paucity of hard facts, when viewed in light of Johnson’s remarkable talents as a guitarist and blues singer, has fueled speculation about a supposed deal with the Devil. Johnson had been an amateurish guitarist when he first encountered his mentor Son House in 1930. “You can’t play nothing,” the elder guitarist told him. Soon after, Johnson disappeared for a brief spell. The next time House heard him, Johnson was a master on the instrument, one who stood out from his peers and surpassed House himself in technical proficiency on the instrument. The transformation was as breathtaking as it was unexpected.... The young musician’s dealings with guitarist Ike Zinermon, one of Johnson’s teachers, no doubt also raised eyebrows—Zinermon had bragged about going to a graveyard at midnight, where he played music while perched atop tombstones....

But what happens when we focus attention on Robert Johnson himself and examine his most revealing legacy—namely his 42 surviving recordings? In truth, this is the hardest hurdle of all for scholars who want to sweep the Devil under the carpet. Johnson himself was clearly obsessed with Satan, and his songs reflect the anxieties of a man who had something to fear from this quarter. His “Cross Road Blues” seems to explicitly reference these tales of a crossroads as a place where dark powers are afoot—a view, by the way, which is a clear carryover from African belief systems. Johnson’s concerns about the afterlife surface in his song “If I Had Possession Over Judgment Day.” And his “Me and the Devil Blues” builds on the image of a man haunted by Satan himself. Johnson also gave his “Preachin’ Blues” the subtitle “Up Jumped the Devil.” These references must be an embarrassment to modern critics trying to sanitize and secularize Johnson’s music—and one admires their perseverance in trying to cleanse these songs of biographical references. But the whole legacy of the blues is as a music of self-expression and personal revelation. Any attempt to portray Robert Johnson as singing about someone else’s life and someone else’s attitudes inevitably sounds hollow and unconvincing.

The hardest song to sanitize is the piece Johnson recorded in his last day in the studio, June 20, 1937, the anguished “Hellhound on My Trail.” This is one of the most powerful blues ever recorded, and explicitly relates the horror of a man pursued by demonic forces. Churchgoers of the day—a group that accounted for the vast majority of Mississippi’s residents, circa 1937—would have been very familiar with the image of hellhounds hunting the souls of desperate sinners....

An oft-told story, well known among blues fans but dismissed again by scholars—one more unseemly anecdote they would prefer to ignore—tells of musician Sonny Boy Williamson II paying a visit to Johnson in his final hours, only to find the guitarist crawling like a dog on the floor and moaning in agony.

Assume for a moment that it were true both that these Christian-mythic bargains were really available, and that this young guitarist had made one. It seems to me that creates a strange case for us.

The substance of the bargain is that the Devil should teach a young man how to create beautiful music on his guitar, in return for the man's soul at his death. By making the bargain, the young man is creating a channel for beauty to come into the world that did not exist before.

Let's inquire into this further. Can beauty come from Hell? We are told that Satan can array himself like an angel of light, and so we must assume that even nearly divine beauty is available to him. If the True and the Beautiful are ultimately the same, as the tradition holds, angelic beauty (being closer to God) would naturally be greater than human beauty. Thus, Satan would (ironically) be a legitimate channel for humans to approach closer to divine beauty.

If that is the case, then, the bargain struck would be harmful to Johnson, but -- because it would increase the amount of celestial beauty available to humanity -- beneficial to the rest of us. We would be in a case of receiving an unearned boon that brings us closer to God, paid for by the eternal damnation of another's soul.

---

That makes me think of Chaucer's "The Friar's Tale," which is the one about the summoner who meets a devil from hell. The devil is going about the world looking to gain for Hell at the expense of humanity. This is close enough to the summoner's own work that he strikes up a sort of fellowship with the demon. After a time they find a merchant whose team of horses is in the mud, and who is promising them to the Devil. The summoner suggests that the devil ought to take the team, since it is being freely offered, but the demon says he can't:

"Nay," said the devil, "God knows, never a bit.
It is not his intention, trust to it.
Ask him yourself, if you believe not me,
Or else withhold a while, and you shall see."
This carter stroked his nags upon the croup,
And they began in collars low to stoop.

"Hi now!" cried he, "May Jesus Christ you bless
And all His creatures, greater, aye and less!
That was well pulled, old horse, my own grey boy!
I pray God save you, and good Saint Eloy!
Now is my cart out of the slough, by gad!"

"Lo, brother," said the fiend, "what said I, lad?
Here may you see, my very own dear brother,
The peasant said one thing, but thought another.
Let us go forth upon our travellers' way;
Here win I nothing I can take today."

They eventually meet an old woman whom the summoner is seeking for purposes of blackmail. He levels false charges against her, and she says that the devil can take him if he won't recant them.

"You lie," she cried then, "by my own salvation!
Never was I, till now, widow or wife,
Summoned unto your court in all my life;
Nor ever of my body was I untrue!
Unto the Devil rough and black of hue
Give I your body and my pan also!"

And when the devil heard her cursing so
Upon her knees, he said to her just here:
"Now, Mabely, my own old mother dear,
Is this your will, in earnest, that you say?"

"The Devil," said she, "take him alive today,
And pan and all, unless he will repent!"

It costs her a frying pan, but the Summoner is taken away to hell quickly after that.

Taking all these legends as truth for a moment, what do you make of the case of Robert Johnson? How good is the Devil's claim on him? Do we, who have been brought closer to Beauty by his bargain, have a part?

15m

Fifteen Minutes of Daily Exercise:

Fifteen minutes a day of exercise adds three years to your life, according to FuturePundit.

HOUSTON -- Taiwanese who exercise for 15 minutes a day, or 92 minutes per week, extended their expected lifespan by three years compared to people who are inactive, according to a study published today in The Lancet.

"Exercising at very light levels reduced deaths from any cause by 14 percent," said study senior author Xifeng Wu, M.D., Ph.D., professor and chair of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Department of Epidemiology. "The benefits of exercise appear to be significant even without reaching the recommended 150 minutes per week based on results of previous research."

92 minutes per week of exercise is 4784 minutes per year, which is about 80 hours. Over twenty years, then, you'll pay for your extra time: you'll be spending one thousand, six hundred hours exercising. It's still a good bargain, though, since three years contain over twenty-six thousand hours.

Guess It Depends on Your Peers

Guess It Depends on Your Peers

For years now, in nearly every discussion of global warming climate change climate disruption, I've encountered condescending references to the "settled science" in "peer-reviewed journals." I couldn't shake the uneasy feeling that peer review isn't what it used to be, now that people can get doctorates in "Studies" Studies.

There's no further room for doubt. I refer you to a sublimely content-free article published in Acta Astronautica, Volume 68, Issues 11-12, June-July 2011, pages 2114-2129, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis," written by two Penn State professors (one of geography, the other of meteorology) and a member of NASA's Planetary Science Division. Acta Astronautica purports to be a peer-reviewed journal sponsored by the International Academy of Astronautics, a somewhat fluffy organization that nevertheless is not entirely inhabited by tin-foil-hatted wannabes, to judge from the number of space agency heads, world leaders, and academicians the IAA claims (with photographic evidence) to have lured to its 50th anniversary gala in Washington, D.C., almost a year ago.

But if this truly is a peer-reviewed publication, it's a profoundly embarrassing example. What self-respecting editor would swallow this abstract with a straight face:

While humanity has not yet observed any extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), contact with ETI remains possible. Contact could occur through a broad range of scenarios that have varying consequences for humanity. However, many discussions of this question assume that contact will follow a particular scenario that derives from the hopes and fears of the author. In this paper, we analyze a broad range of contact scenarios in terms of whether contact with ETI would benefit or harm humanity. This type of broad analysis can help us prepare for actual contact with ETI even if the details of contact do not fully resemble any specific scenario.

The authors warn that our greenhouse gases may attract unfriendly notice from distant observers; just another reason to rein them in before it's too late. Alternatively, aliens "might invite humanity to join the 'Galactic Club' only for the entry requirements to be too bureaucratic and tedious for humans to bother with." So that could be a problem.

No chanting of words like "scenario" and "analysis" can hide the vapidity of this undisciplined speculation on a subject that is 100% free of data. In its breaktaking freedom from factual fetters, it reaches nearly the level of most climate-whatever modeling. All we're missing is a computer-modeled prediction of when the aliens will land, and what shade of green they will be, which can be updated every year that contact fails to materialize.

It's one thing when a conservative presidential candidate delivers offhand remarks about evolution and creationism that you somewhat wistfully wish he'd kept to himself. At least Rick Perry doesn't claim to be a scientist -- or even a professor of geography. I am mortified that NASA employs a man who would publish the kind of pseudo-technical drivel that should have been laughed out of a sci-fi fanzine. And frankly I thought better of Penn State as well.

Per HotAir, NASA is nonplussed enough about this publicity this article is getting to announce that it was in no way an official agency study, despite the NASA affiliation of one of the authors. Well, that's something.

Sister

On the Road:

My little sister writes from Idaho, where she stopped for lunch.

Duels & Judicial Combat

Trial by Combat:

This is strikingly appropriate.

Notch has just thrown down the gauntlet on his blog. He wants to settle the Scolls lawsuit with Bethesda once and for all, by beating them in a game of Quake 3.

“I challenge Bethesda to a game of Quake 3. Three of our best warriors against three of your best warriors,” Notch writes. “We select one level, your select the other, we randomize the order. 20 minute matches, highest total frag count per team across both levels wins.”

“If we win, you drop the lawsuit. If you win, we will change the name of Scrolls to something you’re fine with.”

I remember when Saddam Hussein challenged George W. Bush to a duel in place of fighting the Iraq war. There's a sense in which it's a shame that didn't happen.

How Long?

Congressman and retired Lieutenant Colonel Allen West speaks to the issue of unemployment in the black community.



That's pretty rough speech! I met LTC West once, and he's a tough guy -- a good guy, too. He's choosing these words carefully, advisedly, precisely for the reaction he'll get.

When he speaks of "Conservative principles and values" that are the "corner stone of the black community," though, he's leaving aside explosive rhetoric. What is this cornerstone of the black community?

"Individual responsibility and accountability, faith, family, and a hard work ethic."

Any community founded on those principles is likely to do well.

Evangelicals

Evangelicals and the Collapse of Literalism:

NPR asks what happens to an Evangelical faith that admits that there may not have been an actual Adam and Eve, and therefore no original sin. What need, then, for a savior?

Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.

"Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.

Respectfully, this is one concern you needn't trouble about too much. Chesterton had it right: original sin is the one thing about humanity that isn't in doubt.

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.

You don't need Adam to prove that man needs saving. You just need any man, or every man you ever knew.

Sowell

Marriage and Poverty:

Thomas Sowell says:

In the U.S., despite the higher poverty level among blacks than among whites, the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.

The rate is about 25% for blacks in general; but for all Americans, it is under six percent for married couples, and over 25% for the unmarried. There isn't much more strongly correlated than that -- except full-time employment, as only 2.5% of the fully employed are poor.

Big Government Means Small Citizens

Big Government Means Small Citizens

Mark Steyn on the English riots:

For Americans, the quickest way to understand modern Britain is to look at what LBJ's Great Society did to the black family and imagine it applied to the general population. . . . Big Government means small citizens: It corrodes the integrity of a people, catastrophically. Within living memory, the city in flames on our TV screens every night governed a fifth of the earth's surface and a quarter of its population.

When you're imperialists on that scale, there are bound to be a few mishaps along the way. But nothing the British Empire did to its subject peoples has been as total and catastrophic as what a postgreat Britain did to its own.

At The End:

A song for those of you who are fans of Alexander Dumas' The Three Musketeers. Antoine Boësset might have been in charge of that ballet held by Louis XIII, 'in the honor of the queen,' designed to trap her in the affair of the diamond tags.

Grim Young

In Which We Learn that Grim Will Die Young:

Relatively young, anyway; I'm not as young as I once was already.

The three authors, all from the University of Oklahoma, found that states with a “culture of honor” –- in the South, and the West, mainly -- also have higher rates of accidental death for white males: 42 per 100,000 compared to 36.8 per 100,000 in non “honor” states.

So what’s a “culture of honor”? “The relentless, and sometimes violent, defense of masculine reputation,” according to the study.

“This is an adaptation to what the Ulster Scots [also called the Scots-Irish] experienced over 800 or 900 years in southern Scotland,” one of the study’s authors, Ryan P. Brown, explained.

Well, and so what? Death before dishonor, we used to say; and I see no reason to recant. I find that my broken ribs hurt more as I get older, but that doesn't mean I'm sorry to have them. What makes a man is daring what comes, and that means a true man -- even the best man -- will suffer, and die, as Fate sends.

Can Anyone Govern?

Can Anyone Govern?

A piece entitled "Can Rick Perry Govern?" sets a high bar.

Amid all the horse-race analysis of Perry’s candidacy—can he win? how does he stack up against Mitt Romney?—a more basic question has been lost. Can he govern?

Therein lies the rub for Rick Perry. His record in Texas doesn’t exactly blow you away. The man can win an election, no doubt. But once the campaigns are over and he actually gets into office, well, the results aren’t inspiring.

In fact, I would argue that Perry has achieved no major legislative accomplishments as governor.

One might argue that 'legislative accomplishments' aren't really the business of a governor; and certainly Texas' jobs picture is markedly better than anyone else's. Both pieces argue that Gov. Perry had little to do with the economic picture, though; and at least some of the reasoning is solid.

What is interesting to me is that this question about Perry precisely mirrors questions about Obama and Bachmann. As for the President, the difference between the rhetoric around his campaign and his actual record of accomplishment is so well rehearsed even on the left that it needs little argument; and the charge of legislative accomplishment was also leveled at Rep. Bachmann during the recent debates.

We know from Rep. Bachmann's career in the private sector that she is a capable woman. One might claim that Mr. Obama had a successful career too, being a lecturer in Chicago, a state official and a Senator, publishing two books and winning awards like the Grammy. Gov. Perry was a military officer (a C-130 pilot, which is a pretty nifty job all things considered).

There is a point of complexity at which human organizations cease to be effective, and begin to break down. Technology is probably changing the precise locus of that point, but I doubt it is eliminating it. I might not ask if failure to govern effectively proves that someone is a poor candidate. I might ask instead whether good governance, at this level of complexity, is still possible.

Interesting Point

An Interesting Point about the Forthcoming Race:

RCP had something very interesting to say today:

The RNC has provided that states holding primaries before April 1 must allocate delegates proportionately. But after that date, states may opt for winner-take-all primaries, and many of these states have done so. In other words, we could have a situation where a conservative candidate (or a pair of conservative candidates) does well in the first three months, but has to give some delegates to the more moderate candidate. This is similar to what happened to Clinton, who won crucial primary battles late in the game, but couldn’t make much headway in the delegate count because of how these delegates were allocated. So despite winning the majority of primaries, the conservative candidate could end up with only a small lead in delegates over the more moderate candidate. If the moderate candidate then performs well in April or afterward, he could quickly rack up enough delegates to break away and claim the nomination.

This is clearly to the benefit of the institutional Republican party, which is very much tied to the Washington machine and to Wall Street. It's a hobble on populists who tend to vote for Republicans, but might also vote for socially conservative Democrats. That makes sense from the perspective of the RNC, which wants party loyalists to win its primaries: those loyal to the party and its leadership, that is, not those whose loyalty is to principles.

Wise! Cunning! Of course they are running the party for their own benefit, and why shouldn't they? Still, keep it in mind. They are not your friend. They may, at best, be allies; but you must be as wise and as cunning in dealing with this sort of ally as they are plainly intending to be.

A question I don't know the answer to has to do with what happens to proportionately-won delegates whose candidate steps out of the race. Can a defeated Perry (or Bachmann) throw delegates to a named candidate? If so, the proportionality rule is of less importance: we can afford a long consideration of the merits of the candidates, if the final conservative winner can expect to receive the delegates of his closer conservative competitor.

The prospect of an establishment candidate, especially one with so muddled a record as Mr. Romney, strikes me as worse than an Obama second term. The establishment is wedded to the kinds of policies that have brought us to this pass. Mr. Obama will have only four more years, at most; an incumbent Romney could have eight. Every year that passes without our Republic making a sharp change in course makes it far more likely that the project will finally fail.

Gov. Perry

Gov. Perry Speaks:

Accepting the gentleman from Texas as the most serious competitor to Rep. Bachmann for the Tea Party leadership -- and, far less importantly, the Republican nomination -- here is his recent speech.



He has very much the manner of a backwoods preacher, which may not be entirely to his advantage. Still, he says several things that are exactly right, including his plain evocation of the 10th Amendment.

Help the Boy Out

Help the Boy Out:

Day By Day is nearing the end of its fundraiser. He's closer than Project VALOUR-IT was to his goal, although he has what I gather are more modest aims: just keeping afloat, rather than providing expensive high-tech items to wounded troops.

I read the guy's stuff every day. (It's on the sidebar, so probably many of you do as well). This next year, we're going to need assets like this to prevail. Give him a thought, if you have a buck or two you can spare.

Is the U.S. the Next Low-Wage Haven?

Is the U.S. the Next Low-Wage Haven?

This article from The Institute for Southern Studies argues that the trend of losing American jobs to overseas competition may be on the point of reversing. China's wages, though rising, are still lower than those in the U.S,

But because American workers have higher productivity, and since rising fuel prices are making it even more expensive to ship goods half way around the world, costs in the two countries are converging fast.

Alliance for American Manufacturing Director Scott Paul cites factors that could bring jobs back to our shores:

Costs of labor and commodities are rising on the Chinese coasts, as workers demand higher pay. If companies move further inland to poorer areas, they hike their logistics costs.

In most of the world, the dollar is worth 25 percent less than three years ago, and in China 5 percent less.

Shipping costs are increasing because of rising energy costs.

Companies fear that in China they'll lose their intellectual property to spin-off competitors.

Some consumers prefer an American-made product.

The U.S. has an abundance of skilled but unemployed workers.

And U.S. wages are stagnant or even falling.

The Longbow

Touch Not The Cat:

The Temple of Mut has a call (via InstaPundit) for the restoration of the longbow to English society. This would answer the problem of looting gangs who have a maneuver advantage versus the police.

The looters are all offense and the police are all defense. Because the police have no missile weapons and are too weighed down with armor to pursue their enemy, the looters can engage and disengage at will with absolutely no risk to themselves.

Well, indeed, the police could stop the riots once and for all if they were issued rifles and shot looters on sight. That was the traditional remedy for looting, after all.

The suggestion is also bedeviled by the fact that the longbow -- the proper one from Agnicourt, which he cites as evidence of its effectiveness -- is the kind of instrument that takes years to develop the strength to use. You could use a smaller bow these days, since you don't need to penetrate armor, but any bow is inferior to a firearm as a defensive weapon: it lacks the firepower (i.e., the number of rounds you can bring to battery quickly), it cannot be concealed (meaning that there is no 'free rider' benefit for those not carrying arms), and it is rather cumbersome to lug around.

However, I did like the graphic he employs.



It reminds me of another piece of British heritage:



The heraldry of the Clan MacPherson uses the motto, "Touch not the cat, but a glove." They are thinking of the Scottish Wildcat, who comes with significant armament on his own.

Memento Mori

Memento Mori

My heart is heavy for some college-era friends who have just lost their 18-year-old son. I just stumbled on this commencement speech from Steve Jobs, who famously faced a mortal fright when it was believed that he had an inoperable form of pancreatic cancer:

Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

H/t Maggie's Farm

Straw Poll

Straw Poll:

Results are in, and Rep. Bachmann won narrowly. Hot Air, whose reporting places it clearly in the Romney camp, downplays:

Bachmann comes away with a win, but not by much — and since reports had her giving out 6,000 tickets to the event, it’s not exactly a big endorsement.

Rick Perry got 718 write-in votes without showing up at all.

Of course, the big question won’t be what this means, but if it means anything at all. The consistent poll frontrunner, Mitt Romney, didn’t contest the straw poll, although he did show up for the debate and did some local campaigning this week. Perry’s entry to the race means the arguable #2 candidate in the race didn’t compete, either. Those two developments mean that the winner might be battling for third place everywhere else but Iowa, and maybe even here after a few weeks have passed.

Caveats duly noted. Nevertheless, so far, it's Bachmann on top: and victory in the straw poll tracks well to how Iowa votes in general, though the sample set is limited.

The Thinking Man's Spelling Rhyme

The Thinking Man's Spelling Rhyme

Those of you with aspiring spelling- bee contestants in the house might want to upgrade your pre-schooler's training song with this ditty from "Barenaked Ladies," reminiscent of the old joke about spelling "fish" as "ghoti":

A is for aisle, B is for bdellium
C is for Czar (and if you see him, would you mind telling him?)

D is for djinn, E for Euphrates
F is for fohn, but not like when I call the ladies

G for gnarly, I for irk, H is for hour
J is for jalapeno, in either corn or flour
Tortillas

K is for knickknack, L is for llama
M for mnemonic, N for ndomo

O is for ouija board, P for pneumonia,
Pterodactyl, and psychosis; Q is for qat

R is for argyle (I couldn't find a good R word)

S is for Saar, a lovely German river
T for tsunami, a wave that makes me quiver

U is for urn, but not like earning money
V for vraisemblance, from French and therefore funny

W for wren, wrinkly, and who
X is for Xian, an ancient Chinese city, true

Y is for yiperite, a very nasty gas
And zed's the final letter and by final I mean last.

H/t Assistant Village Idiot

Individual Mandate Struck Down

Individual Mandate Struck Down

The 11th Circuit refused to follow the Florida lower court's lead in striking down the entire Obamacare act, but it did rule that the individual mandate is an unconstitutional extension of the Commerce Clause. This ruling issued from the usual 3-judge panel by a 2-1 vote. One of the two judges in the majority was a Clinton appointee.

The decision is subject to review, upon request, by the entire 11th Circuit sitting "en banc." Either the en banc 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court will have to tell us whether they agree that the individual mandate must go and, if so, whether the rest of the law is sufficiently severable that it can go forward without the mandate. There is a serious practical question, too, whether the law can be implemented without the mandate. I have real doubt whether the American insurance industry can stay in business if it's subjected to the new requirements for expanded and universal coverage, but does not receive the economic benefit of the mandated market. If that proves to be the case, will the bill be abandoned, or will Congress seek to promote a single-payer option by permitting the industry to bankrupt itself?

Here's a statistic from the ruling that surprised me: "In 2007, 57% of the 40 million uninsured that year used somemedical services; in 2008, 56% of the 41 million uninsured that year used somemedical services. . . . The medical care used by each uninsured person cost about $2,000 on average in 2007, and $1,870 on average in 2008." I would have expected the number to be higher.

The ruling contains this brief, helpful summary of the Act's nine sections:

Title I contains these four components . . .: (1) the insuranceindustry reforms; (2) the new state-run Exchanges; (3) the individual mandate; and(4) the employer penalty. . . .

Title II shifts the Act’s focus to publicly-funded programs designed to provide health care for the uninsured, suchas Medicaid, CHIP, and initiatives under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. . . .

Title II contains the Medicaid expansion at issue here. Title II’s provisions also create, or expand, other publicly-funded programs. . . .

Title III primarily addresses Medicare. . . .

Title IV concentrates on prevention of illness. . . .

Title V seeks to increasethe supply of health care workers through education loans, training grants, andother programs.

Title VI creates new transparency and anti-fraud requirements for physician-owned hospitals participating in Medicare and for nursing facilities participatingin Medicare or Medicaid. . . .

Title VI includes the Elder JusticeAct, designed to eliminate elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. . . .

Title VII extends and expands certain drug discounts in health care facilitiesserving low-income patients. . . .

Title VIII establishes a national,voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and support by persons with functional limitations. . . .

Title IX contains revenue provisions. . . .

Appendix A . . . documents (1) the breadth and scope of the Act; (2) the multitudinous reforms enacted to reduce the number of theuninsured; (3) the large number and diverse array of new, or expanded, federally-funded programs, grants, studies, commissions, and councils in the Act; (4) the extensive new federal requirements and regulations on myriad subjects; and (5) how many of the Act’s provisions on their face operate separately and independently.

There's more detail about each of these Titles in the full document. It's the best summary I've run across so far.

Things You Won't Hear from the British Authorities

Things You Won't Hear from the British Authorities

From a speech by Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, on the city's plan to deal with the threatened spread of flash-mob riots:

Sense and nonsense cannot exist in the same place, in the same city, in the same world, and is not going to happen here in Philadelphia.

The whole speech is well worth the read, as an antidote to the usual predictable helpless hand-wringing over "youth" and "root causes" of their disaffection. The cost of spouting and accepting nonsense in public discourse is higher than we sometimes acknowledge. The Mayor is prepared to lock up not only out-of-control kids but their feckless parents, because he's tired of hearing why the parents can't cope. His call to intellectual arms brings to mind Voltaire's warning: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Republicans

The Republicans:

I missed the debate last night, having just finished a thirteen-hour ride through the searing heat of August; but it sounds like it was interesting. This morning people are talking about lines of vulnerability for Rep. Bachmann and Mr. Romney.

Rep. Bachmann

Rep. Bachmann's problem is analogous to John F. Kennedy's problem when he ran as the first serious Catholic candidate, except that it's more serious. Let's watch the video, and I'll explain what I mean.

Bachmann gave a great answer, both in substance and in terms of how she managed the tone of her response. Any doctrine that you choose to guide your life must be interpreted. As we have often discussed here, submission is a very important part of marriage -- not for wives, but at times for each of the partners. It entails a deep respect and willful service, of choosing to put your own interests aside and serve the interests of the other for a time.

I prefer the medieval framing of this concept to the Biblical or Islamic ones: the medieval framing is informed by ideas of fealty, which better reflect that this is a two-way relationship of willful service and support. The medieval ethic of service between man and woman also better shows that it is sometimes the man and sometimes the woman who needs service or support!

Rep. Bachmann conveys that this issue is really about respect, and then offers some examples of things that she and her husband have been able to achieve together using this principle. Anyone who is not impressed by those accomplishments isn't taking the time to think through and appreciate the amount of work and sacrifice entailed.

Nevertheless, she's got a serious problem here. The question is really one that will dog Romney as well, which boils down to: 'You have some unusual religious beliefs. How can we vote for someone who believes differently than we do?'

The reason Bachmann's problem is worse than Kennedy's was is that she explicitly said that this religious principle of submission had guided her in public life. The Kennedy response -- that private religious principles would be kept out of public life -- is therefore not available to her.

What she has to convince people to believe is that her private religious principles will redound to the benefit of the nation. That's going to be a harder sell to people who do not share those principles.

For Americans, this principle of willful submission is one of the hardest to accept. I think it would be hard to name a principle that ran more directly counter to the current of our popular culture. Very few will take the time to do the soul searching necessary to find the great wisdom embedded in it.

Mr. Romney

Romney's problem is clear even if you take the kindest possible reading of his remarks that "Corporations are people, my friend." Even granting every argument made by his defender, there remain two critical points that Romney obviously does not get.

1) This extremely weak recovery has actually been very good for corporations: corporate profits are at an all time high. It is the small business sector, normally organized as single-proprietorships or partnerships, that has not recovered. Pay for corporate employees is flat these last few decades, adjusted for inflation, which means that all that profitability is not helping the employee any more than it is helping the small business. It is helping those who collect dividends. So, you are telling me that some people are doing very well in this economy, which I already knew: people like Mitt Romney are doing very well.

Romney's political problem is that he is seen as a symbol of northeastern corporatism, that wing of the Republican party that cannot be trusted by the common man. He has done nothing to help himself with voters who are not already corporate executives with this remark.

2) Telling me that 'corporations are people' is no different than telling me that 'governments are people.' Well, yes, indeed in some sense they are: but it makes no difference if my complaint is that the government is profiting unfairly by using its power to extract wealth from what has become a subject population.

That is the substance of the Left's critique against corporations -- and indeed it is also the non-Left, TEA Party populist critique against both corporations and government. The populist complaint is that the rich and powerful use their alliance with government to do so by having unreasonable barriers to entry raised for small businesses.

Both the Left and the TEA Party agree on this problem: what they disagree about is the solution. The Left believes in increased regulation by government, which is odd since "increased regulation" is exactly the mechanism that raises the aforementioned unfair barriers; the TEA Party believes in slashing regulation, so that I can easily and cheaply go out and start a business if I want.

We can debate which approach is the right one, or if there may be occasions for each approach. The problem, though, enjoys broad agreement across the ideological spectrum. It is only among a very narrow band of voters that the pro-corporate argument will fly.

Real Issues

As Allah notes, apparently there was time to ask about submission in marriage, but not about entitlement reform. I would like to see the Republicans -- and any Democratic challengers to President Obama -- speak to this issue more than any other. Entitlements and government pensions are the big rocks we need to figure out how to move.

They're Coming for Us out of Perseus

They're Coming for Us out of Perseus

Although this year's Perseid meteor shower won't peak until Saturday night, the best viewing may well be just before tomorrow at dawn, since the waxing moon will wash out the show somewhat by this weekend. Perseus rises near midnight this time of year. It lies right along the Milky Way in the northeast sky, near the distinctive "W" shape of Cassiopeia, to the left of the Great Square of Pegasus. Perseus is between Cassiopeia and the brilliant star Capella in the constellation Auriga. The constellation contains the variable star Algol, considered the Medusa head that Perseus holds, which is not a single star but a triple-star system that waxes and wanes every three days depending on whether one of the system's dimmer or brighter stars is in front eclipsing the others.

The Perseid cloud stretches along the 130-year orbit of the comet Swift-Tuttle and consists of a stream of particles ejected each time the comet approaches the sun. The August meteor shower, which results from the Earth's annual passage through the relatively static stream, has been observed for about 2000 years. Most of the meteors we see this week will have been ejected about a thousand years ago, but there is a new filament that was ejected only in 1862, which generates a higher volume of visible falling stars than the older portion of the stream.

A multicolored, long Perseid striking the sky just to the left of Milky Way in 2009

For years I've wanted to try a trick I read about: you set out a large flat pan the first time it rains after a meteor shower, then carefully let the pan dry out. Supposedly the remaining dust will react to a magnet, because it contains traces of iron from meteor dust in the upper atmosphere. I've never made it work. It would be hard to try this year, as we're beginning to wonder if it will ever rain again.

That reminds me of a quotation of Mark Twain that my husband cited to me yesterday: During a thunderstorm, someone asked whether he thought the rain would stop. "It always has before," he replied.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin:

It looks like the voters narrowly endorsed the death of public sector unions. This has been one of the nation's early attempts at wrestling entrenched government interests, and so far it's proving out.

This is important, because fixing America means fixing both the famous entitlements (Medicare and Medicaid) but also, and especially, slimming public sector pensions. The Wisconsin decision shows that voters can resist a public relations campaign and long-running protests, even if it was a close-run thing. This is a good sign for the future of our country, and somewhat of a surprising one. It is this approach we'll have to build on, in every state and at the Federal level, in order to be sure that the government does not devour the People.

Not Getting Mad

The Non-Agitated:

A headline that Rep. Bachmann surely wants to see often during the early days of her run at winning the Republican Nomination is, "Why Michele Bachmann is no Sarah Palin."

This is part two in that series from the Washington Post. Today's lesson: when the media does something really unfair, just ignore them. The American people already know they're a bunch of rascals. What they need to know is that you're not the kind of person who can get worked up by a bunch of rascals.

Flashmobs

Walking the Edge:

London's mobs seem to be using social media to organize themselves. There's no reason this can't be done very efficiently, as an asymmetric way of overcoming even the most robust police presence. After all, even a rich community with a very high normal police density can be the sudden locus of a flashmob of a few hundred gangsters, who can easily overwhelm the few policemen who would constitute a 'very high normal police density.' As with a terrorist attack, there is really no defense here except to harden the general society, so that there is a ready made 'anti-flashmob' of ordinary citizens who can pin down the gangsters long enough for a response to arrive. That response can be police, military, or what Major General Rick Lynch used to call 'concerned local citizens' with equal effect. What is important is that we have lost the 'find' phase of the old military rule to 'find, fix, and finish.' We need to be prepared to 'fix' them wherever they should happen to 'find' themselves. Finishing, assuming the fixing can be done, isn't that hard a nut to crack.

In America this phenomenon has a dangerous racial tendency, and in both directions. For all that commentators spoke of America being 'post-racial' just a few short years ago, the truth is that America has not become 'post-racial' at all. What America has become is antiracist. American culture is currently devoted to the proposition that racism will not be the rule in our society.

America has not forgotten its racial divisions, though. As the Buddhist proverb says, "To say you have forgiven but not forgotten is to say that you have not forgiven." What we have put in place is a set of protocols and social controls designed to suppress anything like racist expression. This is formalized and legal at the margins -- anti-discrimination suits are not unheard of -- but it is a system of social control as much as it is a system of political control. We, the People, have decided we do not want to be racists. At the same time, we remember what it was like to be racists: indeed, it is precisely because we remember what it was like to have a racist society that we have become so devoted to doing it otherwise.

This antiracism marks a real change from the bad old days, but it is far from a "postracial society." There is grave danger of having the old fault lines brought back into focus. The very young people who are engaging in this violence are the ones among us with the least memory of what the 'bad old days' were like -- they are least likely to believe in the change, because they did not live to see it.

That's the way it goes, as the opening lines of Quentin Tarantino's True Romance say, but sometimes it goes the other way too. We may be watching the tide break at the high water mark. This was as good as it got, perhaps: and now we shall roll back to the sea.

If not, it will only be because we dug in, and clawed the rest of the way.

President Dunning-Kruger?

PRESIDENT DUNNING-KRUGER

One of the more entertaining of Obama's campaign promises was his oft-repeated vow to "Restore Science to Its Rightful Place":

How is his administration doing so far? It has failed to strengthen protections for endangered species, appointed officials with long records of suppressing politically inconvenient science, ignored new evidence-based recommendations for breast-cancer screening, failed to remove all restrictions from embryonic stem-cell science and ignored decades of research in a politically motivated effort to prevent nuclear waste from being stored at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Dude... why so harsh? I can't think of a single public servant who has done more to increase public awareness of the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

ERROL MORRIS: Knowing what you don’t know? Is this supposedly the hallmark of an intelligent person?

DAVID DUNNING: That’s absolutely right. It’s knowing that there are things you don’t know that you don’t know. [4] Donald Rumsfeld gave this speech about “unknown unknowns.” It goes something like this: “There are things we know we know about terrorism. There are things we know we don’t know. And there are things that are unknown unknowns. We don’t know that we don’t know.” He got a lot of grief for that. And I thought, “That’s the smartest and most modest thing I’ve heard in a year.”

Give Barack his due: when it comes to increasing public awareness of the value of scientific inquiry, he walks the walk. Thank God the Smart Folks are back in charge:

"I think I'm a better speech writer than my speech writers," [Obama] reportedly told an aide in 2008. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm . . . a better political director than my political director."

And unlike the ignorant and arrogant BusHitler administration, they're humble, too.

Instrumental

Instrumental:

Ya'll are cheating yourselves if you don't watch the last few minutes of the last one, at least.

Rass 17%

Rasmussen: 17% Say the US Gov't Has Consent of Governed

That's the top line finding, in any case.

Daniel W. Drezner asks if he's missing anything:

The first line line of defense has been breached, but the second line of defense looks increasingly robust. Public opinion poll after public opinion poll in the wake of the debt deal show the same thing -- everyone in Washington is unpopular, but Congress is really unpopular and GOP members of Congress are ridiculously unpopular. At a minimum, S&P needs to calculate how the current members of Congress will react to rising anti-incumbent sentiment. If they did that analysis and concluded that nothing would be done, I'd understand their thinking more. I didn't see anything like that kind of political analysis in their statement, however.

In the end, I suspect Moody's and Fitch won't follow S&P's move, so this could be a giant nothingburger. Still, if these guys are going to be doing political risk analysis, it might help to actually have some political scientists on the payroll. Based on their statement, S&P is simply extrapolating from the op-ed page, and that's a lousy way to make a political forecast.

Am I missing anything?

Well, yes, you are: national public opinion polls cut very nicely against the President, whoever he is; but Congressmen are elected by district, and Senators by state. A Senator can be 0% popular outside his state and still win re-election; and a Representative can be 0% popular outside his district and still do so.

Opinon poll after opinion poll has shown, and for decades, that people hate Congress but roughly speaking support their own representatives. That being so, the findings on Congress aren't especially relevant to our diagnosis.

Retrospection:

As my time at the undisclosed location comes to a close -- I'll go so far as to name it the Tampa region -- I'd like to take a moment to speak to what I'll remember about the place.

Here a couple of Mr. Wolf's bikes.



The "small" one in the foreground -- it's a 1200 cc Harley -- is one I spent about a month riding. It's a good little bike, though you can't go a day without stopping by a gas station. The bigger one with the red rims and the whitewall tires is his bagger.



Here is my current bike, which I have named "Lady Luck." There are good and sufficient reasons for this which I won't go into as at this time.



Lady Luck outside a hole in the wall on the Gulf of Mexico which I highly recommend to those of you who normally carry knives about your daily business. The guitarist on Tuesday, Friday and Saturday is the most talented I've ever seen in person. He not only seems to know every song written between 1940 and the present day, he can improvise with them -- and lead his three-or-four piece band along while he does it. The fourth piece is a harmonica, wielded sometimes by an old hippie who drops in when he feels like it.



Not every bike survived the approach.



A shrine to the owner, Master Sergeant John Susor, whose service was in WWII. The place is full of tributes to him, especially news clippings with headlines like: "Bar owner says he was acting in self-defense when he took up his pickaxe" or "Bar owner arrested for gambling" or "Notorious bar owner running for mayor." He passed on in 2008, and I'm sorry I didn't have the honor of meeting him in person.



One of two cats and two Pit Bulls who live at this bar. The elder Pit Bull is quite old, and mostly sleeps on the couch nearest the band. She is quite content to have a man -- a man fearless of dogs, at least -- sit on the couch and spend an hour petting her.

The rules posted on the bar advise complainers, "The animals live here, and you don't." Fair warning!



Ah, "folk art."



More folk art. The table is as off-level as any I've ever played on, and we could only find one pool stick in the place with cork on its tip. Good game, all the same.

If any of you find yourselves with business at SOCOM or CENTCOM, and share my own impulses, you could do worse for yourselves.

Truck Driver

The Story of a Truck Driver:

The personal part of this story is tragic, but the basic facts of truck-driving are universal.

His truck is governed to 68 miles an hour, because the company he leases it from believes it keeps him and the public and the equipment safer.

The truck he passed was probably running under 65 mph to conserve fuel. You see, the best these trucks do for fuel economy is about 8 miles per gallon. With fuel at almost $4 per gallon -- well, you do the math. And, yes, that driver pays for his own fuel.

He needs to be 1,014 miles from where he loaded in two days. And he can't fudge his federally mandated driver log, because he no longer does it on paper; he is logged electronically.

He can drive 11 hours in a 14-hour period; then he must take a 10-hour break. And considering that the shipper where he loaded held him up for five hours because it is understaffed, he now needs to run without stopping for lunch and dinner breaks.

If he misses his delivery appointment, he will be rescheduled for the next day, because the receiver has booked its docks solid (and has cut staff to a minimum). That means the driver sits, losing 500-plus miles for the week.

Which means his profit will be cut, and he will take less money home to his family. Most of these guys are gone 10 days, and home for a day and a half, and take home an average of $500 a week if everything goes well.

"If."

Mead

The Invisible Hand is Writing:

Walter Russell Mead has been producing a lot of interesting stuff lately. I think I almost wholly agree with this piece, which may be biasing me in judging its quality; but I think it is rightly put.

Doc Russia used to quote Kipling's "The Gods of the Copybook Headings." Yes, I remember thinking: that's right. The old rules, the simple rules, the ones so many thought they left behind with childood -- thought they had become too sophisticated to believe -- are the real rules of the world.

Hostage-Taking

Hostage-Taking

In the recent blanket coverage of the debt crisis, the ongoing story about Congress's failure to extend funding for the Federal Aviation Administration got a bit lost. The limited coverage concentrated on the ping-pong aspect of legislative gamesmanship. Something rang a bell, though, when I read that the House had passed a bill with a short-term extension of funding, which the Senate refused either to vote on or to propose an alternative to, instead demanding that the House try again with something more palatable to the Senate. Hey, that sounds a lot like what happened with the debt ceiling. In my line of work, we call that negotiating against yourself.

Not only does Harry Reid demand that the House negotiate against itself, but he accuses it of taking hostages. I think what he's talking about is the usual process of offering legislative compromises: we'll give you something you want rather desperately, but we intend to exact a price. Senate Democratic leaders are demanding what's come to be called lately a "clean" bill, which is one that extends FAA funding without including two irritating conditions: (1) cuts to subsidies for rural airports and (2) a re-instatement of the decades-long traditional rule for unionizing an FAA facility (recently overturned by regulatory fiat) requiring a majority vote of all workers instead of merely a majority of those voting.

For Senate Democrats, the inclusion of these obnoxious requirements is the equivalent of taking hostages. The tactic strikes me, however, as a pretty ordinary one for both sides of the aisle. The argument can be made that all legislation should address a single issue, to be voted up or down in a "clean" fashion. Indeed, this is the theory behind the often-proposed but never-approved line-item veto. I don't see it going anywhere, though. When the shoe is on the other foot, the attitude most often is that compromise is how the business of government is supposed to get done. I'm not sure it helps to characterize every compromise as taking one issue hostage for the purpose of getting concessions on another.

As things stand, the House approved continued funding for the FAA, which the Senate refused to take up. The Senate has not produced its own proposal, just as it refused until the very last minute to produce its own proposal to the hated House bill on the debt ceiling. Neither chamber is technically in recess this week, but that's only a gambit to prevent recess appointments, because legislators actually have all gone home. FAA workers are left hanging, but is it really because the Republican House has taken them hostage? Or is it because Senate Democrats can't bring themselves to adjust to the new reality that they can't pass legislation without real compromise?

The New Civil Discourse

The New Civil Discourse

"If the budget is balanced, the terrorists will have won."

I need that on a T-shirt.

8 Things Never

"8 Things You Should Never Say to Your Husband"

This is one of those pointless humanizing pieces that news agencies run more for entertainment than for serious reasons. Still, since we often talk about the relations between men and women -- or man and wife -- let's look at it.

They get off to a very bad start here: "One of the best parts about marriage is being so comfortable with your hubby that you can say just about anything to him. But if you don’t watch your mouth, sometimes the ugly truth comes out..."

So, these concepts are supposed to be truths that you shouldn't say to your husband. Ugly truths. About him.

1. "You're just like your father."

I don't know -- this one doesn't seem bad to me. I'd take it as a compliment, in large part because I know I'm not very much like my father (though we look alike); he's a better man than I am in many respects. Though he has his flaws, as all men do, overall I think of him as a shining example of what a good man is like: a volunteer firefighter, a loyal husband and father, a former staff sergeant and drill instructor in the US Army.

2. "When are you going to find a new job?"

Job-related questions are very touchy for any man in modern American society, because they get at the core role that society expects him to fulfill. Unhappily, questions about his job are going to be received by most American men as questions about his whole worth as a human being.

That's improper -- it is also philosophically out of order, as his essential nature is not related to his employment but to his ability to exercise virtue in a vigorous and rational way. Employment can be a way of doing that, or it can simply be a private struggle to provide yourself and your family with the means to exercise virtue in other spheres: as a thinker, or a writer, or a mountain-climber, a horseman, or -- for those with the calling -- a man of God.

Fixing that problem will make it much easier to talk about the employment issues. Once he is in order in his soul, the question of how he makes his living will be of far less importance. As it should be! What a waste of our lives, to focus as much as we do on what Elise likes to call the 'circular' business of just earning enough to get by.

3. "My mother warned me you'd do this!"

I would find this one intriguing. I would like to know what my wife's mother warned her about -- she was a very interesting lady, and I liked her a lot.

4. "Just leave it -- I'll do it myself!"

Since we're talking about the 'ugly truth,' the concept is going to be 'You're incapable of doing a good job here.' This need not be unpleasant to hear: I am always glad to discover that my wife would rather reorganize the pantry without my assistance. However, this certainly could be said in a hateful way, and anything that sounds like "Go away you incompetent idiot" will probably be received as the insult that it was intended to be.

5. "You always..." or "You never..."

Yes, this is wisely avoided in all circumstances, and for all audiences.

6. "Do you really think those pants are flattering?"

The likely answer: "How should I know?" Most men wear pants that conform to the kind of pants they were taught to wear at work or in the military. The question of whether they are "flattering" never enters either consideration: the question is whether they are the proper kind of pants for that environment. If I don't look good in them, it's very likely because I don't look all that good. We can't be blaming the pants for that.

7. "Ugh, are we hanging out with him again?"

I see the point, although in general married couples find it nearly impossible to remain actively engaged with single friends.

8. "Please watch the kids. But don't take them here, or do this, or forget that..."

There is a rule that will serve as a useful guideline for women dealing with men: "You can tell me what to do, or how to do it. Pick one."

There are exceptions, of course, but in general it's best to learn to let go and give your husband some autonomy in how he executes the tasks set for him. Or, if there is something you really need him to do in a particular way (say, you want the house painted, but it's important that it be painted green and not just any color he likes) you should probably find a way to convince him to do the task short of telling him to do it. "If you paint the house, then I'll..." is the kind of strategy that avoids telling him to do it, which means that (if he agrees to do it) you can give him very specific guidance on how you want it done without irritating him.

That, at least, is my advice; you may find that your own experience is otherwise. Feel free to say so in the comments!

Italian Sports

Italy: Home of the Coolest Sports

This seems like it would be fun.

What strikes me about a lot of these sports is that they've been reinvigorated recently -- this one in 1995. That's interesting.

We're Here to Help

We're Here to Help

In "The Compassion Trap," James Delong at The American Enterprise notes the dilemma we create when we obey a compulsion to help without a commitment to bear the cost without grudging. In the Florida version of the lawsuit against Obamacare, for instance, the government justified the individual mandate on the ground that the government had previously decided to make emergency medical treatment mandatory; it followed, therefore, that irresponsible citizens must not be permitted to take a free ride.

The Florida judge countered that perhaps the problem was with the mandate for free emergency care. I think the problem is instead with the double-thinking that permits us to congratulate ourselves for our compassionate extension of free emergency medical care, while at the same time resenting the recipients' failure to make adequate pre-arrangements to pay us back.

So, because we are not willing to let people suffer consequences, we, acting through the government, must control increasingly large dimensions of everyone’s behavior for the sake of our own amour-propre. . . . When anyone tries to call a halt, the trump card is played—the children! We might let you die in the gutter, but how can we possibly let your children do so?

A Pollster Who Gets It Right

A Pollster Gets It Right:

A left, or "center-left," pollster actually listens to what people are saying. It's fairly amazing to realize that they still can hear it, the ones who decide to listen.

[I]n smaller, more probing focus groups, voters show they are fairly cynical about Democratic politicians’ stands. They tune out the politicians’ fine speeches and plans and express sentiments like these: “It’s just words.” “There’s just such a control of government by the wealthy that whatever happens, it’s not working for all the people; it’s working for a few of the people.” “We don’t have a representative government anymore.”

This distrust of government and politicians is unfolding as a full-blown crisis of legitimacy sidelines Democrats and liberalism....

GOVERNMENT operates by the wrong values and rules, for the wrong people and purposes, the Americans I’ve surveyed believe. Government rushes to help the irresponsible and does little for the responsible. Wall Street lobbyists govern, not Main Street voters. Vexingly, this promotes both national and middle-class decline yet cannot be moved by conventional democratic politics. Lost jobs, soaring spending and crippling debt make America ever weaker, unable to meet its basic obligations to educate and protect its citizens. Yet politicians take care of themselves and party interests, while government grows remote and unresponsive, leaving people feeling powerless.

Not quite powerless. We can break it. That is what lies behind the Tea Party's "intransigence" on the debt ceiling: the firm conviction that it is better to destroy this system than to save it.

Read on:

Our research shows that the growth of self-identified conservatives began in the fall of 2008 with the Wall Street bailout, well before Mr. Obama embarked on his recovery and spending program. The public watched the elite and leaders of both parties rush to the rescue. The government saved irresponsible executives who bankrupted their own companies, hurt many people and threatened the welfare of the country. When Mr. Obama championed the bailout of the auto companies and allowed senior executives at bailed-out companies to take bonuses, voters concluded that he was part of the operating elite consensus. If you owned a small business that was in trouble or a home or pension that lost much of its value, you were on your own. As people across the country told me, the average citizen doesn’t “get money for free.” Their conclusion: Government works for the irresponsible, not the responsible.

Everything they witness affirms the public’s developing view of how government really works. They see a nexus of money and power, greased by special interest lobbyists and large campaign donations, that makes these outcomes irresistible.

The list of recommendations for Democrats is refreshing; but it is important that Democrats recognize that the alternative is the end of the system. The public is done with it. Wall Street and Washington are alike, says Ms. Megan McArdle, in being mostly interested in 'what keeps the checks flowing' -- but that option is closed save in the shortest term. The system will reform fundamentally or, if that is too hard, it will burn. The end of the world is not too high a price to break an unjust system, for 'the end of the world,' on these terms, already has happened more than once.

For the White Horse knew England
When there was none to know;
He saw the first oar break or bend,
He saw heaven fall and the world end,
O God, how long ago.

For the end of the world was long ago,
And all we dwell today
As children of some second birth,
Like a strange people left on earth
After a judgment day.

For the end of the world was long ago,
When the ends of the world waxed free,
When Rome was sunk in a waste of slaves,
And the sun drowned in the sea.

If it comes to that, I shall abide it. For the moment, the establishment appears to have given itself one last chance. As they love their lives and fortunes -- I will not speak of their sacred honor -- they had better take care in how they spend it.

The Jacksonian Party has a more hopeful take on the whole business.

Baby Guards

Baby Guards

I'm thinking it would be a bad idea to make a threatening move toward this distant baby relative of mine -- a first cousin twice removed. I haven't seen my cousin (his grandmother) for many decades, but we keep in touch through Christmas cards and photos, recognizing in each other the true dog-madness.