In the comments to a recent post at BLACKFIVE, a gentleman posted a link to a song by a British singer that references the Sons of Liberty. The only name he mentions in the song is Watt Tyler, though, so he's reaching a lot further back than the famous Sons -- 1381, in fact.
Musically it isn't much of a song, but the lyrics are encouraging.
House of Eratosthenes
Some good stuff on House of Eratosthenes this morning. On Hillary Clinton's strange testimony this week:
And on the weird treatment of science in political disputes:We have our Secretary of State . . . reminding us that the whole point is to find out what happened, and therefore “what does it matter” . . . what the h--- happened. Sheer nonsense.
But it bears repeating, science has nothing to do at all with what we “must” do. Science is all about what is. One steps outside of the domain of science, usually slamming the door behind him, and forgetting the key, the minute one starts pondering the thing-to-do. With the climate change deal, a lot of people tend to forget that.
[I]n classical times “science” was used to describe a process, and in more recent times it is used to describe an orthodoxy of institutionalized beliefs, and a coterie of elites maintaining them.
. . .
Time after time, I see lefties “proving” that they deserve to be the one Alpha Dog of the pack — and not taking the trouble to prove much of anything else. They start babbling pure nonsense. Like “It’s our job to find out what happened here so it never happens again, and what difference does it make who did this thing we’re trying to prevent from ever happening again, or why they did it.” Arguing about security procedures and climate science . . . the way Arctic wolves would, if they could talk.
Maybe we have a Constitution after all
A federal appeals court has found that when the Constitution says the President can make recess appointments, that means he actually has to wait until a recess to do it. He can't just act during what feels like a recess to him, on the ground that the appointment is really important and Republicans aren't being nice to him.
Conan, Master of Arts
A helpful article from McSweeny's medical journal entitled, "FAQ: The 'Snake Fight' Portion of Your Thesis Defense."
Q: Do I have to kill the snake?Oh, so that's what happened.
A: University guidelines state that you have to “defeat” the snake. There are many ways to accomplish this. Lots of students choose to wrestle the snake. Some construct decoys and elaborate traps to confuse and then ensnare the snake. One student brought a flute and played a song to lull the snake to sleep. Then he threw the snake out a window.
Q: Does everyone fight the same snake?
A: No. You will fight one of the many snakes that are kept on campus by the facilities department.
Q: Are the snakes big?
A: We have lots of different snakes. The quality of your work determines which snake you will fight. The better your thesis is, the smaller the snake will be.
...
Q: So then couldn’t you just fight a snake in lieu of actually writing a thesis?
A: Technically, yes. But in that case the snake would be very big. Very big, indeed.
Guns and budgets
From Instapundit, quoting a friend:
If Republicans want to stop gun control legislation in the US Senate all they have to do is attach a budget to it and Harry Reid will ensure it never comes up for a vote.
Harbingers
Paul A. Rahe addresses a question about whether there is a non-Marxist literature on what occasions revolutions (he misses Hannah Arendt). Are there leading indicators that suggest a revolution may be coming?
One key indicator is that those with access to the levers of power within the ruling order cease to believe in the religion or ideology that legitimizes the regime. Another is that their underlings also gradually abandon the beliefs that render respectable the rule of their masters.For some reason, he goes on to talk about China.
Mourning at the Morning of the World
There is much to mourn at this hour. We watch the nation fall ever farther from the moral life that formed it, and informed it at its darkest hours.
Since I am quoting Dunsany, though, it is worth remembering that he was an ally of the ancient things. The ancient things renew.
Since I am quoting Dunsany, though, it is worth remembering that he was an ally of the ancient things. The ancient things renew.
THE RETURN OF SONG
"The swans are singing again," said to one another the gods. And
looking downwards, for my dreams had taken me to some fair and
far Valhalla, I saw below me an iridescent bubble not greatly larger
than a star shine beautifully but faintly, and up and up from it looking
larger and larger came a flock of white, innumerable swans, singing
and singing and singing, till it seemed as though even the gods were
wild ships swimming in music.
"What is it?" I said to one that was humble among the gods.
"Only a world has ended," he said to me, "and the swans are coming
back to the gods returning the gift of song."
"A whole world dead!" I said.
"Dead," said he that was humble among the gods. "The worlds are
not for ever; only song is immortal."
"Look! Look!" he said. "There will be a new one soon."
And I looked and saw the larks, going down from the gods.
"The Assignation"
A very short story by Lord Dunsany, one of the greats of his age.
Fame singing in the highways, and trifling as she sang, with sordid adventurers, passed the poet by.But read on, for "Charon," and the story of the Sphinx and Time.
And still the poet made for her little chaplets of song, to deck her forehead in the courts of Time: and still she wore instead the worthless garlands, that boisterous citizens flung to her in the ways, made out of perishable things.
And after a while whenever these garlands died the poet came to her with his chaplets of song; and still she laughed at him and wore the worthless wreaths, though they always died at evening.
And one day in his bitterness the poet rebuked her, and said to her: "Lovely Fame, even in the highways and the byways you have not foreborne to laugh and shout and jest with worthless men, and I have toiled for you and dreamed of you and you mock me and pass me by."
And Fame turned her back on him and walked away, but in departing she looked over her shoulder and smiled at him as she had not smiled before, and, almost speaking in a whisper, said:
"I will meet you in the graveyard at the back of the Workhouse in a hundred years."
The communal fire
Last night we tried something so obviously wonderful that now I can't understand why we haven't been doing it all our lives. We brought home a bag of unshucked oysters, had a bunch of neighbors over, and spent the evening around a fire pit grilling the oysters, shucking them, and eating them with a variety of condiments my husband whipped up yesterday morning. (The lime-chili-cilantro sauce has to be tried to be believed.)
The oysters came fresh from the local bay. Unshucked, they cost a small fraction of what we're used to: $30 buys a 100-lb bag (more than 300 oysters), while a gallon of shucked oysters (perhaps 100) is fetching $54 these days. Shucking is a breeze when the oyster has been grilled. When the shell pops open a fraction, you know the oyster is done.
The free-standing metal fire pit, a Christmas gift from my mother-in-law, is a welcome addition to our patio. Besides providing a fine focus for a friendly outdoor party at this pleasant time of year, it let us burn up some deadfall wood and produce ashes that we'll use in the garden. And of course we had s'mores.
Lime Chili Cilantro Sauce
6 large garlic cloves, minced
3 TB fresh cilantro, minced
4 green onions, minced
1/3 cup Asian chili paste
2 TB sugar
1/2 tsp lime zest, minced
1/3 cup lime juice, freshly squeezed
1/3 cup Vietnamese fish sauce
1-1/2 TB pickled ginger, minced
If you're starting with raw shucked oysters, you can spoon this sauce over them before grilling, and you can add the reserved oyster liquor to the sauce. For grilling in the shells, we just cooked and opened the oysters, then let the guests spoon a little sauce over the top. It's good on all kinds of things, not just oysters. Its explosive flavor is a crowd pleaser.
The oysters came fresh from the local bay. Unshucked, they cost a small fraction of what we're used to: $30 buys a 100-lb bag (more than 300 oysters), while a gallon of shucked oysters (perhaps 100) is fetching $54 these days. Shucking is a breeze when the oyster has been grilled. When the shell pops open a fraction, you know the oyster is done.
The free-standing metal fire pit, a Christmas gift from my mother-in-law, is a welcome addition to our patio. Besides providing a fine focus for a friendly outdoor party at this pleasant time of year, it let us burn up some deadfall wood and produce ashes that we'll use in the garden. And of course we had s'mores.
Lime Chili Cilantro Sauce
6 large garlic cloves, minced
3 TB fresh cilantro, minced
4 green onions, minced
1/3 cup Asian chili paste
2 TB sugar
1/2 tsp lime zest, minced
1/3 cup lime juice, freshly squeezed
1/3 cup Vietnamese fish sauce
1-1/2 TB pickled ginger, minced
If you're starting with raw shucked oysters, you can spoon this sauce over them before grilling, and you can add the reserved oyster liquor to the sauce. For grilling in the shells, we just cooked and opened the oysters, then let the guests spoon a little sauce over the top. It's good on all kinds of things, not just oysters. Its explosive flavor is a crowd pleaser.
A Delightful Interlude
If you are among the people who occasionally receive presents from me, do not follow these links because you'll ruin some upcoming surprises.
For the rest of you, is this not perfect?
I like this one, too. Also this one.
And one for Eric Blair.
For the rest of you, is this not perfect?
I like this one, too. Also this one.
And one for Eric Blair.
Another Perspective on Violence and Guns
It's injudiciously phrased, so take that as a warning, but consider this article.
67% of firearm murders took place in the country’s 50 largest metro areas. The 62 cities in those metro areas have a firearm murder rate of 9.7, more than twice the national average. Among teenagers the firearm murder rate is 14.6 or almost three times the national average.
Those are the crowded cities... with the most restrictive gun control laws and the highest crime rates. And many of them have been run by Democrats and their political machines for almost as long as they have been broken.
Obama won every major city in the election, except for Jacksonville and Salt Lake City. And the higher the death rate, the bigger his victory.
He won New Orleans by 80 to 17 where the murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. He won Detroit, where the murder rate of 53 per 100,000 people is the second highest in the country and twice as high as any country in the world, including the Congo and South Africa. He won it 73 to 26. And then he celebrated his victory in Chicago where the murder rate is three times the statewide average....
In 2006, the 54% of the population living in those 50 metro areas was responsible for 67% of armed killings nationwide. Those are disproportionate numbers especially when you consider that for the people living in most of those cities walking into a store and legally buying a gun is all but impossible.
One of These Things Is Not Like the Others
You've probably read about the latest report on the dangers of right-wing terrorism to come out of the US Federal Government, in this case the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the disclaimer on the report, which states that the opinions are the author's only, and not those of the government, the DOD, etc. Fair enough!
That said, The Atlantic would like you to know that the report shows that there is a rising scale of domestic right-wing terrorism. They highlight the report's findings that "in the 1990s the average number of attacks per year was 70.1, the average number of attacks per year in the first 11 years of the twenty-first century was 307.5, a rise of more than 400%."
OK, again, fair enough. Apparently there is a rising tide of violence from right wing groups. However, I have a question about the composition of the groups described as violent.
Two of the three divisions the author proposes aren't very controversial. He mentions racist groups such as the KKK, and "Christian Identity" groups such as the Aryan Nations. These two divisions seem to be responsible for the rising tide of violence.
But then there is a third division in the report, a so-called "anti-federalist" movement. Here's the description of them.
However, it seems strange to bring this up as if it were a living movement. If we're talking about the 'violence derived from the anti-federalist movement only appearing in the early-to-mid 1990s,' then we are talking about the period when the violence from such groups was minimal and statistically insignificant. More than that, we're saying that this minimal, statistically insignificant period of violence represents the high point of violence from this group.
Now, on the other hand, since 2010 there has been a very loud, viable anti-federalist movement called the TEA Party. But it doesn't advocate the violent overthrow of anything. It doesn't direct violence toward law enforcement, or anyone else. It doesn't go on about any 'New World Order.' It does, however, "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights [and] support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government."
In other words, insofar as you want to talk about the KKK and racist skinheads, there's no problem. If those groups are increasingly violent and dangerous, we can talk about how to address that problem.
If you want to use this report to paint the loudest and most effective political opposition to the President and Democratic Senate as terrorists, however, people are right to be disturbed. It is not at all clear to me that it is appropriate to suggest that there is anything like an "anti-federalist" movement that embraces both the TEA Party and the late and un-lamented Timothy McVeigh. I think, in fact, it is a dangerous sort of slander, at a time when the government is asserting "anti-terrorist" powers that are undefined and subject to no clear limits.
That said, The Atlantic would like you to know that the report shows that there is a rising scale of domestic right-wing terrorism. They highlight the report's findings that "in the 1990s the average number of attacks per year was 70.1, the average number of attacks per year in the first 11 years of the twenty-first century was 307.5, a rise of more than 400%."
OK, again, fair enough. Apparently there is a rising tide of violence from right wing groups. However, I have a question about the composition of the groups described as violent.
Two of the three divisions the author proposes aren't very controversial. He mentions racist groups such as the KKK, and "Christian Identity" groups such as the Aryan Nations. These two divisions seem to be responsible for the rising tide of violence.
But then there is a third division in the report, a so-called "anti-federalist" movement. Here's the description of them.
Violence derived from the modern anti-federalist movement appeared in full force only in the early to mid-1990s and is interested in undermining the influence, legitimacy and effective sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.Now that sounds to me like he's talking about Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirators, and indeed it turns out that he begins the main part of his report by talking about McVeigh.
However, it seems strange to bring this up as if it were a living movement. If we're talking about the 'violence derived from the anti-federalist movement only appearing in the early-to-mid 1990s,' then we are talking about the period when the violence from such groups was minimal and statistically insignificant. More than that, we're saying that this minimal, statistically insignificant period of violence represents the high point of violence from this group.
Now, on the other hand, since 2010 there has been a very loud, viable anti-federalist movement called the TEA Party. But it doesn't advocate the violent overthrow of anything. It doesn't direct violence toward law enforcement, or anyone else. It doesn't go on about any 'New World Order.' It does, however, "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights [and] support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government."
In other words, insofar as you want to talk about the KKK and racist skinheads, there's no problem. If those groups are increasingly violent and dangerous, we can talk about how to address that problem.
If you want to use this report to paint the loudest and most effective political opposition to the President and Democratic Senate as terrorists, however, people are right to be disturbed. It is not at all clear to me that it is appropriate to suggest that there is anything like an "anti-federalist" movement that embraces both the TEA Party and the late and un-lamented Timothy McVeigh. I think, in fact, it is a dangerous sort of slander, at a time when the government is asserting "anti-terrorist" powers that are undefined and subject to no clear limits.
Two from Brandywine Books
Lars Walker tells the story of being robbed at gunpoint as a young man.
Phil provides a link to an interesting disquisition on the order of the intellectual life. It occurs to me that you can replace 'intellectual life' with 'military life' or almost any other sort of life and find that the same four points hold.
Phil provides a link to an interesting disquisition on the order of the intellectual life. It occurs to me that you can replace 'intellectual life' with 'military life' or almost any other sort of life and find that the same four points hold.
1. Recognize the Intellectual Life as a Calling.Something to consider!
2. Submit Your Intellectual Pursuits to Truth.
3. Understand the Intellectual Life Requires Considerable Discipline.
4. Remember the Goal of the Intellectual Life is Virtuous Character.
Why Southern Democrats Are So Few
"...and long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here..."
Used it to do what, you may wonder? The ad strangely omits that part.
Congressman Barrow was targeted because, as a Democrat, he was thought to be vulnerable. "Shame on you," the ad ends, though it seems to me the shame belongs to someone else. Here is a man who comes from an honorable tradition, who values his ancestors and the arms they bore in the defense of the innocent. The shame belongs to those who do not understand the value of such things. I don't know what they are, but I know that whoever made this ad is not fit to speak the language of honor.
Used it to do what, you may wonder? The ad strangely omits that part.
Here’s the problem: The CSGV has done some selective editing in its video. In its version of the ad, Barrow displays a pistol and says:Not just around here, I hope. This is a major part of the reason why something like our Second Amendment is so important to a just society.“Long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here….”It cuts the Augusta congressman off there. How did Barrow finish the sentence in the original, and what did the CSGV choose to omit? This:”…to help stop a lynching.”Around here, those five additional words make a big difference.
Congressman Barrow was targeted because, as a Democrat, he was thought to be vulnerable. "Shame on you," the ad ends, though it seems to me the shame belongs to someone else. Here is a man who comes from an honorable tradition, who values his ancestors and the arms they bore in the defense of the innocent. The shame belongs to those who do not understand the value of such things. I don't know what they are, but I know that whoever made this ad is not fit to speak the language of honor.
So, Just To Get This Straight...
...It's plainly wrong for local law enforcement to try to help enforce Federal immigration law...
...but it is obviously mandatory for local law enforcement to try to help enforce Federal gun control law.
That makes sense, right?
...but it is obviously mandatory for local law enforcement to try to help enforce Federal gun control law.
That makes sense, right?
Slavery and Guns
The assertion that opposition to the President is racist has been repeated so often, in so many forms, that it has become something of a joke on the Right. The older and more dangerous claim is that traditional American culture is inherently racist, in need of elimination (or at least 'fundamental transformation') because of the evil at its root.
So it must be no surprise to see this story asserting that the whole point of the Second Amendment was slave control. The intent of the argument is to suggest that the Second Amendment has evil bred in its bones, the sort of thing a decent society would thrust out.
The problem is, of course, that militias were desired and used for many reasons other than slave control -- indeed, non-slave states used them too. They were used to guard and respond against insurgencies, to repel and deter raids by Native Americans (a purpose also currently thought illegitimate by many, but highly understandable if you remember the women and children the militiamen hoped to protect), and for police purposes in an era when formal police forces were rare or expensive. They were used here in Georgia to deter Spanish incursions (as well as to make incursions on Spanish Florida). They were used as organizing institutions for the community, helping it to cohere and build a common culture from immigrants on a frontier. They were used as the backbone of Colonial resistance to British authority, and their officers provided the Colonial army with much of its early leadership.
In other words, it is very far from true that the Second Amendment owes its existence to slavery. Of course there is also a problem with reducing the Second Amendment to the militia: there is an individual right protected, as well as the state's interest in having a militia. Even taking that as an assumption, though, the argument is weak.
So it must be no surprise to see this story asserting that the whole point of the Second Amendment was slave control. The intent of the argument is to suggest that the Second Amendment has evil bred in its bones, the sort of thing a decent society would thrust out.
The problem is, of course, that militias were desired and used for many reasons other than slave control -- indeed, non-slave states used them too. They were used to guard and respond against insurgencies, to repel and deter raids by Native Americans (a purpose also currently thought illegitimate by many, but highly understandable if you remember the women and children the militiamen hoped to protect), and for police purposes in an era when formal police forces were rare or expensive. They were used here in Georgia to deter Spanish incursions (as well as to make incursions on Spanish Florida). They were used as organizing institutions for the community, helping it to cohere and build a common culture from immigrants on a frontier. They were used as the backbone of Colonial resistance to British authority, and their officers provided the Colonial army with much of its early leadership.
In other words, it is very far from true that the Second Amendment owes its existence to slavery. Of course there is also a problem with reducing the Second Amendment to the militia: there is an individual right protected, as well as the state's interest in having a militia. Even taking that as an assumption, though, the argument is weak.
This Should Be An Interesting 'Clarification'
Apparently an important component of today's gun control efforts is going to be getting doctors to quiz you about guns.
The mental health provisions are the ones that concern me, though. The fact is that there is no lab test for any mental illness -- you can't do a biopsy and prove that someone has a personality disorder the way you can prove they have cancer. By the same token, you can't prove that you don't have a mental disorder.
Subjecting any civil right to a limitation based on an untestable condition is a very dangerous idea. It's not for no reason that psychology was so often misused by Communist governments as a means of marginalizing (or imprisoning, or lobotomizing) regime opponents -- once you are painted as mentally ill, you can never prove your innocence.
Our normal standard is that you shouldn't have to prove your innocence, of course, but rather that the state should have to prove your guilt. Well, it cannot do that here. If restrictions are to be based on mental health, then, they must not depend on proof of guilt. They can only depend on allegations of guilt. Having to prove your innocence is too high a standard even in criminal matters, when it may sometimes be possible. It is far worse here, where such proof of innocence is actually impossible.
Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.Funny thing about that 'clarification' -- it appears to mean denying that the law says what it very plainly says. Here's the text.
‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—I suppose that leaves some room to ask if you have unlawfully possessed guns, or stored them in an unlawful manner.
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness
and health promotion activity implemented under subsection
(a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any
information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed
firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property
of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the
authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that
Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the
collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of
the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made
by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used
to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of
a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR
ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not
be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied,
and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in
a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under
any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance
upon—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any
information under any data collection activity authorized under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
made by that Act relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition.’’.
The mental health provisions are the ones that concern me, though. The fact is that there is no lab test for any mental illness -- you can't do a biopsy and prove that someone has a personality disorder the way you can prove they have cancer. By the same token, you can't prove that you don't have a mental disorder.
Subjecting any civil right to a limitation based on an untestable condition is a very dangerous idea. It's not for no reason that psychology was so often misused by Communist governments as a means of marginalizing (or imprisoning, or lobotomizing) regime opponents -- once you are painted as mentally ill, you can never prove your innocence.
Our normal standard is that you shouldn't have to prove your innocence, of course, but rather that the state should have to prove your guilt. Well, it cannot do that here. If restrictions are to be based on mental health, then, they must not depend on proof of guilt. They can only depend on allegations of guilt. Having to prove your innocence is too high a standard even in criminal matters, when it may sometimes be possible. It is far worse here, where such proof of innocence is actually impossible.
Speaking of the South & Politics...
...the Georgia General Assembly is back in session. This looks like an interesting term, because the legislature can only meet for forty days a year, but they may not know what they need to know about the Federal budget within those forty days. Thus, there's a chance they may take a recess of as much as three weeks while waiting on Congress to decide what it is going to do about Sequestration.
In the meanwhile, here's a brief on what the session is likely to include:
In the meanwhile, here's a brief on what the session is likely to include:
State Representative Ed Rynders (R-Albany) says some of the biggest issues that are up for discussion are ethics reform and a right to bear arms.That's the kind of prioritization that the Federal government is refusing to consider. You can keep taxes low and still have one priority that you won't cut, or a few priorities that get cut less. It is possible to do this through the democratic process. States do it, but then again, states can't print their own money. Maybe the most important priority for the Federal government is a balanced budget amendment, to keep them from doing what states aren't permitted to do.
“I believe in a right to bear arms,” said Ed Rynders, State Representative.
Although gun control is expected to come up during the legislative session, Rynders says the biggest topic is the state's budget.
“Everyone here is committed to not raising the taxes, which of course means that we have to live within our means. The governor has asked for a three percent across the board cut in programs and departments everywhere except for education. Public education will not be cut,” said Ed Rynders.
The South in the Last Days of the Republic
There's been a lot of ink spilled just lately on the South in the Obama era. I'm disinclined to respond to it, mostly, because I think the frame is wrong.
For one thing it's wrongheaded to call the South "Neo-Confederate," and would be even if it were actually attempting secession over limited-governmenet principles. Nobody in the South intends to restore the Old Confederacy, especially on racial or slavery matters. The South retains most of its complaints as defiantly today as in 1875, but not those. On those points its heart has changed.
For another, conservatism has done very well at the state level -- and not just in the South. Conservatives are doing great things at the state level even in frozen Northern regions like Michigan and Wisconsin. It's only the Federal government that has turned solidly against conservatives, and really that makes a kind of sense. Conservatism is opposed to what the Federal government has come to represent: an ever-growing, all-encompassing force with the power to regulate all aspects of life via the state. Conservatives believe in institutions that shape and guide life, including the state but only in a limited form. A state that is too strong ends up interfering with other institutions that are at least as important: the family, the church, the bonds of individual friendship, and freely-chosen organizations such as professional organizations and private clubs.
The Federal game is still a game of patronage: elect me, and I'll vote to send power and wealth your way! Naturally conservatives are doing badly given that they want nothing to do with the game; naturally what remains of the allegedly-conservative party are trying to limit the influence of their actual voters. That's an old sport, and it's a blood sport, but the power and wealth are running out. When the Federal government falls, a fate rapidly being brought about by what have become its ordinary modes of operation, it will be conservative states that remain strong enough economically and politically to survive. Whatever the new order looks like, it will be built on that strength.
So I'm not inclined to respond to the frame. However, I did want to draw attention to two things from the debate that I particularly liked. The first is that the New Yorker piece did something I rarely see done: it took a moment to appreciate what benefits the nation has gotten out of having Southerners within it.
Athos goes on to say, "Unfortunately, we do not live in the times of the great emperor, we live in the times of the cardinal." In a similar way we are unfortunate. Still it is good to hear noble words spoken, and to see a man carry himself like a gentleman.
For one thing it's wrongheaded to call the South "Neo-Confederate," and would be even if it were actually attempting secession over limited-governmenet principles. Nobody in the South intends to restore the Old Confederacy, especially on racial or slavery matters. The South retains most of its complaints as defiantly today as in 1875, but not those. On those points its heart has changed.
For another, conservatism has done very well at the state level -- and not just in the South. Conservatives are doing great things at the state level even in frozen Northern regions like Michigan and Wisconsin. It's only the Federal government that has turned solidly against conservatives, and really that makes a kind of sense. Conservatism is opposed to what the Federal government has come to represent: an ever-growing, all-encompassing force with the power to regulate all aspects of life via the state. Conservatives believe in institutions that shape and guide life, including the state but only in a limited form. A state that is too strong ends up interfering with other institutions that are at least as important: the family, the church, the bonds of individual friendship, and freely-chosen organizations such as professional organizations and private clubs.
The Federal game is still a game of patronage: elect me, and I'll vote to send power and wealth your way! Naturally conservatives are doing badly given that they want nothing to do with the game; naturally what remains of the allegedly-conservative party are trying to limit the influence of their actual voters. That's an old sport, and it's a blood sport, but the power and wealth are running out. When the Federal government falls, a fate rapidly being brought about by what have become its ordinary modes of operation, it will be conservative states that remain strong enough economically and politically to survive. Whatever the new order looks like, it will be built on that strength.
So I'm not inclined to respond to the frame. However, I did want to draw attention to two things from the debate that I particularly liked. The first is that the New Yorker piece did something I rarely see done: it took a moment to appreciate what benefits the nation has gotten out of having Southerners within it.
[T]he Southern way of life began to be embraced around the country until, in a sense, it came to stand for the “real America”: country music and Lynyrd Skynyrd, barbecue and nascar, political conservatism, God and guns, the code of masculinity, militarization, hostility to unions, and suspicion of government authority, especially in Washington, D.C. (despite its largesse). In 1978, the Dallas Cowboys laid claim to the title of “America’s team”—something the San Francisco 49ers never would have attempted.... That same year, the tax revolt began, in California....One of the Southern voices cited by that piece responded to it, and that is the second piece I wanted to cite.
At the end of “The Mind of the South,” Cash has this description of “the South at its best”: “proud, brave, honorable by its lights, courteous, personally generous, loyal.” These remain qualities that the rest of the country needs and often calls on.
I encourage you to remember these words: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.”In The Three Musketeers, Athos responds to a generous proposition by saying, "Thus spoke and acted the gallant knights of the time of Charlemagne, in whom every cavalier ought to seek his model." Likewise do I appreciate a noble and gentlemanly gesture, given that the author of the original piece made that rare effort to understand and not only to criticize.
With that in mind, I have reached out to Mr. Packer. Many of my friends hoped I would excoriate him – not only for his misrepresentation of my work, but also for the overall tone and content of his column. Others suggested that an insult from The New Yorker constitutes a compliment. And still others pointed out that any attention is good attention. (I’ve raised toddlers; I find it hard to agree with that one.)
Instead, I chose to apologize for any failings of my own that may have led him to his incorrect assumptions. I also offered to buy him some good ol’ fashioned Southern cuisine should he ever venture down this way. I sincerely hope he does.
Athos goes on to say, "Unfortunately, we do not live in the times of the great emperor, we live in the times of the cardinal." In a similar way we are unfortunate. Still it is good to hear noble words spoken, and to see a man carry himself like a gentleman.
No Government Believes in Democracy
An open letter from the UK protests the American invocation of how interested we think we are in having the UK remain in the EU. There's a tremendous irony in the United States lecturing the UK on the need to maintain a political union its people no longer find acceptable, of course, but the author lets that pass. He's after a more serious point about democracy:
The only difference between the EU and the US in the first point is the question of whether the super-sized government is 'alien' or not. Measured in the most obvious way for a democracy, that is by the values that the people hold dear and want to see protected and furthered, the complaint may be no better. Probably the people of Belize, a former British colony, have at least as many common values with the people of the UK than the people of Alabama do with the delegates from California (whose people include some conservatives, but whose government no longer does). The Federal government here also generates a massive percentage of regulation via bureaucracy rather than democratic processes. These bureaucracies are staffed by people never elected to make law, who lack any actual Constitutional authority to make law, and who are only in a small percentage of cases vetted by elected representatives.
The same is true for judicial fiat. Is it acceptable to have laws settled upon by the state legislature, approved by state courts, overturned by the Supreme Court in direct defiance of the ordinary values of the people? It has become usual. When the Supreme Court set aside the laws of thirteen states in Lawrence v. Texas, the Bush administration said that they considered the issue a state matter. Linda Greenhouse replied that the SCOTUS had said otherwise: what had been a state matter was now a matter of "binding national constitutional principle." Yet this was only the latest occasion when the SCOTUS had taken a matter where states had legislated according to the traditional morality of their people, and pronounced the issue was one on which the democratic process could not be trusted. It has likewise removed the power from Congress to legislate on issues very traditionally ordered by law, and is considering whether to do so again in the Defense of Marriage Act. We find that more and more issues are matters of "binding national constitutional principle" from which no dissent from democratic organs is tolerated.
This is not democracy. The invention of "binding constitutional principles" by the court is the repudiation of the method by which such principles were meant to arise: that is, following rather than preceding the development of constitutional consensus. A new Constitutional principle was supposed to follow the process described in Article V of the US Constitution, whereby a supermajority of support from the states would be required. That was the democratic ideal: that we would alter the fundamental bargain governing American life only when the vast majority of Americans agreed it was wise and proper. Instead the Federal government has learned to pretend that the bargain always was whatever it now wants the bargain to be. We are told that we simply misunderstood the bargain when we ratified it, and perhaps for two hundred years after.
There's nothing magical about a "national" as opposed to a "super-national" government that gives the national government a better claim to legitimacy. Legitimacy was supposed to arise from adherence to the Constitution, whose limits and forms were meant to ensure that the government remained within the bounds of the powers actually delegated to it. The EU and the US are no longer different forms of government at all. The citizen of the United Kingdom who works to move her nation out of the EU is acting wisely, and in the defense of what remains of her democracy. But she can expect no support from the 'leader of the free world.' Our political class has learned to hate the ideal she advocates.
The President of the United States is considered by many to be the leader of the free world, and the United States itself considered to be a beacon of democracy. So it is profoundly disappointing to see the United States administration endorsing and encouraging something that is fundamentally undemocratic. I would like to ask you the following questions.The problem is that the author has just made a criticism of the EU that is just as valid a critique against the UK itself, viewed from the perspective of Scotland's independence movement. Indeed, it is just as valid a critique against the United States government. There is simply no possibility that such a criticism, however valid, can be entertained by the political class of either nation.* Would it be acceptable to you and your fellow United States citizens that over 70% of the laws and regulations they were forced to comply with across all 50 states were created by a supranational government comprising layers of complex political and judicial structures, mostly unelected and unaccountable, and made up of delegates from not only the US, but Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, El Salvador, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and Peru?If these scenarios do not sound very democratic or judicious to you and your fellow Americans it is because they are not.... No one who believes in democracy – people power – would endorse and encourage a continuation of this anti-democratic situation for the United Kingdom.
* Would it be acceptable to you, your fellow United States citizens and members of the Senate and House of Representatives that they were routinely handed diktats from the various bodies that make up the supranational government and were bound by law to implement the directives or be fined or dragged into a supranational court operating an alien form of judicial code and process? Further, that Congress was denied the ability to draft, and the President sign into law, other legislation of national interest whenever the supranational decided it was not appropriate?
* Would it be acceptable to you, your fellow United States citizens and the Justices of the Supreme Court that decisions made by the bench, the highest court in your land, could be appealed to a supranational court overseas with the hearing presided over by foreign judges and if overruled the Supreme Court would have to accept that as a binding ruling?
The only difference between the EU and the US in the first point is the question of whether the super-sized government is 'alien' or not. Measured in the most obvious way for a democracy, that is by the values that the people hold dear and want to see protected and furthered, the complaint may be no better. Probably the people of Belize, a former British colony, have at least as many common values with the people of the UK than the people of Alabama do with the delegates from California (whose people include some conservatives, but whose government no longer does). The Federal government here also generates a massive percentage of regulation via bureaucracy rather than democratic processes. These bureaucracies are staffed by people never elected to make law, who lack any actual Constitutional authority to make law, and who are only in a small percentage of cases vetted by elected representatives.
The same is true for judicial fiat. Is it acceptable to have laws settled upon by the state legislature, approved by state courts, overturned by the Supreme Court in direct defiance of the ordinary values of the people? It has become usual. When the Supreme Court set aside the laws of thirteen states in Lawrence v. Texas, the Bush administration said that they considered the issue a state matter. Linda Greenhouse replied that the SCOTUS had said otherwise: what had been a state matter was now a matter of "binding national constitutional principle." Yet this was only the latest occasion when the SCOTUS had taken a matter where states had legislated according to the traditional morality of their people, and pronounced the issue was one on which the democratic process could not be trusted. It has likewise removed the power from Congress to legislate on issues very traditionally ordered by law, and is considering whether to do so again in the Defense of Marriage Act. We find that more and more issues are matters of "binding national constitutional principle" from which no dissent from democratic organs is tolerated.
This is not democracy. The invention of "binding constitutional principles" by the court is the repudiation of the method by which such principles were meant to arise: that is, following rather than preceding the development of constitutional consensus. A new Constitutional principle was supposed to follow the process described in Article V of the US Constitution, whereby a supermajority of support from the states would be required. That was the democratic ideal: that we would alter the fundamental bargain governing American life only when the vast majority of Americans agreed it was wise and proper. Instead the Federal government has learned to pretend that the bargain always was whatever it now wants the bargain to be. We are told that we simply misunderstood the bargain when we ratified it, and perhaps for two hundred years after.
There's nothing magical about a "national" as opposed to a "super-national" government that gives the national government a better claim to legitimacy. Legitimacy was supposed to arise from adherence to the Constitution, whose limits and forms were meant to ensure that the government remained within the bounds of the powers actually delegated to it. The EU and the US are no longer different forms of government at all. The citizen of the United Kingdom who works to move her nation out of the EU is acting wisely, and in the defense of what remains of her democracy. But she can expect no support from the 'leader of the free world.' Our political class has learned to hate the ideal she advocates.
Non-fiction
Some months ago I posted skeptically about the idea of requiring schoolkids to spend 50% of their time reading bureaucratic white papers of the "Chicken production and transportation issues in Willamette County" variety. Maggie's Farm linked to an American Thinker article today that does the idea more justice. Although I have real doubts how the program would be carried out in actual schools, the notion started by David Coleman is to introduce students to evidence-based argument using texts like de Toqueville's Democracy in America. As he puts it:
The author of the American Thinker article does have a funny approach to categorizing writing as fiction or non-fiction, though. This is a list of what he describes as the proposed "fiction standards":
It is rare in a working environment that someone says, "Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday, but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood."Not that I'm crazy about the idea of all students aiming for jobs in which they have to churn out market analyses, but the same principle applies to a request for an analysis of any proposal or policy. Why do you believe this is true? And come up with something more powerful than the more-or-less grownup equivalent of "all the cool kids think it." It's the rare corporation or government bureau -- or any other human endeavor -- that couldn't use more of that skill.
The author of the American Thinker article does have a funny approach to categorizing writing as fiction or non-fiction, though. This is a list of what he describes as the proposed "fiction standards":
Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales; F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby; William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying; Thomas Paine's Common Sense; The Declaration of Independence; Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave is the 4th of July?"; Allen Paulo's Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences; Mark Fischetti's Working Knowledge: Electronic Stability Control; and George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."I'm listening to a series of lectures about Winston Churchill. He was an indifferent student who hated Greek and classics. In some dismay and contempt, his father sent him off to a kind of military or administrative professional school, where he was given practical works to study; he loved them and excelled. Without being at all in the "special snowflake" school of thought, I do believe that the task of education is to develop the different strengths of different students. Especially as they get older, students should be offered a wide variety of higher-level materials that will challenge whatever their talents happen to be. There will be some who can be nourished by Working Knowledge: Electronic Stability Control in a way they never could have been by War and Peace.
Heh:
President Barack Obama was “totally furious” he spent a week of his time posing for a trillion-dollar platinum coin that would never be minted, a White House source confirmed today....That's one of the most perfect satires I've ever read.
Mr. Obama devoted much of last week to posing for the trillion-dollar coin on the assurances of outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who told Mr. Obama that the coin had “a way better than fifty percent chance” of being minted.
Based on Mr. Geithner’s advice, Mr. Obama carved hours out of his schedule to pose for the ill-fated coin, even cutting short meetings with world leaders such as Afghan President Hamid Karzai....
When Mr. Geithner delivered the news to the President that the coin idea had been scrapped, according to the source, “to say that things got ugly would be a massive understatement.”
Risk
From Maggie's Farm, a link to an interview with Fred deLuca, who started the first Subway sandwich shop in 1965 with a $1,000 loan from a college professor who was also a family friend. Almost half a century later, they still share the profits 50/50 -- no quarrels, no lawsuits.
DeLuca says he was lucky when he started to be so young that he didn't really understand the danger of failure. His first intended franchisee had a more typically grown-up attitude:
DeLuca says he was lucky when he started to be so young that he didn't really understand the danger of failure. His first intended franchisee had a more typically grown-up attitude:
"When we first began franchising, I knew we needed a first franchisee, and the only person I could think of was [our good friend] Brian. So I went to him and said, 'I’ve got this opportunity for you.' He gave a practical response, which was, 'Even though I’m not crazy about [my job], I get paid every week.' He didn’t feel comfortable taking the risk of quitting.
"Then one day he showed up for work and his employer had gone bankrupt. So he called me and said, 'Hey, is that offer still available?' That’s how we got started.
Walk the Plank
Here's a theory about Republican re-orientation that sounds really exciting: Peggy Noonan says "It's pirate time."
Endorse gun control, tax increases on the very rich, and "immigration reform."
Apparently when Republican Pirates yell "Surrender!" they are to precede the exclamation with "I."
Now is the time to fight and be fearless, to be surprising, to break out of lockstep, to be the one thing Republicans aren't supposed to be, and that is interesting. Now's the time to put a dagger 'tween their teeth, wave a sword, grab a rope and swing aboard the enemy's galleon.That sounds great. Throw out the rules, grab a blade, and start swinging. And what does she go on to suggest that these wild swashbucklers do?
Endorse gun control, tax increases on the very rich, and "immigration reform."
Apparently when Republican Pirates yell "Surrender!" they are to precede the exclamation with "I."
Condolences to FPS Russia
Our condolences to FPS Russia on the apparent murder of their producer. I had not realized that they were close physical neighbors to the Hall, but they are apparently located quite close by (and not at all in Russia, as you might think).
Here is their top five list, in memory of the good work they have done.
Here is their top five list, in memory of the good work they have done.
Fluidity and locusts
Winston Churchill addressed the House of Commons in 1936. He quoted the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was opposing direct efforts to prevent Germany's remilitarization:
"We are always reviewing the position." Everything, he assured us, is entirely fluid. I am sure that that is true. Anyone can see what the position is. The Government simply cannot make up their minds, or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years -- precious, perhaps vital to the greatness of Britain -- for the locusts to eat.
Two on Tolkien
Richard Fernandez writes a review of the new Hobbit movie, which makes me think I might ought to go see it after all. I hated Jackson's treatment of LoTR very much -- well, the first movie, which I hated so badly I didn't see the others. The MTV swinging-cameras and technicality seemed to me to do violence to Tolkien's vision. I can't imagine he wouldn't have hated the movies at least as much as I do.
Still, Fernandez mentions a couple of Jackson's additions to the plot kindly. That's another thing of which I was suspicious. I can't imagine that Jackson's ideas about what the plot should contain are so superior to Tolkien's that the expansion is a great idea. Usually a novel benefits from cutting, not expanding, extra elements.
A man much more after my own heart, Lars Walker, writes the second piece for today on the subject. He looks back at older editions of LoTR that meant a great deal to him. Now this is the kind of thing that Tolkien would have understood!
Still, Fernandez mentions a couple of Jackson's additions to the plot kindly. That's another thing of which I was suspicious. I can't imagine that Jackson's ideas about what the plot should contain are so superior to Tolkien's that the expansion is a great idea. Usually a novel benefits from cutting, not expanding, extra elements.
A man much more after my own heart, Lars Walker, writes the second piece for today on the subject. He looks back at older editions of LoTR that meant a great deal to him. Now this is the kind of thing that Tolkien would have understood!
Lucky Gunner on Brass v. Steel
For those of you interested in arms-related questions, the folks at Lucky Gunner email to draw your attention to their recent tests. They've passed tens of thousands of brass and steel cased ammunition through Bushmaster AR-15s, and have a report on the effects of each on weapon accuracy and reliability. Conditions were pretty rough at times, between rain and sandstorms in the Arizona desert.
Of course, if any of you are inspired by this to go out and buy an AR-15... good luck! As D29 points out, there's little need for gun control on these weapons right now. You couldn't find one to buy if you wanted.
Of course, if any of you are inspired by this to go out and buy an AR-15... good luck! As D29 points out, there's little need for gun control on these weapons right now. You couldn't find one to buy if you wanted.
Comfort food
Over at Maggie's Farm, they're featuring a series of old favorites like chicken pot pie. Today's topic is chicken tetrazzini, which inspired me to write about the difference between the turkey tetrazzini I once whipped up using an undistinguished recipe off of the net, and the immensely superior one my husband made up shortly thereafter. It was like a demonstration from a cooking school: how a real cook makes even ordinary dishes something special. His didn't even take longer to make. It left mine in the dust.
This recipe is pretty close to what he did. It starts with a light roux, which is just flour stirred into butter in the saucepan until it thoroughly dissolves. You add equal parts cream, stock, and white wine and cook them down a bit. In the meantime, cook your noodles and hold them to one side. Also, start sauteeing the vegetables, whatever's handy, but a good mixture is celery, onions, carrots, garlic, and mushrooms. Add some salt and pepper as well as some herbs; he used thyme and sage. Grate up some parmesan and get your bread crumbs handy. Then all you have to do is mix up the diced turkey or chicken with the veggies, sauce, 1/3 of the bread crumbs and cheese, and the noodles. Pour the mixture into a casserole dish, then top it with the rest of the bread crumbs and cheese and bake it until golden brown and delicious.
This is a forgiving dish, but it will be better if only read food goes into it. That means actual butter, actual parmesan, stock you made yourself, crumbs made from actual bread, and dry wine you wouldn't object to drinking on its own. On the other hand, most of these ingredients are leftovers. We make stock whenever the pile of chicken carcasses and leftover chicken bones, innards, and necks gets too big in the freezer, and stock freezes just fine in conveniently-sized containers until you're ready to use it. While it takes several hours, it's not like you have to be doing anything to it while you wait. It would be a fine thing to leave bubbling away in a crockpot while you're away or busy. It's nice to add vegetables or herbs to the stock while it's cooking, but you'll get a fine stock even if you dump in nothing but the chicken parts. When the chicken is cooked to pieces, strain it and reserve the liquid. Our dogs love to eat the mush that I pull off the bones. With the chicken bits in the dogs and the stock in the freezer, all that's left of many chicken carcasses is a tiny pile of bones.
As for the wine, it's a great way to use up any wine that's sat out overnight; this year we used the tag-end of a bottle of Champagne that sat out in the back yard overnight after New Year's Eve losing its fizz. It goes without saying that the bits of fowl are leftovers, and the veggies can be anything you have handy: peas or whatever. For bread crumbs, we keep a bag of heels from loaves of bread in the freezer and periodically pulverize them.
When this "leftover" dish is finished, you'll wish you had more.
This recipe is pretty close to what he did. It starts with a light roux, which is just flour stirred into butter in the saucepan until it thoroughly dissolves. You add equal parts cream, stock, and white wine and cook them down a bit. In the meantime, cook your noodles and hold them to one side. Also, start sauteeing the vegetables, whatever's handy, but a good mixture is celery, onions, carrots, garlic, and mushrooms. Add some salt and pepper as well as some herbs; he used thyme and sage. Grate up some parmesan and get your bread crumbs handy. Then all you have to do is mix up the diced turkey or chicken with the veggies, sauce, 1/3 of the bread crumbs and cheese, and the noodles. Pour the mixture into a casserole dish, then top it with the rest of the bread crumbs and cheese and bake it until golden brown and delicious.
This is a forgiving dish, but it will be better if only read food goes into it. That means actual butter, actual parmesan, stock you made yourself, crumbs made from actual bread, and dry wine you wouldn't object to drinking on its own. On the other hand, most of these ingredients are leftovers. We make stock whenever the pile of chicken carcasses and leftover chicken bones, innards, and necks gets too big in the freezer, and stock freezes just fine in conveniently-sized containers until you're ready to use it. While it takes several hours, it's not like you have to be doing anything to it while you wait. It would be a fine thing to leave bubbling away in a crockpot while you're away or busy. It's nice to add vegetables or herbs to the stock while it's cooking, but you'll get a fine stock even if you dump in nothing but the chicken parts. When the chicken is cooked to pieces, strain it and reserve the liquid. Our dogs love to eat the mush that I pull off the bones. With the chicken bits in the dogs and the stock in the freezer, all that's left of many chicken carcasses is a tiny pile of bones.
As for the wine, it's a great way to use up any wine that's sat out overnight; this year we used the tag-end of a bottle of Champagne that sat out in the back yard overnight after New Year's Eve losing its fizz. It goes without saying that the bits of fowl are leftovers, and the veggies can be anything you have handy: peas or whatever. For bread crumbs, we keep a bag of heels from loaves of bread in the freezer and periodically pulverize them.
When this "leftover" dish is finished, you'll wish you had more.
This Is What I Want To Do For Vacation:
About five minutes into this video and the wife veto'd the idea, but I think I can talk her into it.
Some of you may recognize the road.
The 15-Hour Workweek
An economist writing in Aeon has an article on the rise of a leisure-based society, long predicted by Keynes and others. He asks, "Are we ready for it?" It's kind of an interesting reading for a notion of where the Left thinks we are.
In any case, the 15-hour workweek seems to be on its way. Obamacare brutally punishes businesses that have more than 50 full-time workers, where "full-time" is defined as 30 hours a week or more. Whole industries are now pushing low-wage workers onto 15-29 hour schedules, which means that they will be going on food stamps (if they aren't there already). Many of these jobs are no longer paid minimum wage, using the 'seasonal' or 'temporary' loopholes.
You'll have lots of time, I guess, to sit around and worry about how poor you've become. But of course there's a solution for that: the new 'guaranteed income' will ensure that no one is poor. (How will we pay for that when we can't pay for Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or already-promised pensions? And we, the richest nation on earth?).
The social democratic welfare state, supported by Keynesian macroeconomic management, had already smoothed many of the sharp edges of economic life. The ever-present threat that we might be reduced to poverty by unemployment, illness or old age had disappeared from the lives of most people in developed countries. It wasn’t even a memory for the young....What is most interesting to me about this is that it is unmoored from any discussion of means-to-ends. The assumption is that the means are already in place: the problem is that the market distributes those means to the wrong people. What looks to me like a "Kill the Golden Goose" issue looks to them like an opportunity for golden eggs for everyone, whether they work or not.
[F]or the first time in history, our productive capacity is such that no one need be poor. In fact, more people are rich, by any reasonable historical standard, than are poor....
If work was distributed more equally, both between households and over time, we could all be better off. But it seems impossible to achieve this without a substantial reduction in the centrality of market work to the achievement of a good life, and without a substantial reduction in the total hours of work. The first step would be to go back to the social democratic agenda associated with postwar Keynesianism. Although that agenda has largely been on hold during the decades of market-liberal dominance, the key institutions of the welfare state have remained both popular and resilient, as shown by the wave of popular resistance to cuts imposed in the name of austerity....
In a post-scarcity society, everyone would be guaranteed an income that yielded a standard of living significantly better than poverty, and this guarantee would be unconditional.
In any case, the 15-hour workweek seems to be on its way. Obamacare brutally punishes businesses that have more than 50 full-time workers, where "full-time" is defined as 30 hours a week or more. Whole industries are now pushing low-wage workers onto 15-29 hour schedules, which means that they will be going on food stamps (if they aren't there already). Many of these jobs are no longer paid minimum wage, using the 'seasonal' or 'temporary' loopholes.
You'll have lots of time, I guess, to sit around and worry about how poor you've become. But of course there's a solution for that: the new 'guaranteed income' will ensure that no one is poor. (How will we pay for that when we can't pay for Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or already-promised pensions? And we, the richest nation on earth?).
Re-think that bicycle
And maybe the modern trend toward excessive personal grooming is not such a hot idea either, not to mention zippers.
We watched "The Pink Panther" the other night, which came out when I was eight years old. I believe that was the last time I had seen it. My husband objects to the gratuitous insertion of musical numbers into movies from this era, but the jazzy/samba lounge-singer scene in the ski lodge is the only bit I remembered from childhood, apart from the theme song and the tiny pink flaw in the great diamond.
The dancing looks like fun, even for poor hapless Peter Sellars, the comic cuckold. The people in these conventional American thrillers and comedies from the early 60s were so sophisticated and at ease in their society. There was nothing sullen or dreary about their rebellion.
The fellow presenting the movie remarked that David Niven expected his jewel-thief-Don-Juan character to become a successful franchise. No one guessed that Inspector Clouseau would steal the show.
The dancing looks like fun, even for poor hapless Peter Sellars, the comic cuckold. The people in these conventional American thrillers and comedies from the early 60s were so sophisticated and at ease in their society. There was nothing sullen or dreary about their rebellion.
The fellow presenting the movie remarked that David Niven expected his jewel-thief-Don-Juan character to become a successful franchise. No one guessed that Inspector Clouseau would steal the show.
How to talk to a moderate voter
In a comment thread below, Tom linked to a fine article by Kevin D. Williamson at the National Review Online, which I thought should be highlighted here. Williamson cites three areas where conservatives fail to engage the middle-of-the-road voter: (1) the best way to address risk, (2) the real value and dangers of economic inequality, and (3) how to rely on growth instead of on redistribution of a finite pie. On the first point, he reminds us that segments of the population who historically were systematically excluded from the formal economic system will be hard sells on the notion that accepting economic risk is the best path to prosperity; we'll have to acknowledge their legitimate suspicion of the game.
Regarding inequality, he cautions against arguing that "merit and merit alone accounts for the diverging prospects of the very well off and the rest." A free market doesn't ensure that merit will triumph, only that individuals' preferences will have more clout than those of bureaucrats. A conservative's desire to favor individuals over bureaucrats doesn't rest on a conviction that all individuals are better judges than any bureaucrat. It rests in part on a philosophical preference for individual autonomy, and in part on an empirical conviction that, although masses of individuals can make appalling choices, their inevitable failures pale before the even more appalling choices of bureaucrats.
On the subject of growth vs. redistribution, Williamson points out that the "people as useless mouths to feed" cant of Malthusian liberals sometimes raises its ugly head equally in the hearts of conservatives who back trade barriers and oppose immigration. He recommends a focus on people as the engines of future growth and prosperity, and on the education and healthcare policies most likely to make that possible.
He closes with an encouraging look at recent conservative reforms in Sweden, all achieved without outraging the compassionate or liberal instincts of most voters in that very collectivized state.
Regarding inequality, he cautions against arguing that "merit and merit alone accounts for the diverging prospects of the very well off and the rest." A free market doesn't ensure that merit will triumph, only that individuals' preferences will have more clout than those of bureaucrats. A conservative's desire to favor individuals over bureaucrats doesn't rest on a conviction that all individuals are better judges than any bureaucrat. It rests in part on a philosophical preference for individual autonomy, and in part on an empirical conviction that, although masses of individuals can make appalling choices, their inevitable failures pale before the even more appalling choices of bureaucrats.
On the subject of growth vs. redistribution, Williamson points out that the "people as useless mouths to feed" cant of Malthusian liberals sometimes raises its ugly head equally in the hearts of conservatives who back trade barriers and oppose immigration. He recommends a focus on people as the engines of future growth and prosperity, and on the education and healthcare policies most likely to make that possible.
He closes with an encouraging look at recent conservative reforms in Sweden, all achieved without outraging the compassionate or liberal instincts of most voters in that very collectivized state.
"You Can't Cut Your Way to Prosperity."
I'm really impressed with this new line from the President. It's so perfect. It's obviously wrong, in fact the very opposite of true, but it sounds so good. It's a masterpiece of the genre.
If you have income of X and expenses of X+Y, cutting is an excellent way to prosperity. It may be the only road to prosperity. This is so obvious that I feel a little odd even saying it: the line from the White House is so obviously out of order with reality that it makes you feel as if you must be missing something to challenge it.
Nor is it clear whose prosperity is meant in any case. The line is being deployed in service of proposed additional tax hikes, which means that we can't be talking about the prosperity of individual families. We must be talking about some sort of collective prosperity. But the government has never had, and will never have, enough to ensure that everyone is prosperous. This was the entire lesson of the Cold War. Only a robust market can ensure widespread prosperity, and while the market needs some regulations to function smoothly, a heavy tax burden is harmful to it.
Of course, not everything coming out of Washington is so carefully scripted as this masterpiece from the White House. Sometimes plain honest sentiments do make their way into the discourse.
If you have income of X and expenses of X+Y, cutting is an excellent way to prosperity. It may be the only road to prosperity. This is so obvious that I feel a little odd even saying it: the line from the White House is so obviously out of order with reality that it makes you feel as if you must be missing something to challenge it.
Nor is it clear whose prosperity is meant in any case. The line is being deployed in service of proposed additional tax hikes, which means that we can't be talking about the prosperity of individual families. We must be talking about some sort of collective prosperity. But the government has never had, and will never have, enough to ensure that everyone is prosperous. This was the entire lesson of the Cold War. Only a robust market can ensure widespread prosperity, and while the market needs some regulations to function smoothly, a heavy tax burden is harmful to it.
Of course, not everything coming out of Washington is so carefully scripted as this masterpiece from the White House. Sometimes plain honest sentiments do make their way into the discourse.
Thomas Sowell Against Republicans
It's an interesting piece that begins with a cheerful invocation of the nearness of death, but I suppose I can understand the sentiment.
The beginning of a new year is often a time to look forward and look back. The way the future looks, I prefer to look back — and depend on my advanced age to spare me from having to deal with too much of the future.Near the end he asks us to consider what the country would look like if we'd had Judge Bork on the Supreme Court all these years, instead of Justice Kennedy. Of course one doesn't know for sure, but it's hard to imagine that the substitution would have been harmful.
I Feel A Little Less Eccentric Now:
The Red Book is an immense illuminated manuscript, which [Carl] Jung indited on cream vellum in the private scriptorium of his study over a period of about sixteen years, copiously illustrated with elaborate, vivid, and occasionally ghastly painted panels, and bound in red leather.
Concrete
Too much of it. But it won't last. They can't afford it much longer. In the fullness of time, we shall live and die again on our own.
It's the last one that matters. In the last two minutes, he is the warrior calling them to account before him. To call such to account is to demand a mastery implicit until minutes later. Only then does the mastery move from the hidden to the explicit.
But to say that is to say that we have wasted a hundred years. That may not be the worst thing we might say.
Happy New Year.
God Send Us A Happy New Year
I'm doing a kind of double-Lent this year, starting this New Year's Day and ending on Easter Sunday. There are reasons for this which don't enter into the matter of this page, although some of you are aware of why I might do such a thing. In any case, I hope this year is better than the last, though if I look on it with proper gratitude it had much good in it.
Happy New Year to all of you. God save us, if it is right that he do so; or if He should choose, out of undeserved grace. Enjoy the feast, or fast, as you choose.
Flags at Half-Mast
We're about to cross the line between 2012 and 2013. Lately I can't remember a time when I rode by the Post Office or the schools and didn't see flags at half-mast.
I'm tired of this, ladies and gentlemen. More than I've ever been, I'm ready to hear good answers. I haven't heard any lately, so I'm working on my own. Do you have any?
I'm tired of this, ladies and gentlemen. More than I've ever been, I'm ready to hear good answers. I haven't heard any lately, so I'm working on my own. Do you have any?
Luck, money, and the indispensable song
In the shape-note songbook, this is called "Plenary" and has gloomier lyrics than I can begin to describe, but I opted for the cheerful New Year's Eve version:
In the bleak midwinter
Not so bleak here, though the house is down to 65 degrees. But this Christmas carol is just the thing for frozen Northerners contemplating the advent of hope. That Holst can really write a harmony.
Oh, You Big-Mouthed Woman!
Johnny Cash and June Carter, singing a song a friend wrote just for them.
Shepherds redux
Here goes again with "While Shepherds Watched Their Flocks by Night," a/k/a "Sherburne" in the Sacred Harp songbook, minus the tinny buzzing (headphones! no feedback!), and this time with the benefit of the alto part, somehow dropped out last time. Also, I learned how to embed:
This one is from the Episcopal hymnbook, called "They Cast Their Nets in Galilee":
This one is from the Episcopal hymnbook, called "They Cast Their Nets in Galilee":
Adieu, C.T.O.U.S.
Today being Boxing Day, we turned our Fists of Righteous Harmony to the task of dismantling the Christmas Tree of Unusual Size and regaining the use of our dining room. I tried something new this year: we bought the tree fairly early but left it standing in a pail of water for some weeks after. Then we brought it in and trimmed it only about three weeks before Christmas, and took it down today before it could become desperately dry. In other years, I felt an urge to have it up for a long time, but somehow this year it was enough to enjoy it briefly and then let it go.
The job's not over by a long shot, though the tree is in pieces and staged on its way to the area where we're piling brush to compost. There remains the task of dismantling the stacking bookcase that blocks the hidden Christmas closet upstairs, bringing down all the boxes, stashing the fragile ornaments carefully, humping the boxes back upstairs into the hidden closet, and re-assembling the bookcase. But at not quite noon the day after Christmas, I feel we've knocked a great big hole in the undertaking. In fact, I may take the rest of the day for Righteous Harmony and tackle the ornaments tomorrow. About a dozen overripe bananas, the result of exuberant fruit-basket giving, are calling us from the kitchen, urging banana-bread baking on us.
When do you dismantle Christmas deckings?
The job's not over by a long shot, though the tree is in pieces and staged on its way to the area where we're piling brush to compost. There remains the task of dismantling the stacking bookcase that blocks the hidden Christmas closet upstairs, bringing down all the boxes, stashing the fragile ornaments carefully, humping the boxes back upstairs into the hidden closet, and re-assembling the bookcase. But at not quite noon the day after Christmas, I feel we've knocked a great big hole in the undertaking. In fact, I may take the rest of the day for Righteous Harmony and tackle the ornaments tomorrow. About a dozen overripe bananas, the result of exuberant fruit-basket giving, are calling us from the kitchen, urging banana-bread baking on us.
When do you dismantle Christmas deckings?
While shepherds watched their flocks by night
My husband bought me a "Garage Band" program ages ago, but I only recently figured out that it's possible to record voice tracks on the computer's native microphone, if a little tinnily. I've spent many a happy hour this week laying down all four tracks of a series of Shape Note tunes, including this Christmas carol.
Even when it's just me singing with myself, it's surprising how hard it is to get all the voices to blend. I'm going to be practicing for a long time laying down the tracks, trying to keep all the parts together and on the beat. What could be more fun? And I'll need a better microphone at some point. But there are only 45 minutes of Christmas left, so this carol has to upload in its current state.
Even when it's just me singing with myself, it's surprising how hard it is to get all the voices to blend. I'm going to be practicing for a long time laying down the tracks, trying to keep all the parts together and on the beat. What could be more fun? And I'll need a better microphone at some point. But there are only 45 minutes of Christmas left, so this carol has to upload in its current state.
The Feast of Stephen
You may wonder why Saint Stephen's day is the very day after Christmas. Saint Stephen was a martyr killed quite shortly after Jesus himself was put to death, by stoning and for the same sort of blasphemy against the Jewish tradition that occasioned Jesus' execution. You can read a version of the story here. St. Paul mentions Stephen's murder, having been a witness before his own conversion.
My favorite, though, is the Clancy Brothers' rendition of a song built around an Irish tradition called Wren Day. You can hear their retelling of the tradition starting at about 07:05, followed by a very cheerful song about the sacrificial tradition of wren killings and funerals.
When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’ And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’ And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’” (Acts 22:17-22)We know him best from two songs that have nothing to do with his life or death, but which pertain to his feast day. The more famous is "Good King Wenceslas," which takes place on the Feast of Stephen.
My favorite, though, is the Clancy Brothers' rendition of a song built around an Irish tradition called Wren Day. You can hear their retelling of the tradition starting at about 07:05, followed by a very cheerful song about the sacrificial tradition of wren killings and funerals.
Merry Christmas
Many things attend the feast.
The Second Council of Tours... proclaims, in 566 or 567, the sanctity of the "twelve days" from Christmas to Epiphany, and the duty of Advent fast; that of Agde... orders a universal communion, and that of Braga (563) forbids fasting on Christmas Day. Popular merry-making, however, so increased that the "Laws of King Cnut", fabricated c. 1110, order a fast from Christmas to Epiphany....
Only with great caution should the mysterious benefactor of Christmas night — Knecht Ruprecht, Pelzmärtel on a wooden horse, St. Martin on a white charger, St. Nicholas and his "reformed" equivalent, Father Christmas — be ascribed to the stepping of a saint into the shoes of Woden, who, with his wife Berchta, descended on the nights between 25 December and 6 January, on a white horse to bless earth and men. Fires and blazing wheels starred the hills, houses were adorned, trials suspended and feasts celebrated.... Knecht Ruprecht, at any rate (first found in a mystery of 1668 and condemned in 1680 as a devil) was only a servant of the Holy Child.
The rest of the history is just as interesting: mystery plays and carols, feasts and fires. Through it all, in every generation, we struggle to remember what it was really all about. Sometimes, some of those artists and customs help us see.
Christmas Eve in the DPRK
A rather less enchanted kingdom is a sad reality for millions.
Spare a thought on Christmas Eve for Christians who live in countries where practicing their faith is an act of courage. Nowhere is that more true than in North Korea, where religion is banned....Yet:
..."the arrest, torture and possible execution" of Christians, Buddhists and others conducting clandestine religious activity....
23 Christians were arrested in 2010 for belonging to an underground Protestant church. Three were executed and the rest were jailed. The commission estimates there are thousands of Christians among the 150,000 to 200,000 North Koreans incarcerated in the regime's infamous political prison camps.
[D]espite this repression, something is happening that many characterize as nothing short of a miracle: Christianity appears to be growing in North Korea. Open Doors International, which tracks the persecution of Christians world-wide, puts the number of Christians in North Korea at between 200,000 and 400,000.The courage of the old martyrs still lives with us today. Remember them.
Christmas Eve
Once, Sir Gawain quested through harsh country for a long time. It was on this night he found rest and hospitality:
Many cliffs he over-clambered in countries strange,
far flying from his friends forsaken he rides.
at every twist of the water where the way passed
he found a foe before him, or freakish it were,
and so foul and fell he was beholden to fight.
So many marvels by mountain there the man finds,
it would be tortuous to tell a tenth of the tale.
Sometimes with dragons he wars, and wolves also,
sometimes with wild woodsmen haunting the crags,
with bulls and bears both, and boar other times,
and giants that chased after him on the high fells....
Thus in peril and pain, and plights full hard
covers the country this knight till Christmas Eve
alone....
Now he had signed himself times but three,
when he was aware in the wood of a wall in a moat,
above a level, on high land locked under boughs
of many broad set boles about by the ditches:
a castle the comeliest that ever knight owned,
perched on a plain, a park all about,
with a pointed palisade, planted full thick,
encircling many trees in more than two miles.
The hold on the one side the knight assessed,
as it shimmered and shone through the shining oaks.
Then humbly has off with his helm, highly he thanks
Jesus and Saint Julian, that gentle are both,
that courtesy had him shown, and his cry hearkened.
‘Now hospitality,’ he said, ‘I beseech you grant!’...
A chair before the chimney, where charcoal burned,
graciously set for Gawain, was gracefully adorned,
coverings on quilted cushions, cunningly crafted both.
And then a mighty mantle was on that man cast
of a brown silk, embroidered full rich,
and fair furred within with pelts of the best –
the finest ermine on earth – his hood of the same.
And he sat on that settle seemly and rich,
and chafed himself closely, and then his cheer mended.
Straightway a table on trestles was set up full fair,
clad with a clean cloth that clear white showed,
the salt-cellars, napkins and silvered spoons.
The knight washed at his will, and went to his meat.
Servants him served seemly enough
with several soups, seasoned of the best,
double bowlfuls, as fitting, and all kinds of fish,
some baked in bread, some browned on the coals,
some seethed, some in stews savoured with spices,
and sauces ever so subtle that the knight liked.
May you all find good cheer, and warm shelter, this Christmas.
Solstice
And while they were all standing round them, Merlin came up to them and said, "Now try your forces, young men, and see whether strength or art can do the most towards taking down these stones." At this word they all set to their engines with one accord, and attempted the removing of the Giant's Dance. Some prepared cables, others small ropes, others ladders for the work, but all to no purpose. Merlin laughed at their vain efforts, and then began his own contrivances. When he had placed in order the engines that were necessary, he took down the stones with an incredible facility, and gave directions for carrying them to the ships, and placing them therein. This done, they with joy set sail again, to return to Britain; where they arrived with a fair gale, and repaired to the burying-place with the stones. When Aurelius had notice of it, he sent messengers to all parts of Britain, to summon the clergy and people together to the mount of Ambrius, in order to celebrate with joy and honour the erection of the monument. Upon this summons appeared the bishops, abbats, and people of all other orders and qualities; and upon the day and place appointed for their general meeting, Aurelius placed the crown sepulchre upon his head, and with royal pomp celebrated the feast of Pentecost, the solemnity whereof he continued the three following days.
It's interesting that the old story revolves around Pentecost, almost the right hour for the summer solstice. The winter has begun, and the time of fire now begins its height. It'll be cold tonight. Keep your loved ones close.
On Remarks at the Funeral of Sen. Inouye, Medal of Honor Recipient
It's a sad thing when you don't get much attention at your own funeral.
Someone needs to tell Barack Obama—it must get particularly confusing this time of year—that his own birth is not Year One, the date around which all other events are understood. His much-noted, self-referential tic was on cringe-worthy display Friday when the president gave his eulogy for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye....Apparently we did learn a lot about the experience of one Barack Obama, however.
Inouye was a Japanese-American war hero (he lost an arm in World War II, destroying his dream of becoming a surgeon), and as a senator he served on the Watergate committee, helped rewrite our intelligence charter after scandals, and was chairman of the Senate committee that investigated the Iran-Contra affair.
Odd Couple
I remember catching this duet on TV about 35 years ago. It wasn't two guys I expected to see singing together. The video was recorded only about a month before Mr. Crosby's death, and aired after.
Christmas cheer
I never get tired of these. This is what crowds are for.
Synchronized dancing in the school-of-fish style makes me happy, too.
Synchronized dancing in the school-of-fish style makes me happy, too.
Spherical TEOTWAWKI
Today would be a good day to spend $2.99 and read Heinlein's short story "The Year of the Jackpot," about a statistician who notices that all kinds of cycles are aligning and will trough or crest together in a few weeks.
For those without Kindles or the like, it appears to be available for PDF download for a minor fee here.
Personally, I'm planning the usual solstice preparations to encourage the sun to come back out of the cave into which it has retreated. It's disappointing that so many people are neglecting this duty in the frenzy of the approaching Mayan apocalypse.
For those without Kindles or the like, it appears to be available for PDF download for a minor fee here.
The Season's Upon Us
Locally the kids got out of school today, not to return until the end of the holiday season. That means that we are within the holiday time.
Brigadoon
We watched the old Gene Kelly film, set in the Scottish Highlands in a mysterious vanishing village.
It's based on an old fairy tale, but this version -- in deference to mid-20th century American culture -- has been carefully Christianized. Strangely, maybe, that ends up making the story less plausible. I, at least, find it far easier to believe you might meet a fairy lady in a glen than to believe that God would send a village into a kind of timeless mist, under the conditions that they sacrifice their only priest and that, if anyone should leave the village, the whole population would be destroyed. Those wild conditions sound like the Faerie way more than it sounds like God.
On the other hand, Chesterton makes a great deal out of the similarity between fairy stories and the practical facts of reality. Wild conditions do seem to proliferate in both: cross this bridge, and the village vanishes forever; eat this small red berry, and you die.
It's based on an old fairy tale, but this version -- in deference to mid-20th century American culture -- has been carefully Christianized. Strangely, maybe, that ends up making the story less plausible. I, at least, find it far easier to believe you might meet a fairy lady in a glen than to believe that God would send a village into a kind of timeless mist, under the conditions that they sacrifice their only priest and that, if anyone should leave the village, the whole population would be destroyed. Those wild conditions sound like the Faerie way more than it sounds like God.
On the other hand, Chesterton makes a great deal out of the similarity between fairy stories and the practical facts of reality. Wild conditions do seem to proliferate in both: cross this bridge, and the village vanishes forever; eat this small red berry, and you die.
VDH on Debt Relief
From a column drawing contrasts and parallels between ancient and modern thought:
was thinking of the class strife in Sallust’s Conspiracy of Cataline the other day as well; I used to teach it and the Jugurthine War in third-year Latin. In my thirties I never quite understood the standard hackneyed redistributionist call of the late Roman republic for “cancellation of debts and redistribution of property!” But recently I reread Sallust with a new awareness — in the context of all the talk of mortgage forgiveness, credit card forgiveness, student loan forgiveness, wealth taxes, and new estates taxes.Perhaps there are some useful lessons to be found there, for those favoring such tactics today. Certainly there are for those opposing them.
"False security is more dangerous than none"
Megan McArdle opposes practically every policy that's being proposed to "prevent another Newtown," quoting Dr. Johnson:
How small, of all that human hearts endureShe makes one sensible proposal, I think, which is to try to train people to rush a gunman rather than obeying the natural instinct to run and hide. Everyone should make like a white blood cell. (And if many of them are armed, so much the better. The last place groups of vulnerable children should be is in "gun free zones.")
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!
Faux fox
Against all expectations, our monster of a black lab, now almost three years old, has not tried to eat any Christmas tree ornaments or presents. Maybe she's finally settling down, ready to become a good girl.
A Cavalier Christmas
Up the Cavaliers, and down with Roundheads! A piece from the History Channel on the subject of Christmas:
An Outlaw Christmas
In the early 17th century, a wave of religious reform changed the way Christmas was celebrated in Europe. When Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces took over England in 1645, they vowed to rid England of decadence and, as part of their effort, cancelled Christmas. By popular demand, Charles II was restored to the throne and, with him, came the return of the popular holiday.
The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston. Anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit was fined five shillings.
Cookie art
On the History of Chivalry
In the comments to the previous post on the subject, Douglas asked me to take on a couple of objections he had seen that he didn't know how to answer. I decided the answers were long enough that they deserved a separate post.
First objection: ...that chivalry and civility were essentially the same (or should be) and so the only distinction was the assignment of gender roles.
Chivalry is not the same as civility; in fact it is not even close. Chivalry is a code that is about the kind of man it takes to ride a horse to war. That's really the root of it, and it has nothing to do at base with 'civility' or any sense of the genteel. It has to do with quiet courage, self-discipline, and the ability to relate to others (first and foremost the horse) so that they come to know that they can trust you and rely on you absolutely.
One of the complaints against civility is that it is inauthentic or fake; Miss Manners says that the whole point of the thing is that it is fake, because you don't really want to know what other people think of you! But chivalry is not fake. It cannot be fake, because at base it is about a relationship with a horse: a prey animal that spooks easily and is naturally fearful, but must come to trust you enough to be ridden into a battle. The virtues that inspire trust -- directness, honesty, calmness, kindness -- must be genuine and to the bone.
That is the first nature of chivalry. It is common to other cultures that grew out of that kind of horsemen: the Arabs, for example, have a similar idea about what it means to be a free man worthy of being a rider. These virtues are the same, because they are the virtues of horsemen who are also warriors.
They are also the virtues of soldiers and Marines today, those who must trust each other when they ride to war, and who must be able to win the trust of foreign peoples they are asked to protect. A civil man can be kind, but need not be courageous. Chivalry is about developing the soul. This is the reason that nothing more than chivalry was needed in Aurora. It is a code of warriors. Questions of how and when to kill or die are part of its first nature. It remains terribly necessary to know how and when to do those things.
Second objection: ...a general feeling that the devotion of a man to women was somehow demeaning to the women, who were 'put on pedestals'- in their eyes, objectified.
Chivalry differs from the other similar cultures -- for example, the Arabic -- because it took on an elevated second nature during the High Middle Ages. The great chivalry of Charlemagne had the first set of virtues, but Charlemagne and his son and grandson also sponsored schools and education (as did Alfred the Great, about the same time in England). This tradition began a long evolution of what it meant to belong to the class of warriors who rode horses. These new forms melded with a special sort of praise poetry that came out of the reconquest of Islamic Spain (as well as from French knights who served the Islamic kingdoms as mercenaries, and learned the poetry at court). Poets and scholars became central to court life.
Where we find things that look like 'civility' is around the 1000s, but what we're really talking about is not 'civil' behavior but 'courtly' behavior. It's not a general set of rules for all people. It is a set of standards for being or dealing with the very best kind of people -- the most upright, the most moral, the most honorable. It was built on poetry and legends, especially legends about Arthur and Charlemagne.
I think is very healthy for society to have gender roles, because men and women are quite different. On average, such roles help us relate to each other by giving us forms we can rely upon to smooth our interactions just where misunderstandings are most likely. Nevertheless, I realize that some people object to them if they become too rigid. Let me point out, then, that chivalry is not as closed as people take it to be. Even in the High Middle Ages, these poets were challenging these questions. The feminist scholar who looks deeply at the tradition of Arthurian literature will find a great deal of interest -- indeed, I think most of the scholars writing in the field today are women, precisely because it is interesting to them. Modern America doesn't seem to have much problem making room for women to be warriors, including several good ones I had the honor of serving alongside in Iraq.
Chivalry can take such women on its terms, but it also holds open the position of special honor for women who are drawn to the beauty of the old way, and who help shape a place for the courtly: the kind of woman who makes a special place in the world, a place finer and more beautiful than is common, and who fills that place and invites us to be welcome there if only we know how.
Americans have an interesting relationship with the courtly. On the one hand we officially despise it as elitist and anti-democratic. On the other, we admire it tremendously when it is stripped of pretentious trappings. An American gentleman -- and let us remember what it means to be a gentleman -- can be found in any walk of life, but wherever he is found he is the best kind of American man. Of course he is: he is the one you can trust, the one who keeps his word, the one who does not let you down. In the South, being a gentleman is still held up as the ideal toward which any young man should strive. There is a code of conduct, which I described before as things you must do and things you must never do.
When we speak of chivalry and women, then, the same thing is at work. 'Being put on a pedestal' is not objectification, it's about being held to standards. These are high standards: honor, nobility of character, virtue, and yes, kindness. A woman who chooses not to live these standards will still receive courteous treatment, but she need not worry about being put on a pedestal. Rather, she will be treated well in honor of those ladies who are worthy of love, because we know it pains them to see women treated with disrespect.
If we do this out of respect for their wishes and even when they are not around, it is because we do it from love. A code that teaches men how to love women is good. If it also makes men into the kinds of creatures that are worthy of love themselves, it is better. But chivalry does not just make a man fit for the court: it also makes a man fit for the camp. It makes possible a kind of life filled with poetry and the striving after legend. I know of no better life.
First objection: ...that chivalry and civility were essentially the same (or should be) and so the only distinction was the assignment of gender roles.
Chivalry is not the same as civility; in fact it is not even close. Chivalry is a code that is about the kind of man it takes to ride a horse to war. That's really the root of it, and it has nothing to do at base with 'civility' or any sense of the genteel. It has to do with quiet courage, self-discipline, and the ability to relate to others (first and foremost the horse) so that they come to know that they can trust you and rely on you absolutely.
One of the complaints against civility is that it is inauthentic or fake; Miss Manners says that the whole point of the thing is that it is fake, because you don't really want to know what other people think of you! But chivalry is not fake. It cannot be fake, because at base it is about a relationship with a horse: a prey animal that spooks easily and is naturally fearful, but must come to trust you enough to be ridden into a battle. The virtues that inspire trust -- directness, honesty, calmness, kindness -- must be genuine and to the bone.
That is the first nature of chivalry. It is common to other cultures that grew out of that kind of horsemen: the Arabs, for example, have a similar idea about what it means to be a free man worthy of being a rider. These virtues are the same, because they are the virtues of horsemen who are also warriors.
They are also the virtues of soldiers and Marines today, those who must trust each other when they ride to war, and who must be able to win the trust of foreign peoples they are asked to protect. A civil man can be kind, but need not be courageous. Chivalry is about developing the soul. This is the reason that nothing more than chivalry was needed in Aurora. It is a code of warriors. Questions of how and when to kill or die are part of its first nature. It remains terribly necessary to know how and when to do those things.
Second objection: ...a general feeling that the devotion of a man to women was somehow demeaning to the women, who were 'put on pedestals'- in their eyes, objectified.
Chivalry differs from the other similar cultures -- for example, the Arabic -- because it took on an elevated second nature during the High Middle Ages. The great chivalry of Charlemagne had the first set of virtues, but Charlemagne and his son and grandson also sponsored schools and education (as did Alfred the Great, about the same time in England). This tradition began a long evolution of what it meant to belong to the class of warriors who rode horses. These new forms melded with a special sort of praise poetry that came out of the reconquest of Islamic Spain (as well as from French knights who served the Islamic kingdoms as mercenaries, and learned the poetry at court). Poets and scholars became central to court life.
Where we find things that look like 'civility' is around the 1000s, but what we're really talking about is not 'civil' behavior but 'courtly' behavior. It's not a general set of rules for all people. It is a set of standards for being or dealing with the very best kind of people -- the most upright, the most moral, the most honorable. It was built on poetry and legends, especially legends about Arthur and Charlemagne.
I think is very healthy for society to have gender roles, because men and women are quite different. On average, such roles help us relate to each other by giving us forms we can rely upon to smooth our interactions just where misunderstandings are most likely. Nevertheless, I realize that some people object to them if they become too rigid. Let me point out, then, that chivalry is not as closed as people take it to be. Even in the High Middle Ages, these poets were challenging these questions. The feminist scholar who looks deeply at the tradition of Arthurian literature will find a great deal of interest -- indeed, I think most of the scholars writing in the field today are women, precisely because it is interesting to them. Modern America doesn't seem to have much problem making room for women to be warriors, including several good ones I had the honor of serving alongside in Iraq.
Chivalry can take such women on its terms, but it also holds open the position of special honor for women who are drawn to the beauty of the old way, and who help shape a place for the courtly: the kind of woman who makes a special place in the world, a place finer and more beautiful than is common, and who fills that place and invites us to be welcome there if only we know how.
Americans have an interesting relationship with the courtly. On the one hand we officially despise it as elitist and anti-democratic. On the other, we admire it tremendously when it is stripped of pretentious trappings. An American gentleman -- and let us remember what it means to be a gentleman -- can be found in any walk of life, but wherever he is found he is the best kind of American man. Of course he is: he is the one you can trust, the one who keeps his word, the one who does not let you down. In the South, being a gentleman is still held up as the ideal toward which any young man should strive. There is a code of conduct, which I described before as things you must do and things you must never do.
When we speak of chivalry and women, then, the same thing is at work. 'Being put on a pedestal' is not objectification, it's about being held to standards. These are high standards: honor, nobility of character, virtue, and yes, kindness. A woman who chooses not to live these standards will still receive courteous treatment, but she need not worry about being put on a pedestal. Rather, she will be treated well in honor of those ladies who are worthy of love, because we know it pains them to see women treated with disrespect.
If we do this out of respect for their wishes and even when they are not around, it is because we do it from love. A code that teaches men how to love women is good. If it also makes men into the kinds of creatures that are worthy of love themselves, it is better. But chivalry does not just make a man fit for the court: it also makes a man fit for the camp. It makes possible a kind of life filled with poetry and the striving after legend. I know of no better life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)