Massive fires in Queens:
And -- is that thing really a shark?
This substation explosion really would have gotten my attention. I can't believe people are walking around in that water. There's way too many buried electrical lines in New York for that kind of thing.
On the Night of the Hurricane
Nothing tonight, save a prayer for those under the storm. First among those for each of us is the one most beloved who lies under that storm; but for all of us who are Americans, among the first must be these.
On the Polls
One of the more interesting stories of this election has been the strangeness of the polls. I don't simply mean the way they are being interpreted by Democrats as clear evidence of a definite Obama victory, while at the same time by Republicans as suggesting a huge Romney landslide. That's to be expected: even if you're not spinning polls at all, it is natural for the partisan mind to weight explanations and interpretations that give favor to their side.
No, what I mean is better brought out by this Washington Post piece. It's an argument against interest on the House elections, but think about what it says.
There are two possibilities here. One is that the polls are fundamentally wrong: some aspect of their methodology is distorting the picture badly. The other possibility is that we have structured the political system in a way that is too stable for its own good.
If it were only the Presidential race, it could be something about the candidates. But it's not: the polls suggest stability across the board. It could be that some combination of gerrymandering, ideology, and the like has brought us to the point that most Americans no longer face a real choice at the ballot box. There's a candidate they have to support as the lesser of two evils, because the other guy is somehow deeply against the things they care about. If that's the case, then even in the face of a government as badly run as this one, the democratic mechanisms can no longer make a significant adjustment.
Is that the case? Well, we had wave elections in 2006, 2008, and 2010. It's hard to believe that the picture has since solidified in that way.
No, what I mean is better brought out by this Washington Post piece. It's an argument against interest on the House elections, but think about what it says.
President Obama remains at least an even bet to win reelection. Democrats are favored to hold on to the Senate — an outcome few prognosticators envisioned at the beginning of the year. And yet, with a little more than a week to go, the party holds almost no chance of winning back the House.In other words, during the worst economy since the Great Depression, in spite of the deep unpopularity of every political branch, in the face of a government so badly run that their idea of smart budgeting is to dive off the fiscal cliff rather than pass a budget... the polls suggest that Americans will use the election to endorse almost exactly the same government for the next two years.
“They called the fight. It’s over. We’re going to have a House next year that’s going to look an awful lot like the last House,” [said] Stuart Rothenberg[.]
There are two possibilities here. One is that the polls are fundamentally wrong: some aspect of their methodology is distorting the picture badly. The other possibility is that we have structured the political system in a way that is too stable for its own good.
If it were only the Presidential race, it could be something about the candidates. But it's not: the polls suggest stability across the board. It could be that some combination of gerrymandering, ideology, and the like has brought us to the point that most Americans no longer face a real choice at the ballot box. There's a candidate they have to support as the lesser of two evils, because the other guy is somehow deeply against the things they care about. If that's the case, then even in the face of a government as badly run as this one, the democratic mechanisms can no longer make a significant adjustment.
Is that the case? Well, we had wave elections in 2006, 2008, and 2010. It's hard to believe that the picture has since solidified in that way.
Go, Mighty Bulldogs
Now, some of you might have seen the Georgia v. Florida game today, also known as "the Cocktail Bowl." Florida was #2, and a victory would ensure them a place in the SEC Championship in Atlanta. Georgia was the under-Dawg.
Most likely you know how it went.
That is all.
Most likely you know how it went.
That is all.
Scots Songs
The Highland Games are over, but I'm still in the mood. A couple of these are sung by Irishmen, but they're Scots songs. One for T99, who identified it rightly:
"...ere the king's crown go down, there are crowns to be broke. So for each cavalier who loves honor and me, let him follow the bonnets of Bonnie Dundee."
And another, for every good-hearted brawler.
And one more, for true lovers. It's an odd piece of advice, but not a bad one: Go and ask your father, and you know he'll set you right.
UPDATE: See JW's suggestions in the comments; but here are two more.
This one especially is a fine song:
And of course there's American Scots.
"...ere the king's crown go down, there are crowns to be broke. So for each cavalier who loves honor and me, let him follow the bonnets of Bonnie Dundee."
And another, for every good-hearted brawler.
And one more, for true lovers. It's an odd piece of advice, but not a bad one: Go and ask your father, and you know he'll set you right.
UPDATE: See JW's suggestions in the comments; but here are two more.
This one especially is a fine song:
And of course there's American Scots.
A Small Matter
Eugene Robinson speaks in terms that echo Mark Steyn's focus on demographic trends.
There will, however, still be one very solid majority in this country: Christians. Christians currently make up 78.4% of Americans, and the growth of Latino voters will not undermine that figure. Catholics, once a reasonably reliable Democratic Party bloc, have been swinging more and more into the Republican column. This is reflected in the party leadership. Paul Ryan, Vice Presidential nominee of the party, is a Catholic. Rick Santorum, near-victor of the Republican primary, is a Knight of Malta. Newt Gingrich, in the top three or four, is a Catholic by conversion.
More and more the Republican party is the party that supports a society roughly built around Christian norms, if not explicitly on Christian teachings. More and more the Democratic Party is the party of undermining and defying those norms. As Christian norms are not all that different from conservative Jewish or even mainstream Islamic norms, there will be a draw even beyond the loose boundaries of the faith of the Cross.
Maybe you can rely on ethnic or racial plurality to overcome that powerful majority interest. I'm betting it won't work out. The very trends making black and Latino voters a richer and more successful part of American society are going to make them less susceptible to manipulation by ethnic patronage. As they rise into the core of American society, they will no longer need -- and may no longer want -- special privileges in hiring or education. They may begin to look to higher values, as people usually do when their economic needs are satisfied.
Just a thought.
Obama’s racial identity is a constant reminder of how much the nation has changed in a relatively short time. In my lifetime, we’ve experienced the civil rights movement, the countercultural explosion of the 1960s, the sexual revolution, the women’s movement and an unprecedented wave of Latino immigration. Within a few decades, there will be no white majority in this country — no majority of any kind, in fact.Well, that's not quite right, Mr. Robinson. It's true that there won't be a racial or ethnic majority in this country. There will be pluralities. There will presumably be a majority of either male or female voters, most likely female given historic and demographic trends, but it will be a small one.
There will, however, still be one very solid majority in this country: Christians. Christians currently make up 78.4% of Americans, and the growth of Latino voters will not undermine that figure. Catholics, once a reasonably reliable Democratic Party bloc, have been swinging more and more into the Republican column. This is reflected in the party leadership. Paul Ryan, Vice Presidential nominee of the party, is a Catholic. Rick Santorum, near-victor of the Republican primary, is a Knight of Malta. Newt Gingrich, in the top three or four, is a Catholic by conversion.
More and more the Republican party is the party that supports a society roughly built around Christian norms, if not explicitly on Christian teachings. More and more the Democratic Party is the party of undermining and defying those norms. As Christian norms are not all that different from conservative Jewish or even mainstream Islamic norms, there will be a draw even beyond the loose boundaries of the faith of the Cross.
Maybe you can rely on ethnic or racial plurality to overcome that powerful majority interest. I'm betting it won't work out. The very trends making black and Latino voters a richer and more successful part of American society are going to make them less susceptible to manipulation by ethnic patronage. As they rise into the core of American society, they will no longer need -- and may no longer want -- special privileges in hiring or education. They may begin to look to higher values, as people usually do when their economic needs are satisfied.
Just a thought.
No intelligence?
Leon Panetta argued yesterday that help was denied to the besieged U.S. personnel in Benghazi because of a lack of intel. Jennifer Griffin of Fox News reports otherwise today. The two SEALS who were later killed were told twice to stand down, but went (with two others) to help the consulate personnel anyway. Fighting continued at the CIA annex for four hours after the survivors were evacuated from the consulate. A security officer operating a machine on the roof of the CIA annex "had a laser on the [terrorist mortar position] that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights." Mortar fire killed the two SEALs. Communications were intact; it was the response that was missing.
The Importance of Art
Glenn Reynolds' interview with Camile Paglia is worth watching. There is an important point that is raised and lost -- Paglia is moving too fast to recognize it -- which is that a recovery of conservative ideas is necessarily tied to a new birth of conservative art. There is a huge tradition that she raises, from stained glass windows in cathedrals to the kind of soaring and spiritual music of bygone ages. We could still make this; we don't.
That's our fault, and it is where we need to focus our efforts if we are to persuade the culture to follow us. What people follow with their hearts is a vision of beauty. All the greatest beauty is on our side, but for some reason, we have forgotten how to make and to deploy it.
That's our fault, and it is where we need to focus our efforts if we are to persuade the culture to follow us. What people follow with their hearts is a vision of beauty. All the greatest beauty is on our side, but for some reason, we have forgotten how to make and to deploy it.
Campaign dilemmas
A NYT blogger sadly concludes that Obama got bum campaign advice from Bill Clinton. Obama could have attacked Romney for squishiness, but Clinton advised that no one ever won an election by complaining that his opponent was too shifty, as his own stellar career attests. So Obama tried to paint Romney as a right-winger, only to find to his horror that no one who gets a direct look at Romney will believe it for a second.
The bottom line here is that one can over-think this whole notion of framing your opponent. Ninety-nine times out of 100, the line of attack that works best is the one that really rings true. In the case of Mr. Romney, whatever his stated positions may be, the idea that he’s a far-right ideologue, a kind of Rush Limbaugh with better suits and frosty hair, just doesn’t feel especially persuasive.It must be painful to find out that the more effective approach would have been to take more account of reality and honesty -- especially since the Obama administration has so little expertise in those directions.
From the Stone Mountain Collection
Here are a few photos I took at the Stone Mountain historic collection of Civil War goods. Most of these relate to the Battle of Atlanta, and Sherman's march east toward the sea. I'm afraid I don't have notes, although Lewis Grizzard did:
PS: Some of you may have found Mr. Grizzard's description of the army of General Sherman a little dismissive. Here's how he handled our own Georgia Tech:
Confer
Elizabeth Duffy: "How to Like Women."
Megan McArdle: "Why Does Everyone Hate Women?"
It strikes me is that what people hate isn't the women, but the power structures that women often set up.
I understand disliking a specific woman who is vicious. I also understand women like Ms. Duffy, who found the power structures that seem natural to girls horrible to live under as a girl, and who therefore wanted no part of them as an adult woman. Some men, I suppose, are unable to win free of such things, and find themselves driven like cattle from one thing to another. These women and these men have a natural antipathy to a form of control they do not know how to resist, and which is punishing and hateful to them.
Still, I've always liked women, and part of it is that I've always found myself entirely outside of these sorts of power plays. The kinds of power that move me are different kinds, and these sorts of things have passed over me like shadows, without the power to bind.
Nevertheless, I can see how they bind others. The question of how you treat those over whom you exercise power is deeply relevant to whether or not you earn my respect. The women who have -- and there are many -- share a virtue in this regard.
Megan McArdle: "Why Does Everyone Hate Women?"
It strikes me is that what people hate isn't the women, but the power structures that women often set up.
I understand disliking a specific woman who is vicious. I also understand women like Ms. Duffy, who found the power structures that seem natural to girls horrible to live under as a girl, and who therefore wanted no part of them as an adult woman. Some men, I suppose, are unable to win free of such things, and find themselves driven like cattle from one thing to another. These women and these men have a natural antipathy to a form of control they do not know how to resist, and which is punishing and hateful to them.
Still, I've always liked women, and part of it is that I've always found myself entirely outside of these sorts of power plays. The kinds of power that move me are different kinds, and these sorts of things have passed over me like shadows, without the power to bind.
Nevertheless, I can see how they bind others. The question of how you treat those over whom you exercise power is deeply relevant to whether or not you earn my respect. The women who have -- and there are many -- share a virtue in this regard.
Believe the Government - or Else!
I've been taking a first look at the complaint in Michael Mann's new lawsuit against Mark Steyn, National Review, and others. There's so much that's interesting, but I want to focus on one aspect.
As others have often noted, such a lawsuit runs up against the hardest standard for libel cases - New York Times v. Sullivan. Basically, if a "public figure" (which Mann essentially admits he is in paragraph 14) sues a "media defendant" (which fits most or all of the defendants here), he can't recover a penny of damages unless he proves "actual malice" - that is, he's got to prove that the person who made the statements knew they were false, or acted with "reckless disregard" as to their falsity. (The latter was important in the original case, because at least one statement printed by the Times actually was false.) Naturally, in reading the complaint, I was interested to see how Mann was going to argue that.
The answer is found in paragraph 21:
Now, as it happens, Mann attaches the offending articles from CEI and NRO. And both these articles explain briefly why they don't agree with the "independent" investigations exonerating Mann. The CEI article includes links to the sources for their belief, and Steyn makes a pretty obvious reference to the "Mike's nature trick" Climategate email.
So there you have it. If the government conducts a bunch of investigations, and you don't believe them, and you don't believe left-wing advocacy groups and an editorial in a pop-sci magazine, according to Mann you've got "actual malice." Believe the government - or get sued and pay damages. The Green left has wandered into strange territory indeed!
A few other thoughts from me. In exhibit C (NRO's response to Mann's original threat), Rich Lowry comments that discover in this case may discomfit Mann considerably. That may well be true. Truth is a defense to libel claims, so any evidence that shows Mann is a "data manipulator" is relevant, and he can be made to disgorge it.
But the defendants should still try to have this complaint dismissed before discovery begins. The complaint itself and the attached documents, it seems to me, make a good case for that - a complaint has got to state facts which, if true, entitle the plaintiff to relief. "He had actual malice" is a legal conclusion, not a fact; "the government did investigaitons and said I'm innocent" is a fact, but in light of the attachments is a "so-what?" fact. If they can't get it dismissed, they should above all things try to win on summary judgment - show the judge that Mann has no evidence to prove Steyn disbelieved (or didn't care about the truth of) what he was writing - and not be tempted by courtroom glory, that serpent's eye that charms only to destroy.
Experience has taught me to be against using trials for spectacles. If you're suing someone, you're there to get the money. If you're getting sued, you're there to not have to pay. If you're facing possible criminal charges - you're there to avoid the punishment, or as much of it as you can. You are not there to tell the world about something - there are many forums for that. If discovery turns up the kind of data that Mann is wont to refuse, well and good, but that should never become the purpose of defending the lawsuit. Litigation, civil and criminal, goes its own strange ways, and does strange things to people - shrinks them if they are not careful.
The same goes for the discovery process. It occurs to me that Mann may be playing a slightly deeper game here. To be sure, the defendants can demand documents, e-mails, etc. from him to show he manipulated data; but he can insist the defendants themselves submit to depositions. Now, really, all Steyn has to say is "I read this book and I chased links at this website and I believed them over the government" - and if Mann doesn't have proof to the contrary, he is (or ought to be) hosed.
But maybe his lawyer's planning to grill Steyn at deposition (rather than trial) on his lack of science background, to make the deposition testimony itself embarrassing ("So, you didn't graduate college? - So, you're not a statistician? - So, you just believe these guys over those? - Because they fit your ideology...?") - and leak it publicly, to make him look foolish. I haven't had to deal with the issue of whether that's forbidden in civil litigation, but I have a hard time believing a deposition from this case would stay secret if it had polemically useful material.
As others have often noted, such a lawsuit runs up against the hardest standard for libel cases - New York Times v. Sullivan. Basically, if a "public figure" (which Mann essentially admits he is in paragraph 14) sues a "media defendant" (which fits most or all of the defendants here), he can't recover a penny of damages unless he proves "actual malice" - that is, he's got to prove that the person who made the statements knew they were false, or acted with "reckless disregard" as to their falsity. (The latter was important in the original case, because at least one statement printed by the Times actually was false.) Naturally, in reading the complaint, I was interested to see how Mann was going to argue that.
The answer is found in paragraph 21:
Following the publication of the CRU emails, Penn State, the University of East Anglia...and five governmental agencies...have conducted separate and independent investigations into the allegations of scientific misconduct against Dr. Mann and his colleagues. Every one of these investigations has reached the same conclusion: there is no basis to any of the allegations of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data.Paragraph 30 goes on to say that "well-respected journalists," the pop-science magazine Discover, and (drumroll) the Union of Concerned Scientists all said nasty things about Steyn, NRO, and CEI "in the wake of these attacks."
Now, as it happens, Mann attaches the offending articles from CEI and NRO. And both these articles explain briefly why they don't agree with the "independent" investigations exonerating Mann. The CEI article includes links to the sources for their belief, and Steyn makes a pretty obvious reference to the "Mike's nature trick" Climategate email.
So there you have it. If the government conducts a bunch of investigations, and you don't believe them, and you don't believe left-wing advocacy groups and an editorial in a pop-sci magazine, according to Mann you've got "actual malice." Believe the government - or get sued and pay damages. The Green left has wandered into strange territory indeed!
A few other thoughts from me. In exhibit C (NRO's response to Mann's original threat), Rich Lowry comments that discover in this case may discomfit Mann considerably. That may well be true. Truth is a defense to libel claims, so any evidence that shows Mann is a "data manipulator" is relevant, and he can be made to disgorge it.
But the defendants should still try to have this complaint dismissed before discovery begins. The complaint itself and the attached documents, it seems to me, make a good case for that - a complaint has got to state facts which, if true, entitle the plaintiff to relief. "He had actual malice" is a legal conclusion, not a fact; "the government did investigaitons and said I'm innocent" is a fact, but in light of the attachments is a "so-what?" fact. If they can't get it dismissed, they should above all things try to win on summary judgment - show the judge that Mann has no evidence to prove Steyn disbelieved (or didn't care about the truth of) what he was writing - and not be tempted by courtroom glory, that serpent's eye that charms only to destroy.
Experience has taught me to be against using trials for spectacles. If you're suing someone, you're there to get the money. If you're getting sued, you're there to not have to pay. If you're facing possible criminal charges - you're there to avoid the punishment, or as much of it as you can. You are not there to tell the world about something - there are many forums for that. If discovery turns up the kind of data that Mann is wont to refuse, well and good, but that should never become the purpose of defending the lawsuit. Litigation, civil and criminal, goes its own strange ways, and does strange things to people - shrinks them if they are not careful.
The same goes for the discovery process. It occurs to me that Mann may be playing a slightly deeper game here. To be sure, the defendants can demand documents, e-mails, etc. from him to show he manipulated data; but he can insist the defendants themselves submit to depositions. Now, really, all Steyn has to say is "I read this book and I chased links at this website and I believed them over the government" - and if Mann doesn't have proof to the contrary, he is (or ought to be) hosed.
But maybe his lawyer's planning to grill Steyn at deposition (rather than trial) on his lack of science background, to make the deposition testimony itself embarrassing ("So, you didn't graduate college? - So, you're not a statistician? - So, you just believe these guys over those? - Because they fit your ideology...?") - and leak it publicly, to make him look foolish. I haven't had to deal with the issue of whether that's forbidden in civil litigation, but I have a hard time believing a deposition from this case would stay secret if it had polemically useful material.
The Stone Games
The Fortieth Year of the Stone Mountain Highland Games has come and gone. I've been going for twenty, excepting years when I've been out of the country.
The carving on the mountain is the largest bas-relief sculpture in the world.
The Games for me are a lot of work. I spend most of the weekend on my feet in the ring, teaching history and the physics of medieval warfare, and telling stories of how American freedom and culture has deep roots in Medieval Scotland and Britain.
The best part of the Games for me, though, comes before and after the crowds. When the Games are not going on, we spend the weekend camping and feasting with old friends.
Nobody said a word to me about the sword strapped to the bike.
The mountain at dawn.
Rise early, and there is a quiet moment to read by the fire before others get up.
It was good to see reader V. R., who stopped by the ring to chat as she usually does. For her as with me the Games are mostly work, as she is associated with a charity aimed at helping the elderly and disabled enjoy the festival. It's a noble thing.
Inconvenient religion
King's College, an evangelical Christian school based in Manhattan, has kicked out Dinesh D'Souza for getting engaged before he's quite finished divorcing his wife. D'Souza is making quite a stink about it. ("I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced.") Ann Althouse also is puzzled, as are many of her readers; the discussion wandered into the usual weeds over the image of God as the lawgiver vs. the kindly old gentleman (as C.S. Lewis put it) who didn't have very firm ideas about prohibiting bad behavior but instead "liked to see the young people enjoying themselves." Gradually, however, a couple of traditional thinkers waded in and tried to stem the tide of rampant moral relativism. All of commenter Paddy O's posts are worth reading:
Whether we look at the issue from the point of view of religious principles or just etiquette or mental health, I think it would take a strange view of marriage and commitment to get engaged before you finish divorcing. Isn't there some essential confusion here? I've never understand the point of marrying at all if one takes that vague a view of whether he's in a marriage or not.
Jesus, as you note, took the rougher part on himself, while giving grace to others. Again, it just seems curious that of all the very tough demands Jesus makes on us, some are seen as selective and some are seen as absolute, the selective ones seeming to be applied to that which we would rather not give up, and the absolute seeming to be applied to others who we would like to manage.Paddy O also offered the useful suggestion that D'Souza should follow the example of Henry VIII and start his own college.
Whether we look at the issue from the point of view of religious principles or just etiquette or mental health, I think it would take a strange view of marriage and commitment to get engaged before you finish divorcing. Isn't there some essential confusion here? I've never understand the point of marrying at all if one takes that vague a view of whether he's in a marriage or not.
America's New Poet Laureate
Natasha Trethewey, originally of Mississippi and now at Emory University in Atlanta, is America's nineteenth poet laureate, and the first Southerner to hold the post since the original.
What kind of writer would you have become if you had been born outside the South?Here is the poem cited in the first part of the review. You can see her annoyance at the refusal to see the South she loves -- which is, in a way, different from the one that I do. Yet we are both of the thing, of the place.
I have no idea. I can’t begin to imagine myself without the fate of my geography. I feel lucky to have been born into a troubled and violent history and a terrible beauty.
The Al Smith Dinner
Four years ago, John McCain killed at this event. This year, well, see for yourself.
What Do You Mean By 'Entitled To'?
The difference between Joe Biden and Mr. Obama includes this fact: when Joe Biden says he wants to be clear about what hemeans, he usually proceeds to be quite clear about what he really means. This time I'm not sure.
Does he mean 'entitled to' in the sense that the operation should be not only available to them, but free to them? That's a highly problematic view, but if you want to endorse single-payer health care, say so. (Is the proposition that only women should have single-payer health care, or are women just the wedge to force it on everyone?)
Or does he mean 'entitled to' in the sense that no one should forbid access to an operation that is common practice? In that case, Hot Air raises a good point about Obamacare's IPAB board, which will in practice deny care to some 'daughters' -- even if their parents are likely to be long dead themselves.
Or is this just about abortion? If so, it's questionable whether it's reasonable to describe that as an "operation." In a sense it is a medical operation, because there are medical personnel involved. But the point of an operation is health, and the point of abortion is the destruction of a human life. An execution is not an "operation," and in that sense an abortion is not one either.
BIDEN: I want to make this clear so there no misunderstanding anybody. I got a daughter, lost a daughter, got four granddaughters, and Barack has two daughters. We are absolutely — this is to our core — my daughter, and my granddaughters and Barack’s daughters are entitled to every single solitary operation! EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY OPERATION!Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a transcript of the remarks, so I'm not sure what he means by "entitled to" in this case. Does he mean that no operation should be unavailable to 'daughters' who want it? It's not clear that this is right: what if 'someone's daughter,' to use Biden's phrasing, wants to amputate her hands for no medical reason, as part of an art project? I would think that a doctor's oath would, or ought to, forbid participation.
Does he mean 'entitled to' in the sense that the operation should be not only available to them, but free to them? That's a highly problematic view, but if you want to endorse single-payer health care, say so. (Is the proposition that only women should have single-payer health care, or are women just the wedge to force it on everyone?)
Or does he mean 'entitled to' in the sense that no one should forbid access to an operation that is common practice? In that case, Hot Air raises a good point about Obamacare's IPAB board, which will in practice deny care to some 'daughters' -- even if their parents are likely to be long dead themselves.
Or is this just about abortion? If so, it's questionable whether it's reasonable to describe that as an "operation." In a sense it is a medical operation, because there are medical personnel involved. But the point of an operation is health, and the point of abortion is the destruction of a human life. An execution is not an "operation," and in that sense an abortion is not one either.
Guess I'll Be Getting Some Phonecalls Soon...
The NRA is loving the last debate. After four years of Democrats being afraid to even pretend to symbolically embrace gun control, good old President Obama went all in. Gives them somewhere to spend their big campaign bucks, and no doubt it's going to give rise to another round of fundraising soon.
Well, you know what? He has it coming. You pay the money, and you take the ride. If there's one thing the folks down Ohio way don't like very much, it's gun control. Georgia gun laws are little looser.
Well, you know what? He has it coming. You pay the money, and you take the ride. If there's one thing the folks down Ohio way don't like very much, it's gun control. Georgia gun laws are little looser.
What's the Economy on This?
ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS: Is this Aston Martin 77. Santa, are you listening???? I’ve been a good girl, sort of. :)That's a two-million dollar automobile. I'd have settled for a new Harley. C'mon, Santa. The best ones are a hundred times cheaper. Surely a bad man is worth 1/100th of a good girl?
-Elizabeth Price Foley
Yeah, OK, probably not. Can't blame a man for trying.
Speaking of Vigilantes
You're probably aware of Anonymous, the hacker group. You probably haven't heard much to recommend them to you before now. Here's their argument for vigilantism. It's well worth considering.
So is this.
So is this.
Terror
It's time to mothball the term "terror" for a while. It's lost all meaning. It was being steadily drained of meaning years ago when people started asking, "Isn't it terrorism when someone makes me uncomfortable? Isn't all force terrorism?"
What the Obama administration has been lying about is not whether the attack and murder of our ambassador and other Americans in Benghazi was an act of terror in some ineffable sense. It has been lying about whether the attack was a spontaneous mob reaction to a provocative video, or a professional and pre-planned armed assault by an al Qaeda affiliate in a region where the administration had been crowing over the demise of that group. The fact that the President vaguely alluded to the word "terror" in his remarks the day after the attack is not the point, as even Candy Crowley admitted shortly after the debate concluded. The important point is that the President and his spokespersons repeatedly insisted that the attack was an unpredictable eruption of crowd hostility sparked by a YouTube video, long after it was crystal clear the attack was heavily armed, carefully coordinated, and took place in the complete absence of any crowd demonstration, video-related or otherwise.
I'm sure the attacks were terrifying. They would have been equally terrifying whether they resulted from a proto-military assault or a crowd that suddenly lost control of its humanity. The issue is not whether they inspired fear but whether they were an assault by a previously identified enemy about whom we had solid intelligence, or some kind of bolt-from-the-blue mass hysteria that no one could have planned for. I fear the distinction is being lost in the endless parade of fuzzy blathering.
If Romney wanted to nail Obama on his prevarications, he'd have done better to focus on when Obama or his surrogates first admitted publicly what he'd known all along, which was that there was no public demonstration of any kind out the Benghazi facility that night, and that the attack was a sudden, coordinated onslaught by men with RPGs, whom we quickly learned were associated with al Qaeda.
What the Obama administration has been lying about is not whether the attack and murder of our ambassador and other Americans in Benghazi was an act of terror in some ineffable sense. It has been lying about whether the attack was a spontaneous mob reaction to a provocative video, or a professional and pre-planned armed assault by an al Qaeda affiliate in a region where the administration had been crowing over the demise of that group. The fact that the President vaguely alluded to the word "terror" in his remarks the day after the attack is not the point, as even Candy Crowley admitted shortly after the debate concluded. The important point is that the President and his spokespersons repeatedly insisted that the attack was an unpredictable eruption of crowd hostility sparked by a YouTube video, long after it was crystal clear the attack was heavily armed, carefully coordinated, and took place in the complete absence of any crowd demonstration, video-related or otherwise.
I'm sure the attacks were terrifying. They would have been equally terrifying whether they resulted from a proto-military assault or a crowd that suddenly lost control of its humanity. The issue is not whether they inspired fear but whether they were an assault by a previously identified enemy about whom we had solid intelligence, or some kind of bolt-from-the-blue mass hysteria that no one could have planned for. I fear the distinction is being lost in the endless parade of fuzzy blathering.
If Romney wanted to nail Obama on his prevarications, he'd have done better to focus on when Obama or his surrogates first admitted publicly what he'd known all along, which was that there was no public demonstration of any kind out the Benghazi facility that night, and that the attack was a sudden, coordinated onslaught by men with RPGs, whom we quickly learned were associated with al Qaeda.
Armed Posse Patrols Timber Land in Sheriff's Place
Story from Oregon here, about citizens stepping up to do local police work.
One part I do not get -
Policing expert Dennis Kenney, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says neighborhood watch efforts can be positive but turn into problems when volunteers "decide that instead of supplementing law enforcement, they are going to replace law enforcement. Then you cross potentially into vigilantism."... Nichols says what his group is doing is "not vigilantism at all."Okay, I get why an academic might say it, and why the word carries emotional freight that would make someone want to deny it. But I never heard before that was the distinction. Vigilantes at their best, if I remember, could and did work with official law enforcement (when there was any), and hand their prisoners over to the courts for trial (when, again, there were any). The crowd in The Ox-Bow Incident turns evil, not when they decide to apprehend suspects in a murder, but when they follow a leader who decides that they're going to do their hanging on the spot - "because they don't think the courts are fast enough."
What an Unpleasant Debate
Not because I think it didn't go well, although it wasn't the walkaway stomping of the first debate. The tone was what made it unpleasant.
Still, the final arguments were convincing. Romney gave the best answer I've ever heard him give. Obama started off by saying something implausible ('I believe in free enterprise'... 'I don't believe that government creates jobs'), and went on to level a series of negative arguments designed to undermine what his opponent had just said.
Some other observations: Obama didn't answer the question on Libya at all. Apparently Mitt Romney was the only person on the stage or in the audience who knew the difference between an AK-47 and an "assault weapon." I couldn't understand why Romney didn't answer the outsourcing question by coming back to his energy policy -- you can't outsource North American oil production -- but maybe he felt he had landed all the blows he wanted to in the first part of the debate.
Anyway, we'll see what the independents thought soon enough. I imagine they will have been put off by the tone. If I was, surely they were also.
Still, the final arguments were convincing. Romney gave the best answer I've ever heard him give. Obama started off by saying something implausible ('I believe in free enterprise'... 'I don't believe that government creates jobs'), and went on to level a series of negative arguments designed to undermine what his opponent had just said.
Some other observations: Obama didn't answer the question on Libya at all. Apparently Mitt Romney was the only person on the stage or in the audience who knew the difference between an AK-47 and an "assault weapon." I couldn't understand why Romney didn't answer the outsourcing question by coming back to his energy policy -- you can't outsource North American oil production -- but maybe he felt he had landed all the blows he wanted to in the first part of the debate.
Anyway, we'll see what the independents thought soon enough. I imagine they will have been put off by the tone. If I was, surely they were also.
Well, now I feel bad
I know how it feels when the media won't give you a fair shake. So now I'm full of warm fellow-feeling toward the courageous freedom fighters who shot that 14-year-old Afghan girl for advocating education for girls, only to suffer under a deluge of scorn and contempt locally and abroad.
“The Taliban cannot tolerate biased media.” The commander, who calls himself Jihad Yar, argues that death threats against the press are justified: he says “99 percent” of the reporters on the story are only using the shooting as an excuse to attack the Taliban.You carry out a perfectly justified attempted murder against a dangerous heretic, and then you make death threats against the biased press that cover the story, and suddenly you're the bad guy?
Mullah Yahya agrees with Jihad Yar that the media and the Americans are side by side against the Taliban. “But I would blame the Taliban as well,” he says. “If they allowed independent media to visit Taliban-controlled areas, it could have a very positive effect on their coverage. In fact we have suggested this to their media department, but they’re only interested in kidnapping reporters, not in cooperating with them.I thought journalists were supposed to be sensitive to other cultures. If kidnapping is part of their culture, who are we to object?
.
Women setting up men
Hillary Clinton's treatment of the President today puts me in mind of a favorite old song, "The Baron of Brackley" (Child Ballad #203):
From the YouTube poster:
Down Dee side came Inverey whistlin' and playin',
And he is to Brackley's gates ere the day is dawnin'.
Saying, "Are ye there, Brackley, and are ye within?
There are sharp swords at your gates, they'll gar your blood spend."
"Oh, rise up, my Baron, and turn back your kye,
For the lads frae Dunmurray are driving them by."
"Oh, how might I rise up, and turn them again?
For where I have one man I'm sure he has ten."
"If I had a husband, the like I have nane,
He'd no lie upon his bed and watch his kye ta'en."
Then up spake the baron, said, "Gi'e me my sword;
There's nae man in Scotland but I'll brave at a word."
When the baron were buskit to ride o'er the close
A gallanter Gordon ne'er mounted a horse.
Saying, "Kiss me, my Peggy, nor think me tae blame,
For I maun go out, love, and I'll never come hame."
There rode wi' false Inverey full thirty and three,
But along wi' bonny Brackley just his brother and he.
Twa gallanter Gordons did ne'er the sword draw,
But against three and thirty, wae's me, what is twa?
Wi' swords and wi' daggers they did him surround
And they pierced bonny Brackley wi' monys a wound.
Tae the banks o the Dee, tae the sides of the Spey,
The Gordons will mourn him and ban Inverey.
"Oh, came ye from Brackley's yetts, oh, came ye by there?
And saw ye his Peggy a-rivin' her hair?"
"Aye, I came by Brackley's yetts, and I came by there,
And I saw his bonny Peggy: she was makin' good cheer.
"She was rantin' and dancin', she was singin' wi' joy,
And she swears this very nicht she will feast Inverey.
She laughed wi' him, danced wi' him, welcomed him in,
And lay wi' him till morning he who slew her good man."
There's grief in the kitchen, but there's mirth in the hall,
For the Baron o' Brackley lies dead and awa'.
Then up spake his son on his own nurse's knee:
Saying "Afore I'm a man it's avenged I'll be."
From the YouTube poster:
[A] sobering tale of medieval Scottish married life. It is believed the incident occurred in September 1666, but what the ballad does not tell us is that it is a reprisal raid by John Farquharson of Inverey on John Gordon of Brackley for a cattle raid.The "Dee" and the "Spey" are rivers. When the raiders arrive, Brackley's treacherous wife goads him into a hopeless opposition.
Down Dee side came Inverey whistlin' and playin',
And he is to Brackley's gates ere the day is dawnin'.
Saying, "Are ye there, Brackley, and are ye within?
There are sharp swords at your gates, they'll gar your blood spend."
"Oh, rise up, my Baron, and turn back your kye,
For the lads frae Dunmurray are driving them by."
"Oh, how might I rise up, and turn them again?
For where I have one man I'm sure he has ten."
"If I had a husband, the like I have nane,
He'd no lie upon his bed and watch his kye ta'en."
Then up spake the baron, said, "Gi'e me my sword;
There's nae man in Scotland but I'll brave at a word."
When the baron were buskit to ride o'er the close
A gallanter Gordon ne'er mounted a horse.
Saying, "Kiss me, my Peggy, nor think me tae blame,
For I maun go out, love, and I'll never come hame."
There rode wi' false Inverey full thirty and three,
But along wi' bonny Brackley just his brother and he.
Twa gallanter Gordons did ne'er the sword draw,
But against three and thirty, wae's me, what is twa?
Wi' swords and wi' daggers they did him surround
And they pierced bonny Brackley wi' monys a wound.
Tae the banks o the Dee, tae the sides of the Spey,
The Gordons will mourn him and ban Inverey.
"Oh, came ye from Brackley's yetts, oh, came ye by there?
And saw ye his Peggy a-rivin' her hair?"
"Aye, I came by Brackley's yetts, and I came by there,
And I saw his bonny Peggy: she was makin' good cheer.
"She was rantin' and dancin', she was singin' wi' joy,
And she swears this very nicht she will feast Inverey.
She laughed wi' him, danced wi' him, welcomed him in,
And lay wi' him till morning he who slew her good man."
There's grief in the kitchen, but there's mirth in the hall,
For the Baron o' Brackley lies dead and awa'.
Then up spake his son on his own nurse's knee:
Saying "Afore I'm a man it's avenged I'll be."
Conservatism for Seculars
An article by Razib Khan at the Council for Secular Humanism, a view I find highly congenial.
On the English Language as Informed by the Battle of Hastings
Dr. Mead is turning out some good pieces lately. Many of you will enjoy this one.
If we hadn’t cleared all this useless rubbish out of the language we would still be spouting nonsense like this: I sit on thi biggi rocki, I throw thum biggum rockum, tho rocko is bigo. Tha girla, however, is biga and I go with thai biggai girlai to thi picturi showi. And so on.The girla is biga? My guess is that we probably wouldn't have been saying that out loud even if we hadn't simplified the language.
"Loathsome, inhuman edifices"
Or what we generally refer to as "Stalinist architecture." The Daily Caller puts the spotlight on "U. Gly" -- the university campuses whose design makes them "flawed slices of hell." They remind me of the stuff my church's architecture firm churns out.
I'm surprised they didn't include the University of Houston, full of truly hideous examples:
Rice University is another matter entirely. I still have such fond memories of the old loggias there that they figure prominently in my dreams:
I'm surprised they didn't include the University of Houston, full of truly hideous examples:
Oratores
There was a long-lived ideal in Medieval society that there ought to be three classes of people: oratores, bellatores, and laboratores, that is, those who pray, those who fight, and those who work. We have lost the first class almost entirely, but here and there they still exist. Here one, a rabbi, speaks to a culturally Jewish comedienne in the way proper only to his class. I will quote a large part of it because the server is having trouble with the strain of so many people wanting to read an open letter from a rabbi to Sarah Silverman.
I wouldn’t be writing these words had your most recent video not been framed in biblical language. Its title held deep significance to me, as I am sure was your intention....If it is hard to imagine any other kind of man speaking this way to a woman in public, it ought to be. No other sort of man has the right. As he says, though, she has made it her business to make the private public, and she has mocked that which it is his charge to defend.
I believe I have your number. You will soon turn 42 and your destiny, as you stated, will not include children. You blame it on your depression, saying you don’t want to pass it on to another generation.
I find that confusing, coming from someone as perceptive as you are in dissecting flawed arguments. Surely you appreciate being alive and surely, if the wonder of your womb were afflicted with your weaknesses and blessed with your strengths, it would be happy to be alive, too.
You said you wouldn’t get married until gay people can. Now they can. And you still haven’t married. I think, Sarah, that marriage and childrearing are not in the cards for you because you can’t focus on building life when you spend your days and nights tearing it down.
You have made a career making public that which is private, making crude that which is intimate, making sensual that which is spiritual. You have experienced what traditional Judaism taught long ago: when you make sex a public thing it loses its potency. When the whisper is replaced with a shout there is no magic to speak about. And, in my opinion, Sarah, that is why you have had trouble forging a permanent relationship – the most basic desire of the feminine soul.
Human beings have many acquaintances and fewer friends, but only one spouse. Judaism celebrates the monogamous, intimate relationship with a spouse as the prototype of the intimate relationship with God. Marriage, in Judaism, is holy. Family, in Judaism, is celebrated. But for you, nothing is holy; in your world, nothing is permanent. Your ideology is secular. Your culture may be Jewish, but your mind is not.
I think you have latched on to politics because you are searching for something to build. There is only so much pulling down one can do without feeling utterly destructive. You want to fight for a value so you take your belief – secularism – and promote it. As an Orthodox rabbi, I disagree with just about everything you say, but respect your right to say it. All I ask, respectfully, is that you not use traditional Jewish terminology in your efforts. Because doing so is a lie.
A plug for "Cook's Illustrated"
Maggie's Farm linked to a NYT review of the odd-duck "Cook's Illustrated." It's off the beaten path, certainly -- no advertising, no restaurant or chef reviews, and it features decidedly bizarre editorials that have nothing whatever to do with cooking. The recipes tend to be on the boring side. It's worth reading, nevertheless, as the only cooking guide I'm aware of that employs the scientific method. The test kitchen works on recipes obsessively to determine whether tweaking this or that ingredient, or the cooking time or technique, yields results approved by blind taste-testers. Common grocery-store or mail-order ingredients get an impartial "Consumer Reports"-style treatment as well. The NYT article confirms that the magazine's founder, Chris Kimball, isn't out to inspire cutting edge food trends for special occasions, but only to enable workaday cooks to produce reliable results with a minimum of effort, night after night. I swear by his biscuit recipe. And though his editorials apparently don't rate highly with his subscribers, I think they're great.
I'm not much of a cook, doing best when I stick to reliable, easy recipes. In contrast, my husband excels at difficult cooking: more Thomas Keller than Chris Kimball. He works at recipes until he can produce them perfectly, all appearing on the table at the right time. His attention span amazes me. If I try to cook three things at once, one of them is going to get forgotten at some critical stage, and smoke alarms are not out of the question.
Ace says today that the NYT has become a Democratic Party newsletter with a good crossword puzzle ("Democratic operatives with bylines"). That's fair, except that they still put out the occasional enjoyable Leisure/Style or Science/Health article.
A Difference of Opinion
Father whose son has broken his arm on the monkey bars: "That's a character-building experience, boy. Carry on like this, and in a few short years you'll be fit to join the cavalry."
Father whose daughter has done same: "Why do these monstrous monkey bars still exist in our civilized country?"
Well, maybe they should be marked "Boys Only."
On the other hand, by kindergarten I had my boy on horseback -- and that can break your neck. I haven't had a daughter, and maybe I'd feel differently about it, but I suspect I'd have had her on horseback by that age also. I could be wrong, but girls like horses. I doubt I'd have had the heart to keep her from them. Nor did Rhett Butler, I suppose, who lost a daughter just so.
Father whose daughter has done same: "Why do these monstrous monkey bars still exist in our civilized country?"
Well, maybe they should be marked "Boys Only."
On the other hand, by kindergarten I had my boy on horseback -- and that can break your neck. I haven't had a daughter, and maybe I'd feel differently about it, but I suspect I'd have had her on horseback by that age also. I could be wrong, but girls like horses. I doubt I'd have had the heart to keep her from them. Nor did Rhett Butler, I suppose, who lost a daughter just so.
I Am Bad News
Here's the trailer for the new 'Kill UBL' film.
Nearly the first thirty seconds are built around a monologue by an American torturer. This is kind of shocking, for a film that has been portrayed all along as an Obama re-election venue. It is one thing to accept that torture exists, and another to accept that your nation practices it. It is something else to valorize torture so much that you make it the introductory speech to your re-election video. This is what the man says, as we pass to a video of him standing before prison bars:
"Can I be honest with you? I am bad news. I am not your friend. I am not going to help you. I'm going to break you."
I doubt many Obama voters read this page. If any of you do, though: is this what you wanted when you voted for him four years ago? This is his work. That means it is yours.
Nearly the first thirty seconds are built around a monologue by an American torturer. This is kind of shocking, for a film that has been portrayed all along as an Obama re-election venue. It is one thing to accept that torture exists, and another to accept that your nation practices it. It is something else to valorize torture so much that you make it the introductory speech to your re-election video. This is what the man says, as we pass to a video of him standing before prison bars:
"Can I be honest with you? I am bad news. I am not your friend. I am not going to help you. I'm going to break you."
I doubt many Obama voters read this page. If any of you do, though: is this what you wanted when you voted for him four years ago? This is his work. That means it is yours.
"I'm going to leave it at that . . ."
. . . instead of answering your question, says Secy. Clinton. Joseph Curl outlines the shape-shifting story of the Benghazi attack, strangely reminiscent of the more triumphant, but still shape-shifting, story of the bin Laden raid:
On the eve of a House oversight committee hearing, the State Department called a briefing for the media. For an hour, over the telephone, top department officials spun a new tale that bore almost no resemblance to the official story they’d been telling for weeks.
There was no protest, the officials said, no protest that grew out of hand until a spontaneous mob — whipped into a rage over a video — poured into the consulate. In fact, “nothing was out of the ordinary” on the night of the attack, one official said. . . .
The FBI wouldn’t reach Benghazi for 17 days. When bureau agents finally did, they took tapes from the closed-circuit security cameras. More, reports emerged that an unmanned drone also captured the attack on video. The story was changing fast, and just before administration officials were to testify officially before Congress. The sudden respinning was reminiscent of the evolving story on the raid to get Osama bin Laden — first he had a gun, there was a firefight, he hid behind one of his wives; then, no gun, no firefight, no wife.Well, screenplays do get re-written all the time, as we discover what the audience likes. "The question is whether reporters will follow the trail of lies and deceit or leave off just as the whole mess is imploding," Curl suggests. But actually, if you're the New York Times, the question is whether reporters will start down the trail in the first place. As Mark Steyn noted:
Surely, even among Obama’s media sycophants, there must be someone who recognizes that all the cushy court eunuch posts are filled and, rather than being the umpteenth extra in the crowd scene, there’s a reputation, a Pulitzer and maybe a movie deal to be made here.
Death: Two Empirical Perspectives
[T]here is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: - either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain.... But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? ... What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? ... Above all, I shall be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in that; I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not.
-Socrates, from Plato's Apology
I once had a professor of philosophy who was very interested in Near Death Experiences. These are the things you hear about where the brain is approaching death, and visions of light or transportation occur. I've had one myself, in fact, when choked out of consciousness for a minute or two by my old master of jujitsu. These things are kind of interesting, in a way, because they are often quite similar in spite of cultural differences or other inputs. They don't, however, speak very much to what it is like to be dead, even "brain dead." This is because we can't be sure that there isn't brain activity of some kind.
Recently, though, I've come across two people who present empirical accounts of long-term "brain death" -- we really mean a coma in both cases -- which were monitored in hospitals. They are really different sorts of accounts.
Gerard at American Digest gives this account: the lights went out, and then flipped back on. For the intervening 13 days, there was nothing at all: not even a darkness, not even sleep, just nothing.
Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon who was comatose for eight days, gives an entirely different account: one of transportation, and beings of light, and a kind of maximum being that is not light but not yet darkness. There is emotional content: love, joy, and not so much forgiveness as the sense that there is, and can be, nothing to forgive.
Which account you find more plausible depends on your own assumptions, but from a scientific perspective it doesn't matter. What we have here are two roughly analogous events, with a surprisingly different phenomenal content. The first one lines up with what is suggested by what we think we know about the brain; the second lines up with numerous other empirical accounts of near-death from around the world.
None of this actually speaks to the real question, which is what it is like to be dead. There also remains enough shadow in our understanding of the brain that even with brain scans you might hope that the brain-only account can yet 'save the phenomena.'
Still, how interesting the difference.
-Socrates, from Plato's Apology
I once had a professor of philosophy who was very interested in Near Death Experiences. These are the things you hear about where the brain is approaching death, and visions of light or transportation occur. I've had one myself, in fact, when choked out of consciousness for a minute or two by my old master of jujitsu. These things are kind of interesting, in a way, because they are often quite similar in spite of cultural differences or other inputs. They don't, however, speak very much to what it is like to be dead, even "brain dead." This is because we can't be sure that there isn't brain activity of some kind.
Recently, though, I've come across two people who present empirical accounts of long-term "brain death" -- we really mean a coma in both cases -- which were monitored in hospitals. They are really different sorts of accounts.
Gerard at American Digest gives this account: the lights went out, and then flipped back on. For the intervening 13 days, there was nothing at all: not even a darkness, not even sleep, just nothing.
Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon who was comatose for eight days, gives an entirely different account: one of transportation, and beings of light, and a kind of maximum being that is not light but not yet darkness. There is emotional content: love, joy, and not so much forgiveness as the sense that there is, and can be, nothing to forgive.
Which account you find more plausible depends on your own assumptions, but from a scientific perspective it doesn't matter. What we have here are two roughly analogous events, with a surprisingly different phenomenal content. The first one lines up with what is suggested by what we think we know about the brain; the second lines up with numerous other empirical accounts of near-death from around the world.
None of this actually speaks to the real question, which is what it is like to be dead. There also remains enough shadow in our understanding of the brain that even with brain scans you might hope that the brain-only account can yet 'save the phenomena.'
Still, how interesting the difference.
The Wages of Universal Healthcare
This year's statistics from the UK's Daily Telegraph:
* 43 people starved to death while in government-run hospital wards.
* 111 people died of thirst.
* 287 further people, though starvation was not the actual cause of death, were noted as being "severely malnourished" at the time of their deaths.
* Over a hundred died of infections from bedsores.
* Nearly twenty-two thousand were suffering from septicemia when they died.
So the good news is that it won't cost any money to go to the hospital. The bad news is that the strain on resources means that the hospitals lack the capacity to feed you, give you water, change your linens, or perform ordinary basic hygiene.
* 43 people starved to death while in government-run hospital wards.
* 111 people died of thirst.
* 287 further people, though starvation was not the actual cause of death, were noted as being "severely malnourished" at the time of their deaths.
* Over a hundred died of infections from bedsores.
* Nearly twenty-two thousand were suffering from septicemia when they died.
So the good news is that it won't cost any money to go to the hospital. The bad news is that the strain on resources means that the hospitals lack the capacity to feed you, give you water, change your linens, or perform ordinary basic hygiene.
What Do You Want?
Walter Russell Mead begins an article on how civil society cannot deliver world peace:
Economics is all about the question of assigning value. It believes in humankind as a collection of rational actors who are willing to trade things they value less for things they value more. This isn't just true at the marketplace, where we are trading money for products. It is also true before we get to the marketplace, when we are accepting opportunity costs in order to pursue a given opportunity (instead of others). If we are regularly willing to trade opportunities to pursue good A for opportunities to pursue good B, we value B more than A.
There is a tradition within epistemology that suggests something similar about belief. If you tell me that you believe that the world will end on Thursday, how can I tell if you are serious or not? One way I can tell is if you are taking steps coherent with the world ending on Thursday -- for example, spending all your money on short-term pleasures instead of investments, or mortgaging your house so you can spend your last hours on a world-wide cruise, or not showing up at work all week so that you can be praying in church. Depending on your value system, one of these mechanisms might be a more rational way to spend your last hours than your usual routine would be. If you carry on going to work and investing in your retirement plan as usual, I might have some reason to doubt that you sincerely believe in the end of the world on Thursday.
These are reasonably good arguments if the human mind is generally rational, and generally not compartmentalized. However, both of those assumptions seem to be false assumptions.
So it turns out we have two possibilities. Maybe we really do want world peace -- as Dr. Mead suggests -- but it is simply the case that human beings are very bad at it. Alternatively, maybe there are things you want more than world peace, so that you will reliably trade opportunities to pursue world peace for opportunities to pursue these things.
Let's try a thought experiment to see which is the case. Imagine a computer algorithm has been designed that can reliably achieve peace if humans obey the computers' instructions. Nothing really wild is asked for -- no one has to sacrifice his son, for example -- but you have to do what you are told whether it makes sense to you or not. This program has been proven by experiment at every level, from tribal disputes in Africa to corporate ones in Europe and Japan, and so far it has generated perfect peace and cooperation wherever it has been tried. There is now a proposal before the Senate to ratify a global treaty requiring all people in the world to obey the computer, at all times, without exception. The President has already signed the treaty, so ratification is the last step to making this treaty the law of the land.
If Dr. Mead is right, and we just are bad at making peace, this should be an enormously attractive proposition. Is it?
Every aspiring beauty-pageant queen knows what to say when asked what she wants most: "World peace." World peace is at least nominally what we all want most. But evidently, we are not very good at making it.Both economics and epistemology suggest that, this being the case, we may not really want world peace as much as we think we do.
Economics is all about the question of assigning value. It believes in humankind as a collection of rational actors who are willing to trade things they value less for things they value more. This isn't just true at the marketplace, where we are trading money for products. It is also true before we get to the marketplace, when we are accepting opportunity costs in order to pursue a given opportunity (instead of others). If we are regularly willing to trade opportunities to pursue good A for opportunities to pursue good B, we value B more than A.
There is a tradition within epistemology that suggests something similar about belief. If you tell me that you believe that the world will end on Thursday, how can I tell if you are serious or not? One way I can tell is if you are taking steps coherent with the world ending on Thursday -- for example, spending all your money on short-term pleasures instead of investments, or mortgaging your house so you can spend your last hours on a world-wide cruise, or not showing up at work all week so that you can be praying in church. Depending on your value system, one of these mechanisms might be a more rational way to spend your last hours than your usual routine would be. If you carry on going to work and investing in your retirement plan as usual, I might have some reason to doubt that you sincerely believe in the end of the world on Thursday.
These are reasonably good arguments if the human mind is generally rational, and generally not compartmentalized. However, both of those assumptions seem to be false assumptions.
So it turns out we have two possibilities. Maybe we really do want world peace -- as Dr. Mead suggests -- but it is simply the case that human beings are very bad at it. Alternatively, maybe there are things you want more than world peace, so that you will reliably trade opportunities to pursue world peace for opportunities to pursue these things.
Let's try a thought experiment to see which is the case. Imagine a computer algorithm has been designed that can reliably achieve peace if humans obey the computers' instructions. Nothing really wild is asked for -- no one has to sacrifice his son, for example -- but you have to do what you are told whether it makes sense to you or not. This program has been proven by experiment at every level, from tribal disputes in Africa to corporate ones in Europe and Japan, and so far it has generated perfect peace and cooperation wherever it has been tried. There is now a proposal before the Senate to ratify a global treaty requiring all people in the world to obey the computer, at all times, without exception. The President has already signed the treaty, so ratification is the last step to making this treaty the law of the land.
If Dr. Mead is right, and we just are bad at making peace, this should be an enormously attractive proposition. Is it?
Sleep tight
Bryan Preston of PJ Media reports that the White House had a live feed from an overhead drone as the attack on the Benghazi embassy wound down, when we still did not know the fate of our murdered ambassador. Technical difficulties involving closed eyelids prevented the President from watching. Preston wonders: "Would Obama have gone to bed during a nailbiter of a sports game?" Well, maybe so, if he had to get up early and fly out to Las Vegas for a fund-raiser.
It's a good thing he didn't spend a couple of minutes finishing the story he was reading to some schoolchildren.
Anyway, within a few weeks he'd wrung a full briefing out of all those uncooperative intelligence community and State Department operatives.
Is Hillary Clinton really a wise scapegoat to fix on? I'm trying to imagine how tempted Bill Clinton is to grab a microphone and update his thoughts on how "any president" would have stacked up in the face of this crisis.
It's a good thing he didn't spend a couple of minutes finishing the story he was reading to some schoolchildren.
Anyway, within a few weeks he'd wrung a full briefing out of all those uncooperative intelligence community and State Department operatives.
Is Hillary Clinton really a wise scapegoat to fix on? I'm trying to imagine how tempted Bill Clinton is to grab a microphone and update his thoughts on how "any president" would have stacked up in the face of this crisis.
Ve haff vays of making you compassionate
"The Long Arm of Academic Tolerance" explores the fate of teachers who dare to express political opinions -- oops, I mean hate speech -- in what they used to think of as their private lives. Or not even a political opinion, just a request that a particular issue be exposed to a public vote. We absolutely cannot have that.
H/t Maggie's Farm
H/t Maggie's Farm
Takes on the debate
From Ace and his merry band:
Also: it was surprising to hear Biden claim the White House didn't know about the threat in Libya because the intelligence community didn't tell them. Maybe if the President actually attended intelligence briefings . . . ?
It was like having an argument with your drunk, blowhard, dullwitted uncle at Thanksgiving. And your drunk blowhard dullwitted uncle, who is superior to you only in age, keeps asserting he's right about everything by shouting "I WAS THERE!!!"
Came off as a father-son fight about how dad is too senile to drive anymore and the wife/mother just wanting to move on to something the two of them could agree upon.
If you thought it wasn't the administration, that it was Congress, last night you saw why it wasn't Congress. The other night you saw a non-communicative president and last night you had attack dog Joe.
Two debates in a row in which the overriding takeaway was the personality of the incumbent. Not good.
Ryan should have looked at Slow Joe and asked him "Does President Obama think all our nations problems are as funny as you seem to?" Then hit him in the choppers with a right cross.And my own reaction: does Biden really believe the easy part of building a nuclear weapon is accumulating the fissile material, and the hard part is the detonation/delivery mechanism? We managed it in 1945 easily enough, and we were flying blind.
Also: it was surprising to hear Biden claim the White House didn't know about the threat in Libya because the intelligence community didn't tell them. Maybe if the President actually attended intelligence briefings . . . ?
Grand Slam
Yesterday I watched a few minutes of the Reds/Giants game. I happened to be watching when Georgia native "Buster" Posey stepped up to the plate, with the bases loaded, and saw a big fat beautiful pitch come to him that he knew exactly what to do with.
My guess is that Mitt Romney has a similar feeling this morning.
My guess is that Mitt Romney has a similar feeling this morning.
The new fight erupted when top President Barack Obama's aide Stephanie Cutter said on CNN that the September 11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi only became a "political topic" because it was exploited by Romney....Yeah, that's right. That's just how you hit the ball.
"I think today we got another indication of how President Obama and his campaign fail to grasp the seriousness of the challenges that we face here in America," Romney said at a rally in North Carolina.
The Republican nominee went on to quote Cutter's remarks, before turning them against the president.
"No, President Obama, it's an issue because this is the first time in thirty-three years that a United States Ambassador has been assassinated.
"Mr President, this is an issue because we were attacked successfully by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11.
"President Obama, this is an issue because Americans wonder why it was it took so long for you and your administration to admit that this was a terrorist attack," Romney said, demanding "serious answers" for the American people.
King Arthur Pendragon
So, maybe you're depressed about the election season. Maybe you wish there was a really different candidate, one who symbolizes all the things you deeply believe to be important. How about King Arthur?
Well, he's the provisional Arthur, anyway.
By the way, he does have one significant claim to genuine authority. He bears Excalibur.
Well, he's the provisional Arthur, anyway.
"I’ve been Arthur Uther Pendragon since ‘86. I’m generally known as King Arthur. There are three Arthurian ages and I’m the post-Thatcher Arthur. As far as I’m concerned, until another Arthur—bigger, badder and bolder—comes along, I’m it. So handle it."In fairness, though, the bigger badder Arthur is going to have to compete with his stature as the leader of an outlaw motorcycle club.
"I used to be the president of an outlaw bike club and a lot of my mates thought I was off on one, but 20-odd years later, I’m still doing it. I decided that the Goddess would sustain me if it was true, so I don’t claim any state benefit and—well, hey—something’s working. I’ve been known to have a tipple, but guess what? I speak exactly the same bollocks whether I’m pissed or sober, because I actually believe in it.”I have much the same feeling myself at times, although I've never thought I might actually be Arthur himself. Still, you get on that iron horse, and you take the road, and it takes you places.
Arthur told me how spiritual places, like Stonehenge, help him access the memories from his past life.
“I remember fightin’ on the Saxon shores against the Saxon armies. I also have a memory of fighting on the western shores against Irish pirates. See, the motorcycle is the modern iron steed, so I’m not doing it a lot different now to what I was doing 1500 years ago.”
By the way, he does have one significant claim to genuine authority. He bears Excalibur.
“Where did you find Excalibur?” I asked him.Now, you have to admit that's impressive. They didn't agree to sell it to him: they gave it to him, because they agreed it was his by right.
“Ah well, therein lies another tale. It was built for the film.”
“The film Excalibur?”
“Yeah, the armourer who built it had it on show in the window. He said 'Look, if the real King Arthur walks in here, he can bloody have it. Otherwise, it’s not for sale.' So I just threw me passport on the desk and walked out with the sword."
The VP Debate
Biden did better than the President. But that's to be expected. Biden's the better man. We'll have to wait a bit to see how it played with voters, but there's no doubt in my mind he did better than President Obama did.
Of course, we'll also have to see how many people watched it, and how much they like people interrupting and yelling. Maybe that sells. We'll see soon enough.
UPDATE: A CNN undecided voter interview.
The lady is from Virginia, which might explain her good sense.
Of course, we'll also have to see how many people watched it, and how much they like people interrupting and yelling. Maybe that sells. We'll see soon enough.
UPDATE: A CNN undecided voter interview.
The lady is from Virginia, which might explain her good sense.
Completely False Statements
So the responsible thing -- the American thing! -- is to allow the investigation to proceed to a responsible, careful, detailed conclusion. OK.
One question, though: how long did the administration allow the FBI to be on the ground investigating this incident? My impression is that the answer is "Zero minutes and zero seconds, during which they were able to conduct zero interviews of eye-witnesses."
To describe this as waiting for a full, responsible investigation is the highest level of horse manure. They pulled the investigation before it even got on the ground. This is top-quality stuff, the sort you'd use to fertilize a rose garden.
21 days left . . .
. . . to craft those costumes for defenseless pets and babies. As always, I'm here to offer inspiration:
Running toward the gunfire
Mitt Romney tells a story about a Navy SEAL he met by accident a couple of year ago when he got mixed up about the address of a neighborhood party:
Then there is [Glen] Doherty, the former Navy SEAL Romney met at a party he wasn't supposed to attend.
Both were from Massachusetts. Both enjoyed skiing. And Doherty, who was 42 at the time of his death [in Benghazi last month], talked about his work in the Middle East for a private security company after he finished his tour of duty as a Navy SEAL.
"You can imagine how I felt when I found out that he was one of the two former Navy SEALs killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11," Romney said in Iowa, pausing to stay composed. "It touched me obviously as I recognized this young man that I thought was so impressive had lost his life in his service of his fellow men and women."
Romney said he learned that Doherty was in another building across town when he and his colleagues found out the consulate was under attack.
"They went there. They didn't hunker down where they were in safety. They rushed there to go help," Romney said. "This is the American way. We go where there's trouble. We go where we're needed. And right now we are needed. Right now the American people need us."
Provocative video causes political disaster
From People's Cube: sometimes public order is more important than letting a television broadcast get people all riled up.
Update: link fixed.
Unclear on the market concept
Don't Californians ever get tired of being blindsided by market effects that everyone else can see coming a mile away? I spent almost a decade of my life working on bankruptcies caused by the meltdown of the ridiculous California attempt to build a pretend-market for electricity in the late 1990s. Hey, I wonder what will happen if we refuse to produce any electricity locally, become dependent on neighboring states, squeeze down our interstate supply lines, and then screw with the market so that no one can get clear short-term price signals, while preventing our three major electrical utilities from hedging with long-term contracts? Who would have dreamed that the whole thing would blow up in our faces?
Almost 15 years later, California's rulers (and voters) still fondly imagine that they can have stable, comprehensible gas-pump prices while constantly jacking around with special-snowflake gas recipes that prevent any reasonable emergency backup supplies from kicking in when there's even a minor emergency at those few refineries that are allowed to stay in business. Now we have people complaining that, yes, of course there was a market perturbation, but it couldn't possibly have caused that kind of spike! It must be evil traders manipulating the market. Collusion! Gouging! Greed!
The market's being manipulated, all right, but it ain't traders doing it. The law of supply and demand works even when it's politically inconvenient. Now watch them "fix" the problem by freezing prices. That way you can get cheap gas -- there just won't be any of it. Thanks, wise, beneficent rulers!
Almost 15 years later, California's rulers (and voters) still fondly imagine that they can have stable, comprehensible gas-pump prices while constantly jacking around with special-snowflake gas recipes that prevent any reasonable emergency backup supplies from kicking in when there's even a minor emergency at those few refineries that are allowed to stay in business. Now we have people complaining that, yes, of course there was a market perturbation, but it couldn't possibly have caused that kind of spike! It must be evil traders manipulating the market. Collusion! Gouging! Greed!
The market's being manipulated, all right, but it ain't traders doing it. The law of supply and demand works even when it's politically inconvenient. Now watch them "fix" the problem by freezing prices. That way you can get cheap gas -- there just won't be any of it. Thanks, wise, beneficent rulers!
Trust
Chuck Todd is upset that Americans don't trust their government any more.
It's not a good thing for society when its citizens become hardened in cynicism and susceptible to every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. But Mr. Todd misidentifies the root of the problem. The problem isn't that citizens should put their rose-colored glasses back on and rally around the powers that be. The problem is him:
It's not a good thing for society when its citizens become hardened in cynicism and susceptible to every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. But Mr. Todd misidentifies the root of the problem. The problem isn't that citizens should put their rose-colored glasses back on and rally around the powers that be. The problem is him:
When Chuck Todd laments the corrosion of “trust in government,” what he is really lamenting is that the American people have caught on to the way the game is played and the public now realizes just how complicit the media is.Wanna fix that, Mr. Todd? You're a member of the media. Try doing your job honestly for a change, see if that helps. Not only might you get a more honest government out of it, but people might quit laughing at your profession.
When ya lose Big Bird . . . .
Coming on the heels of a betrayal by Bill Maher, this has got to sting.
Why Our Enemies in Afghanistan are Evil Men
Cowards, too. They are so afraid of the words of a girl that they have to kill her, lest others speak.
Yet this valley is a stronghold for them. We controlled it once, and have already withdrawn from it because the population prefers them to the central government enough to let them -- even to help them -- command. That speaks to the poverty of our allies, such as they are, as well as the depth of the ethnic division.
We may hope that these particular men might yet have the opportunity to meet with an appropriate answer. In the end, though, this is the world we are leaving behind.
Yet this valley is a stronghold for them. We controlled it once, and have already withdrawn from it because the population prefers them to the central government enough to let them -- even to help them -- command. That speaks to the poverty of our allies, such as they are, as well as the depth of the ethnic division.
We may hope that these particular men might yet have the opportunity to meet with an appropriate answer. In the end, though, this is the world we are leaving behind.
Nobel
Because Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously, they sometimes miss an extraordinary achievement that won't bear fruit until later, particularly if the discoverer dies young. Rosalind Franklin, for instance, might have shared the 1962 prize that went to Watson and Crick for discovering the double-helix structure of DNA, but she died of cancer at age 37 in 1958.
Albert Einstein received his Nobel Prize not for the theory of relativity (special 1905, general 1911) or the mass-energy equivalence (1905) but for his 1905 work on the photo-electric effect. I was not aware of the ugly political machinations behind this delayed and arguably misdirected award. By the time the Nobel committee worked out its resentment of Einstein's Jewish heritage and pacifist tendencies, not to mention the controversy over whether the 1919 Eddington experiment had truly confirmed his work, Einstein had suffered the fate of Achilles: the honor had been robbed of its value by the arbitrary partisanship of its awarders.
Nobel Prizes are being awarded this week, so far without controversy. The medicine award went to two stem cell researchers, one British and one Japanese, whose work involved not embryonic stem cells but the reprogramming of adult cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. The physics award went to two men, one from Colorado and the other from Paris, whose work with observing quantum particles may lead to advances in supercomputers.
Albert Einstein received his Nobel Prize not for the theory of relativity (special 1905, general 1911) or the mass-energy equivalence (1905) but for his 1905 work on the photo-electric effect. I was not aware of the ugly political machinations behind this delayed and arguably misdirected award. By the time the Nobel committee worked out its resentment of Einstein's Jewish heritage and pacifist tendencies, not to mention the controversy over whether the 1919 Eddington experiment had truly confirmed his work, Einstein had suffered the fate of Achilles: the honor had been robbed of its value by the arbitrary partisanship of its awarders.
He that fights fares no better than he that does not; coward and hero are held in equal honour, and death deals like measure to him who works and him who is idle.Einstein didn't return from his trip to the Far East to attend the 1922 ceremony in Stockholm. In 1933, he renounced his German citizenship and moved to the U.S., where in 1939 he was instrumental in persuading President Roosevelt to make this country the world's first nuclear power.
Nobel Prizes are being awarded this week, so far without controversy. The medicine award went to two stem cell researchers, one British and one Japanese, whose work involved not embryonic stem cells but the reprogramming of adult cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. The physics award went to two men, one from Colorado and the other from Paris, whose work with observing quantum particles may lead to advances in supercomputers.
Romney on foreign policy
From WaPo:
I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us.A few more specific proposals, not that any foreign policy speech is ever very specific:
- Restore cuts to military spending; specifically, build 15 ships per year, including three submarines.
- "I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep
the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark."
- Organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results, by stipulating conditions to aid.
- Reverse the President's four-year failure to sign any new free trade agreements.
- Support the many Syrians who would oppose Iran.
- More support for Israel.
Other than that, though, what's wrong with Venezuela?
From the WaPo:
According to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, even media not directly controlled by the government have been reluctant to report critically on Mr. Chavez. Many voters, too, are intimidated by high-tech polling machines that read their fingerprints; polls show that they suspect their votes will not be secret. Those not motivated by fright might be lured by greed: The government has amassed a list of 3 million people it has promised new homes. There are about 12 million likely voters.
That Mr. Chavez is in danger of losing in spite of all this is testimony to the havoc he has wreaked in what was once Latin America’s richest country. At more than 20 percent, inflation is the highest in the region and is accompanied by chronic shortages of food, basic consumer goods and power. The country’s infrastructure is crumbling: Within the last two months an explosion at a state oil refinery killed 50 people, and a major highway bridge collapsed. Perhaps worst of all for average citizens, violent crime has become epidemic under Mr. Chavez. The murder rate, which has more than tripled, is one of the five highest in the world. Drug traffickers have made Venezuela a hub for shipments to the United States and Europe with the help of senior government officials, including the current defense minister.Chavez won his re-election campaign. Here's a giddy socialist take on the news:
The accomplishments of the Chavez regime over the past 13 years are undeniable. When he entered office, Chavez took command of an economy that had been ravaged by IMF structural adjustment plans that had devastated most of the welfare subsidies and social guarantees that had been built up by the progressive nationalist regimes of the 1970s. . . . [S]ince Chavez was elected President in 1999, unemployment has been cut in half – declining from 14% to 7%. Increased access to medical care, particularly through community clinics staffed by Cuban physicians, has led to a decline in infant mortality from 20 deaths per 1,000 live births to 13 deaths per 1,000. Per capita GDP has increased from $4,000 in 1999 to $10,000 today. And extreme poverty has declined from 23% of the population when Chavez entered office in 1999 to 8.5% today. . . . The election of right wing opposition candidate Henrique Capriles would have meant an immediate end to this process of social transformation. . . .I guess we'll see. Chavez is facing another contest that I doubt he'll win. Whatever path Venezuela takes will have to be without him, one way or another.
A Pithy Commentary on the History of...shall we call it Canaan?
may be found here. Abstracting it to every other part of the human-occupied earth is left as an exercise for the reader.
h/t Gene Expression.
Things That Never Cease to Amaze
American society is very strange about its food:
Besides, you'd eat the adult duck, and you'd eat the egg in an earlier state. Why so queasy about eating the almost-hatched fetus? What makes it the one phase that's worthy of protection -- or that makes it the one phase that it is revolting to kill and eat?
Speaking of eggs, balut is a soft-boiled duck egg, where the embryo is almost fully formed--feathers, bones, and all. The egg is cracked open, the soupy liquid drunk, and the fetus dug out to eat. It's popular in the Philippines, Laos, and other Southeast Asian countries.Why should this be a problem? Don't we know from our political debate that there is absolutely no distinction between an egg at day one of fertilization, and an egg about to hatch?
What's being done: Thanks to domestic foodie demand, this "snack" is available in the U.S. too. Dekalb Market in Brooklyn hosted its first ever balut-eating contest this summer--and the winner downed 18 embryos in 5 minutes.
What to eat instead: Regular eggs (organic, cage-free, preferably my-farmer-sold-them-to-me eggs, that is) will give you a protein fix without the feathered fetus.
Besides, you'd eat the adult duck, and you'd eat the egg in an earlier state. Why so queasy about eating the almost-hatched fetus? What makes it the one phase that's worthy of protection -- or that makes it the one phase that it is revolting to kill and eat?
Fun with balls
As a way to move balls around to no evident purpose, this struck me as a lot more entertaining than football.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)