Voters and education

What the midterms tell us about education policy:

[C]onservatives . . . ought not be afraid of school reform. Three GOP governors were hammered [before the election] for having supposedly cut education spending. Now, you need to be a forensic accountant to determine the truth of such claims (e.g., Do increased contributions to teacher pensions count? How does one score 2011 stimulus dollars? Is the measure total spending or per-pupil spending?). In any event, two of the embattled candidates — Rick Scott in Florida and Sam Brownback in Kansas — went on to triumph despite fierce union attacks. Tom Corbett lost in Pennsylvania, but he had plenty of other troubles and was left for dead months ago.

In fact, while 20 of 35 Republican gubernatorial candidates touted increased K–12 spending as part of their platform, it’s not clear that voters are convinced that more spending is the ticket to better schools. In Harry Reid’s Nevada, a ballot measure to boost school spending by raising corporate taxes went down to a crushing defeat. A year ago, a billion-dollar spending plan for schools crashed and burned in similarly purple Colorado. And deep-blue Washington state rejected an initiative to decrease class size by hiring more teachers.

Meanwhile, the results should encourage conservatives ready to fight for principled reform. Scott Walker won for the third time in four years in purple Wisconsin in the face of relentless union opposition for daring to curtail collective bargaining, tackle public pensions, and promote school choice. Rick Snyder in Michigan won with a similar résumé, and John Kasich roared to victory in Ohio after having fought similar fights. These are all industrial Midwest swing states where conservatives can find themselves inclined to step gently. Oh, and Thom Tillis, speaker of the North Carolina house, was targeted by a flood of negative ads for his role in the state’s hugely controversial move to eliminate teacher tenure and stop paying teachers for advanced degrees. For all that, Tillis still managed to oust favorite Kay Hagan.

Three Years Off

Otherwise, a surprisingly solid prediction.

This revelation comes days after Rear Adm. Brian Losey, head of NSWC, and Force Master Chief Michael Magaraci issued a reminder to special warfare sailors to stay out of the limelight when it comes to their service.

“At Naval Special Warfare’s core is the SEAL ethos,” according to the letter, which was obtained by Navy Times. “A critical tenant of our ethos is ‘I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions.’ Our ethos is a life-long commitment and obligation, both in and out of the service. Violators of our ethos are neither teammates in good standing, nor teammates who represent Naval Special Warfare.”

We all love the Navy SEALs (see esp. comment four), seriously... but there's a reason we get jokes like this.

Negativism

Don't sell negativism short.

Even yesterday, in victory and in concession speeches, candidates of both parties told us that dysfunction was the biggest problem in DC.

Where exactly have Republicans suffered? After endless analysis of the Kentucky Senate race, Mitch McConnell, the architect of obstructionist strategy in the Senate, won re-election easily. The reality is that Republicans have been generously rewarded from their tenacity in stopping post-Obamacare progressive policy. Since 2010, the Republicans have pulled together a historic string of victories—with scores of seats changing hands in the House. If anything, what we learned is that politicians are far more likely to be penalized by the electorate for passing unworkable and overreaching legislation than they are stopping it.

Mitch's Iron Fist

"Iron Fist" and "Mitch McConnell" are not ideas closely linked in my consciousness.  I had no idea that the reason hundreds of House bills have gone to die in the Senate over the last few years was that McConnell exercised his ruthless and unbridled control as Minority Leader; I just stupidly assumed it was because Harry Reid, as Majority Leader, refused to let them come up for a vote.  Now I guess Reid will have his own opportunity to exercise an Iron Fist in the incredibly powerful role of Minority Leader, assuming that his (remaining) colleagues don't have enough sense to vote him out of that position.

Another thing I didn't know was that President Obama "pivoted to the right" after his 2010 shellacking.   His aides assure us he's not planning to do that again, though.  Fair enough.  We can only expect so much from the man.  Tom Brokaw is already wondering on what issues the new Republican majority will cave, since that's apparently the first thing one expects of a party that wins a wave election--certainly nothing that could be expected of people whose agenda was just decisively repudiated.  Personally, I hope the Senate sends the President a bunch of backed-up bills to veto until his pen runs out of ink.  Let him own a few positions for a change instead of whining that he can't understand the Republican "agenda."

I'll give Mitch ("Iron Fist") McConnell credit for one thing:  his crack at today's press conference that Dodd-Frank is just "ObamaCare for banks."

Virtue Loses its Loveliness

Irving Kristol wrote a piece I'm only just getting around to reading today, which he published in the 1970s at the flowering of the Baby Boomers' rejection of Western Civilization. It's a very interesting criticism, especially of the problems of equality and inequality. I couldn't agree more with the conclusion.

Our dissidents today may think they are exceedingly progressive; but no one who puts greater emphasis on "the quality of life" than on "mere" material enrichment can properly be placed in that category. For the idea of progress in the modern era has always signified that the quality of life would inevitably be improved by material enrichment. To doubt this is to doubt the political metaphysics of modernity and to start the long trek back to pre-modern political philosophy -- Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Hooker, Calvin, etc. It seems to me this trip is quite necessary.

Why? Read it and find out. It's not that long, and it's worth consideration.

The Brutal Fate of the Gang of Eight

So will the lesson be that amnesty is not something the American people support, or that it is necessary to do it through executive action rather than having legislators endanger themselves by voting on it?

Science and Faith

If you read the debates on the nature of space and motion between Leibniz and Newton's student Clarke, you'll find that much of it is explicitly theology. To talk about the world in theological terms may sound like an absurd thing, certain to lead to bad thinking; in fact, we still return to those debates today because the theology is helpful in thinking through the logical issues about the structure of reality that they and we are still debating.

Noah Berlatsky writes that this unity can be seen elsewhere:

The pop culture account of science is, as Lipking, a Northwestern University emeritus professor of English, notes, one of continuous advancement and ever-clearer sight—or, alternately, one of ever-encroaching spiritual death, as cold technology alienates us from our true selves. But both narratives of progress and those of apocalypse erase the extent to which the scientific revolution was fired by religious fervor. Galileo, forced to recant his heliocentrism by the Church, nobly refused “to be swayed by myths or orthodoxies,” and boldly declared, “Nevertheless it moves.” Except, there’s no record that he said that; the rejection of myths and orthodoxies is itself a myth—one of the founding stories of modernity’s science code.

Along the same lines, Descartes’ famous mental experiment, in which he stripped the world down to what can be rationally known, was, it turns out, inspired by a series of vivid dreams, in which, Descartes believed, God had called him to a great work. Kepler introduced his epochal Third Law explaining planetary motion by declaring, “It is my pleasure to yield to inspired frenzy, it is my pleasure to taunt mortal men with the candid acknowledgement that I am stealing the golden vessels of the Egyptians to build a tabernacle to my God.”

Great moments in campaigning

One of the worst political sound bites ever:

Exacerbating matters was Obama’s Oct. 2 speech in Chicago, in which he handed every Republican admaker fresh material that fit perfectly with their message: “I am not on the ballot this fall. . . . But make no mistake — these policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.”

The New York Times (and some of you guys) won't see this as a wave, but the numbers are telling: Republicans picked up at least seven Senate seats, a number that probably will grow to nine seats after the dust settles in Alaska and Louisiana. (Democrats picked up six Senate seats in 2002 and eight in 1986.) Republicans gained 12 or maybe 13 House seats, leaving them in the largest majority since 1928. Democrats held on by the skin of their teeth to hotly contested Governors' seats in Connecticut and Colorado, and picked up Pennsylvania in a predictable landslide, but lost everything else, including Florida, Wisconsin, and even Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois. Republicans won every race they were expected to have any chance of winning, in addition to a solid handful no one would have expected, while generating nail-biters that came out of the blue, like the governor's race in Virginia and the Senate race in New Hampshire.

Repudiation

Election Night

How are your favorites doing tonight?

UPDATE: My congressman from the Mighty Ninth was handily re-elected. Georgia's top-level results are apt to be close, though the exit polls suggest the Republicans are going to have a good night here just because of the age of electorate. But here in the 9th, we went 80/20 for the incumbent. This will be only his second term. He's been good so far.

UPDATE: Looks like "John" Ernst pulled it off. Good for him her. Get some, ma'am.

UPDATE: With 78% in, it's not even close here in Georgia. All the polls strongly overestimated the chance of Georgia going blue in its statewide races. CBS is calling it for Perdue, and while the staunchly liberal Atlanta Journal-Constitution isn't ready to admit it yet, it doesn't look like we're even going to get close to needing a runoff. Perdue is leading by 16 points. Nathan Deal, in his own race, is leading by 15.

UPDATE: As Mike points out, SC went blood red this year. North Carolina is a lot closer than anything else in the Deep South tonight: the Republican is ahead, but barely and still below 50%. Looks like he's being kept afloat by a strong showing among older voters too. North Carolina has an "Instant Runoff" law, so the question may depend on whether the Libertarian voters put down Red or Blue as their second choice.

UPDATE: With 92% in, the AJC still won't call the statewide races. Heartbreak in downtown Atlanta!

UPDATE: CBS is now calling NC for the Red team. The AJC has finally admitted the Red night in Georgia, too.

UPDATE: RCP is calling NC the same way.

"Shockingly Racist"

The standards for this have apparently drifted lately. From an Orlando Liberal Examiner column by Robert Sobel titled "Fox News host makes shockingly racist comment live on the air":

Co-host Tucker Carlson then responded to Perino's statement, by stating that in the United States, "We need, I think, an older white guy appreciation day, I think they have done a lot for this country."

I'm kind of scratching my head here, Bob. Is it shocking that he thinks older white guys have done a lot for this country, or that he wants to take a day to celebrate them? We do have a whole month for Black History, and another one for Women's History, and while I've always thought that was a little foolish, I didn't think it was "shockingly racist" or "shockingly sexist" for Congress to pass the bills creating those celebrations.

Stories from the Great War

From "Funny Stories Told by the Soldiers," published in 1919:

GOING SOMEWHERE 

A colored soldier on the fighting front got a two days' leave shortly after the signing of the armistice, and immediately prepared to make a date in the French capital. When leaving the front, however, he got held up by a French sentry, who was unable to understand Sam's explanations. Sam accordingly talked louder and louder, shaking his fist at the Frenchman, who threatened to shoot if Sam proceeded. Finally Sam said: "Looka here, boss, I got a mother in heaven, a father in the other place, and a sweetheart in Paris, and I'm agoin' to see one of 'em tonight."

I'm not sure why this story is about a "colored" soldier. Was it funnier that way in 1919?

That's Unclear

I was very offended that Senator Harkin would say that. I think it’s unfortunate that he and many of their party believe that you can’t be a real woman if you’re conservative and you’re female. I believe that if my name would have been John Ernst, attached to my resume, Senator Harkin would not have said those thing.

Being "John" doesn't always save you.



Nor "Dan," for that matter.

It's a charge aimed at those who present as youthful and attractive, instead of serious and seasoned. Ernst should be more confident, given her resume. Whining demeans the self.

Don't Visit the Emirates

Today's news includes a note that a Georgian has been arrested in the UAE for taking a photograph. When I went to read the article, I was thinking: "Oh, I've heard of this -- young foreigners get in trouble for too-revealing bathing suits, and the photograph is just evidence." No, not at all. The Georgian is a older man, seventy years of age, and what he photographed is... unclear.

The article eventually posits that certain buildings 'such as palaces or embassies' are off limits, but we don't know just what it was he photographed that got him in trouble. His family says any trespass was unintentional, which is easy to believe since even they don't seem to know what it was he photographed that got him in trouble. No one seems to know what charges he might face, when he might face trial, or when he'll see an attorney. Our government has apparently had access to him, but won't comment on the case for 'privacy reasons.'

If there is anything amusing about the case, it's that he was invited to the UAE to attend a conference on creative thinking. I'm creatively thinking that the UAE is a very bad place to have any such conferences in the future, or for anyone to visit for tourism.

When You Read Kindle, Kindle Reads You

A list of the most popular phrases in popular books, as determined by Kindle.

The popular Bible verse, surprisingly to me, is Philippians 4:6-7.

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

I would have expected it to be something from John.

"Strategies" for Poem-Reading

I wasn't aware that the reading of poetry required a strategy, but a writer at the Atlantic has twenty of them to offer. Some of them are good -- I especially like the one about always reading the poem aloud.

On the other hand, I'm bemused by the assumption that poetry is probably going to be something like a locked box or safe: so difficult to understand that it might require a dozen or more readings to come to the "slightest" understanding. Poetry need not be anything of the sort. The greatest poems -- the Iliad, say -- may well reward a dozen readings with continually new and deeper understandings. Yet though they have secrets and depths, they are first and foremost a form of communication. They speak to you. That is what they are for.

If they fail in that, in that first duty of poetry, they are poor examples of the art.

The Height of Victory

A good story from the boys at RangerUp about teaching rappelling to new recruits. One of the times I went rappelling was at Camp Frank D. Merrill, home of the 5th Ranger Training Battalion and the "Mountain Warfare" phase of training. Having been rappelling a time or so in the past, I tied up my Swiss seat and came off the wall good and hard, intending to bounce just once on the way to the ground. My belay man, seeing me coming down so fast, apparently dropped the rope and fled. No problem: I hit the brakes just right, stretched the rope to a feather-light landing, and backed off the rope with aplomb.

That belay guy did some push-ups off the Stone of Pain they happen to have nearby.

Wonder Women

Arts & Letters Daily isn't really daily: over the weekend, they post up a few things and then walk away until Monday. For that reason, I ended up reading an article on a topic of almost no interest to me -- comic books. Specifically, the highly feminist history of Wonder Woman.

Marston’s Wonder Woman might have worn a bustier, hot pants, and “kinky boots” (as Lepore puts it)—not a bad way to ensure that you’re wildly popular in the ’40s—but her actions were undeniably feminist. In one episode, she organizes a big demonstration against profiteering industrialists, inspiring poor mothers and children alike to march in protest against the “International Milk Company.” In another episode, she ties up a department-store owner with her golden lasso and challenges her unfair labor practices.

Wonder Woman stood firmly against societal ills, from low wages to pointless aggression to bossy husbands who expect to be served by their docile wives. (For his part, Marston was married to an educated, confident woman, Sadie Elizabeth Holloway, and as to the question of domestic docility . . . well, read on.)

Yes, let's.

But just as the mind reels at how progressive and bold Marston was, we spin the disappointment wheel yet again. Because soon, people naturally began to ask, Why does Wonder Woman, in her kinky boots, end up tied up or chained in every story? According to Marston, Wonder Woman—like all women—loved to be tied up.... As a Tufts professor, Marston had discovered an undergraduate student named Olive Byrne, whose pep and unbound force impressed him enough that he involved her in his studies into whether women find being bound pleasant or titillating. (Guess what? They do!)

Soon after, Marston brought Byrne home to his wife, so that her pep and unbound force might be put to good use in a more domestic setting. According to Lepore, Marston told Holloway she had a choice. “Either Olive Byrne could live with them or he would leave her.” Holloway consented, Byrne moved in, and five children arrived over the years, three by Holloway and two by Byrne.

Ok, well, how did that work out?

Marston’s wives seem to dote on him. Marston’s children don’t believe that bondage was part of the sexual routine in their happy (albeit unusual) household. Byrne, the daughter of hunger-striking feminist Ethel Byrne and niece of contraceptive-rights crusader Margaret Sanger, gave no indication that she felt demeaned by her role. Indeed, she wrote repeated, rapt profiles of Marston for Family Circle magazine, in which she “visits” Marston’s house (i.e., her own house), marvels at the well-behaved children (whom she is actually raising), and is charmed by the man of the house (her life partner).

Yes, this is truly a household of bullshitters. Even so, although only a few trusted friends knew of Marston’s strange domestic arrangement, those who visited the house spoke in glowing terms of the joy and fun they witnessed there. Holloway and Byrne must have agreed; they lived together for more than forty years after Marston’s death from cancer in 1947, at the age of fifty-three.

Well, then. I suppose all's well that ends well, as the saying goes.

Deferred Reprisals

There's a poll out on what brands are most esteemed by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Craftsman Tools appears on all three lists in a respectable position: never lower than #3, and the top brand of all for Republicans.

The thing is, Craftsman -- like all of Sears -- is not nearly as good as it used to be. The last time I took a Craftsman tool in for replacement, I traded a tool that had "CRAFTSMAN" stamped into the steel for one made in Mexico, with a sticker that would hopefully wear off before the cheap thing broke. At the recent Highland Games, where many of my comrades are motorcycle enthusiasts and workmen, part of the conversation turned on how much worse Craftsman tools are than they used to be. They are blocky, fragile, cheap: an attempt to garner a short-term profit by charging a premium price for a once-premium product that you are now obtaining as cheaply as you can manage.

You destroy a company, or a nation, in just this way. The label still bears some residual respect. It won't last forever. Experience will prove that the thing has changed, and the old strength has been washed away. When that happens, it will all fall apart.

Beware, for it is not only Sears that has made this mistake.

The Feast of All Saints

The purpose of the feast is to honor all saints "known and unknown," but it was originally especially for martyrs. Given that ISIS has created many new unknown martyrs this very year, you might give it a thought.

Our Country, 'Tis of Thee

These are college students.



The contrast between the early questions and the last ones is painful.

Happy Halloween

That should scare those goblins away.

Have a good one.

Check Yourself, Yahoo

Wrong.

Right.

It's a small point, you might say: merely a matter of custom and tradition. Those matter more than Americans today often understand.

It's Good To Be King

I can't remember which ex-President said it, but one of them was asked what he missed most about holding the office and answered that he had loved always winning at golf.

Emma has taken a keen interest in the career of Charles Brandon, a man of relatively modest status who joined the court of Henry VIII and became Duke of Sufolk, marrying Henry’s sister, Mary Tudor, despite little or no involvement in the warfare, theology or politics – the normal arenas for advancement.

“The only thing he is any use at is jousting. This is something that has been completely overlooked,” said Emma. “I have used the score cheques to look at him and they show that he is the best jouster in Henry’s court and he often jousts against the king.

“However, it seems that he manipulates the scores. When he jousts against everybody else, he will win. When he jousts against the king, he will lose."

Just bad luck, probably. Just like it was good luck that he was elevated to the upper nobility, and allowed to marry into the royal family.

The Quest for Philosophical Rigor

Drunk Frenchmen are psychopaths, which for some reason this study confuses with accurate philosophy.

His team found a correlation between each subject's level of intoxication and his or her willingness to flip the switch or push the person—the drunker the subject, the more willing he or she was to kill one hypothetical person for the sake of the hypothetical many.... There's a fabulous irony in the idea that drunk people are emotionally steeled rationalists who are willing to do whatever it takes to save lives. But Duke and his research partner, Laurent Bègue, aren't necessarily arguing that drunk people are ace philosophers and logicians; it's more that their findings challenge common assumptions about how people make decisions.

The trolly problem doesn't have a right answer. The point of it is to test moral intuitions, which we find differ. Some people really believe that the right thing to do is to take the action that will save the most people. But not everyone believes that. Some people have a deep intuition that they are personally responsible for killing the one innocent that they have taken a positive action to kill, but not responsible for the accident that will happen if they do nothing. They feel that their clear moral duty is to do no evil.

The question is suddenly more urgent, since we are starting to think about how to program robot self-driving cars. But the idea wasn't to come to a solution; it was to explore differences in how we think about the problem. Those who are increasingly unconcerned about causing harm in the pursuit of some ideal are not necessarily the best moral thinkers.

This is a Good Idea

Craigslist is one of the great tools of the internet. I've bought all my motorcycles off of it, and my wife uses it extensively for things we need. Just the other day, I bought a load of hay for the horses from a guy we found on Craigslist. But when you roll up to seller who knows you're coming with lots of cash, or a buyer who knows you're bringing an expensive piece of equipment, you always feel a little like you're going to meet a rival crime family and wondering if it's an ambush. Fortunately (for those of you who know my wife!), no one has been foolish enough to attempt to ambush us. Unfortunately, for some people, that doesn't hold true.

The local police in Montgomery County, PA, have set up a place in their parking lot and the lobby of their police station just for Craigslist transactions. There's no interference, and you aren't required to use it, but it's available at no charge if you wanted a safe place to meet up where you'll have friendly eyes making sure you don't get robbed.

That's the kind of peace-officer policing I really respect.

An American Philosopher

This piece will probably help you understand a number of arguments that you have often heard in American politics. They're usually not well presented, and end up sounding like contradictions: but they were the product of one mind, who meant something coherent by these ideas.

What Employer?

Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia's Mighty Ninth District writes:

Wow. I got a text from a constituent who's just seen the new insurance premiums he'll have to pay as a business owner under ‪#‎Obamacare‬.

$47,000 could have been a great salary for a great new Georgia job next year. Instead, it's off to the insurance companies as a direct result of the "Affordable" Care Act.

Do you think your employer can stand an 87% increase in insurance premium payments?

I may have mentioned that Georgia has the worst unemployment in the nation. Not helping: all these demands on start-ups and existing businesses that are slated to come online in the next few years. Why would any sensible investor start a business in the United States until the full effects of the ACA are knowable, and a business case can be evaluated with something like reliable cost estimates in front of you?

"War on Women!", Part Whatever

This is a bizarre statement from our Stanford scholar. It's on the importance of a conference to deal with pursuing drugs to treat low female libido.

"This is a really important time, because the FDA is realizing that women deserve the same sexual rights as men," Dr. Leah Millheiser, director of female sexual medicine at Stanford University, told Yahoo Health.

What exactly is the right here?

The 'male sexual dysfunction' they are likening to low female libido is erectile dysfunction. So you have someone who wants to have sex, but physically cannot. Does he have a right to have sex if he wants to? Is that being argued by anyone?

Meanwhile, by definition, low libido means that you don't want to have sex. So it seems like the analogous right would not be to have a drug to make you want to have sex, but to have your wishes on the subject respected.

The only thing that makes any psychological condition a "dysfunction" is that it causes some sort of trauma in their lives. So the reason this is a dysfunction is that it is causing women some relationship problems with, presumably usually, the men in their lives who want more sex.

I can understand how some women might come to the conclusion that it would just be great if they could want more sex too. Still, others might just as reasonably decide that they want to have their wish not to have sex very often respected. Declaring this condition a dysfunction means telling that second kind of woman, in the name of 'equal rights for women!', that they're sick and need to be medicated until they can better match their male partner's level of desire.

After all, if women aren't exactly like men in some way, it's injustice.

Scared to vote

How is Harry Reid's strategy working for him?

You have to wonder if Harry Reid feels like an idiot yet. For years now, the Senate majority leader has been cynically protecting Democratic senators — and President Obama — from difficult votes. The rationale was pretty straightforward. He wanted to spare vulnerable Democrats named Mark — Arkansas’s Mark Pryor, Alaska’s Mark Begich and Colorado’s Mark Udall — and a few others from having to take difficult votes on issues such as the Keystone XL pipeline, EPA rules, and immigration reform.

The problem for the Marks and other red- or swing-state Democrats is that, having been spared the chance to take tough votes, they now have little to no evidence they’d be willing to stand up to a president who is very unpopular in their states.

Thanks to Reid’s strategy of kicking the can down the road, GOP challengers now get to say, “My opponent voted with the president 97 percent of the time.” Democrats are left screeching “war on women!” and “Koch brothers!”

For instance, Reid killed bipartisan legislation on energy efficiency in May by denying senators the right to offer amendments. This was a wildly partisan and nearly unprecedented move, blocking the Senate from debating important issues. He did so because he feared that GOP amendments — on the Keystone pipeline, for instance — would pass with Democratic support, angering the White House.

I’m sure Senator Mary Landrieu, (D., La.) would love to be able to tout such a vote now. But she supported Reid’s tactic, shooting herself in the foot in the process.

Of course, this assumes these allegedly independent Democrats would have broken with Obama. But whether they would have or not, wouldn’t our politics be healthier if we had an answer to that question?

The strategy isn't unique to incumbents. Even non-incumbent candidates are resolute in their silence on the question whether they support the President's policies. They don't want to say "no," for fear of alienating what the New York Times delicately calls the "surge demographic," but they can hardly admit the true answer is "yes," either. They're left hoping their dog whistles will be understood in different ways by different people.

These candidates are in an unenviable spot.  The fact remains that a vote for them is a vote for the continuation of Harry Reid's strategy.

Scary Halloween stuff

Costumes and haunted houses are bad enough, but what about this:

Many Halloween candies contain palm oil, the large-scale, monoculture production of which is driving deforestation, extinction, human rights abuses, and climate change!

According to that 2007 U.N. report, from 2000 to 2005, nearly 50,000 acres of forest were lost every day across the Earth. Some of that forest was cleared to make way for palm oil plantations....

[T]he milk used in the candy bar turns out to be by far the largest component of its carbon footprint—suggesting that dark chocolate may be an environmentally friendlier choice.... [And yet C]ocoa flourishes in many of the world's biodiversity "hot spots"; as a result, cocoa cultivation has resulted in the destruction of millions of acres of environmentally fragile rainforest.

It's not too early to be thinking of ways to spoil Christmas, too:

 

Pope Francis Reasserts the Medieval Position

This apparently sounds radical to many media commentators.

When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.... He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

That is strictly the Aristotelian position. The giveaway is when he speaks of human beings having 'internal laws' that govern how they 'reach their fulfilment.' The question is how things come to be, and Aristotle gives his answer in Physics II.

Of things that exist, some exist by nature, some from other causes.... [those that exist by nature] present a feature in which they differ from things which are not constituted by nature. Each of them has within itself a principle of motion and of stationariness (in respect of place, or of growth and decrease, or by way of alteration). On the other hand, a bed and a coat and anything else of that sort, qua receiving these designations i.e. in so far as they are products of art-have no innate impulse to change.

So there is a distinction being made between things that exist 'by nature' and those that are products of (human) art. Things that exist by nature have 'within themselves a principle' -- the Pope said an 'internal law' -- that governs how they come to be, how they grow or decline, and how they can change. That's why a bear and a man and a horse are different: they are governed by different natures. The bear and the man can eat more or less the same things, but their bodies will do different things with the food they intake. The bear will grow larger, stronger, faster; the man will develop reason and a form fit for manipulation of his environment to a greater degree. The horse can't eat many of the things that a man or a bear can eat, but on grass alone will grow bigger and stronger than either.

The Medieval Aristotelian position -- not only in the Church, but predating the Church's adoption in Jewish and Islamic Aristotelian philosophers such as Maimonides and Avicenna -- was that God's activity produced the world and its laws. The laws were themselves the mechanisms by which creation was effected. Maimonides goes so far as to give an account of Moses' parting of the Red Sea as a kind of understanding of the laws at work: it happened to be the one night when the wind was going to blow in just the right way, for just the right time, to craft the parted sea. Moses was a prophet, but that meant that he had come through his intellect to understand something about the laws at work.

There are a lot of philosophical and theological issues on this ground that might be hotly debated. But the point, here, is that the position the media is taking to be radical is approximately a thousand years old: and it's based on a position far older still.

"Strange Days"

Last year, in September, my wife suffered a shattered leg. It took her months to heal enough to put weight on it again. At first she was just in the bed, for more than a month, and in constant pain. Later she could sit in a wheelchair, and visit the back deck on a sunny day. She talked a lot about what the experience was like, and this essay has a lot in it that sounds familiar.

How the feel of time changes when all the terms are altered. What on most days had moved with an almost hectic momentum, an ill-choreographed succession of one thing after another, one day just halted, causing the hours to then pool up behind it: the afternoon immobilized, with almost nothing to mark the change or confirm that this is not the world paralyzed into still life.

The experience for my wife was rejuvenating in many ways. Being able to walk again is a special joy, whereas walking before was not special. I can see that she's recovered a pleasure in ordinary life in other ways, too. I hope the author will have a similar experience.

One More Election Post

Not to be cynical, but I can't help but notice that Georgia gas prices have dropped below $3/gal for the first time in years. In the last month, suddenly they fell from $3.30 a gallon to well under three bucks, and as low as ~$2.50 in some places. There was very little fluctuation over the whole previous year, but at the same time that this hotly-contested election comes up, gas prices drop and become substantially cheaper for the whole month before election day.

Doubtless a coincidence, but a curious one.

More on the Georgia Elections

This SurveyUSA poll suggests that Perdue is in the lead, although under the margin of victory (perhaps due to the libertarian candidate drawing some of the votes). But as interesting to me is the huge lead that Republicans have in generating early votes. 54% of those who intend to vote for David Perdue already have: 53% of those who intend to vote for the Republican, Nathan Deal, in the gubernatorial race. The numbers for the Democrats in these two races are at 44% in both races.

The Democratic party is the one that works so heavily to organize communities, but the Republicans have a real advantage here. My guess is that it's because Republicans are so often older, and have learned to organize themselves. If the state goes red in this election it may well be simply because more Republicans than Democrats showed up early and locked in their votes. The younger and more liberal college kids may well forget about the election: this weekend is the Georgia/Florida game, commonly known as "the Cocktail Bowl."

Justice is Not Blind

There have been two recent cases in which no-knock SWAT-style drug raids have led to the death of raiding police officers. Both men who killed raiding officers had prior run-ins with the law. In one case, no drugs found in the raid. In the other, drugs were found. One of these men is going to be tried for capital murder, with prosecutors seeking the death penalty. The other one the grand jury refused to indict.

One is black, one is white. Guess which one?

Guy is black, Magee white. And while Magee was found to have acted in self-defense, prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Guy. He remains in jail while he awaits trial.

Historically, police serving warrants were required to knock on a door, announce their presence, and wait for an answer. But in SWAT raids, this is often no longer the case. Police aren't required to announce themselves if they believe the circumstances present a threat of physical violence, or if they believe evidence would be destroyed. According to a study by the American Civil Liberties Union, no-knock warrants are used in around 60 percent of drug searches.

Like Guy, Magee was initially charged with capital murder, which is punishable by death. But before Magee's trial, a grand jury found there was not enough evidence for him to stand trial on that charge. "In essence it was a ruling in self-defense," DeGuerin said. Guy has been through the grand jury process as well, his attorney said, but in his case, the grand jury allowed prosecutors to move ahead with capital murder charges. So while Magee awaits trial for felony possession of marijuana, Guy awaits potential execution.

Aristotle says that justice is treating relevantly similar cases similarly. That's helpful in a way, but it's purely formal: we still end up having to use judgment and rhetoric to reason about what constitutes relevant similarity. We can't go into justice with a blindfold on, because if we do we'll end up unable to do the work of justice at all.

These cases look a lot a like, at first, and we might be tempted to say that the grand jury is probably informed by racism in electing to prosecute the one and not the other. But there are differences, too, which we have to consider.

The first difference is the presence of drugs. But that, if anything, seems to mitigate in favor of Guy: he was the one who didn't have any drugs! On the other hand, "drug paraphernalia" was found, so the police and prosecutors may simply believe they were unlucky in the date of the raid. Still, you can't prosecute the guy for what you didn't catch him doing, and as far as the raid is concerned, no drugs were found.

The second difference is in the kind of prior trouble the men encountered with the law. Magee had two prior DUIs and two prior marijuana possession: and even though we take DUI very seriously as a society now, it's still an offense without violent intent (though it may, by sad accident, have violent result). Guy's priors were a little different: robbery, theft, burglary, and possessing a firearm while a felon (itself against the law).

Now you might say that we should judge their guilt or innocence based on the current facts of the current case, not on their priors. Even if we grant that point for argument's sake, though, we can't ignore the priors insofar as they are directly relevant to the current case. To whit, Magee was entitled to defend his home with a firearm, whereas Guy was committing a crime by even making arrangements to do so.

In that light, the grand juries' differential behavior begins to make a kind of sense. Magee could be said to be making a very honest and understandable mistake in defending his home with his rifle; Guy cannot be held to have been innocent of plotting to commit a crime with his firearm, because arming himself in that manner was itself a crime.

All that said, capital murder strikes me as an excessive charge for defending your home against violent intrusion by attackers who do not even bother to identify themselves as police with a lawful warrant. Such actors take their lives in their hands, and citizens should not be put on trial for their lives if the police's choice to run this risk ends up with them getting shot. Reason magazine notes a similar case that ended up with the man in prison for ten years. That's an injustice, when the police purposefully elect to raid your home at an hour when they expect to rouse you out of a sound sleep, dazzle you with a flash-bang grenade, and then storm your home before you can think. They must be held to be assuming the risks of such a rash course of action.

Even so, we don't have to appeal to racism to explain the difference in these cases. The cases are relevantly similar in some respects, but relevantly different in very important ones. A different outcome is not proof of injustice.

Monte Carlo

A point I think about often, as a motorcycle rider:

One lesson of New Guinea life Diamond takes personally concerns small, recurring dangers – “hazards that carry a low risk each time but are encountered frequently”. Once, on a field trip, he proposed setting up camp under a beautiful old tree, but his New Guinean colleagues refused. It was dead, they explained, and might kill them in the night. The chances were tiny – but if you sleep under trees many nights a year, they add up. The biggest dangers in his LA life today, Diamond believes, are slipping in the shower, tripping on uneven paving stones and car accidents. Even if the chance of serious injury or death in the bathroom is one in 1,000, that is far too big for something you do every day.

Is that right? Do the chances 'add up'? Not according to probability theory; and yet it seems plausible to say that if you run against 1,000-1 odds a thousand times...

I rode in Tampa's rush-hour traffic, day in and day out, hours a day during the summer a few years ago. In retrospect, that may not have been the best idea I ever had.

The odds drop a lot, though, on these country backroads. They're more fun to ride on anyway.

"The Bell Curve" +20

Joseph W. sometimes refers to this book by names like 'Mephistopheles' Handbook of Evil,' but the authors say that their intent was to make a very limited, modest claim. The explosion results from the fact that even a modest amount of antimatter doesn't mix:

Fifty years from now, I bet those claims about “The Bell Curve” will be used as a textbook case of the hysteria that has surrounded the possibility that black-white differences in IQ are genetic. Here is the paragraph in which Dick Herrnstein and I stated our conclusion:

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate. (p. 311)

That’s it. The whole thing. The entire hateful Herrnstein-Murray pseudoscientific racist diatribe about the role of genes in creating the black-white IQ difference. We followed that paragraph with a couple pages explaining why it really doesn’t make any difference whether the differences are caused by genes or the environment. But nothing we wrote could have made any difference.

The solution set doesn't sound like the hardest-right radicalism either. He proposes a guaranteed basic income for all Americans, for one thing.

Something For Everyone

Really, how could you do better than "The Anglo-Saxon War-Culture and The Lord of the Rings: Legacy and Reappraisal"?

Considering the scarcity of the Anglo-Saxon influence in modern war-literature in general, one may wonder and stop by a work like The Lord of the Rings or Silmarillion, which few would be willing to categorise as serious war-literature. The fictional writings of J.R.R. Tolkien are said to have revived the genre of fantasy and magic-realism, and they have been readily assimilated into the new genre of popular literature. What seems to have been forgotten in this process is Tolkien’s own passionate and critical engagement with the war-literature of the Anglo-Saxons, which has gone into the making of his otherwise ‘fantastic’ creation of the ‘Middle Earth’.

Tolkien's description of the fight between the Rohirric cavalry and the Uruk-Hai is as good a picture of a disciplined medieval infantry-cavalry skirmish as exists.

Quarantine quarrels

Congress took testimony on the controversy over whether travel bans or quarantines might impede efforts to contain Ebola at its source:

Rabih Torbay, senior vice president at International Medical Corps, testified that imposing quarantines would strongly discourage volunteer healthcare workers from assisting in the relief effort. 

As an example, he said, the IMC requires a six-week minimum commitment to treat Ebola patients. Adding a 21-day quarantine would stretch doctors' furloughs to nine weeks, a period of leave that few hospitals would allow. 

"We cannot recruit staff from the U.S. or anywhere else in the world if there is not a chance they could come back to their families and their [jobs]" quickly, Torbay told lawmakers. 

"Putting people in quarantine goes against our ability to recruit and retain [staff], and therefore, it will go against our ability to fight against the virus in West Africa."

Wait, so the problem with quarantine is that travelers from Africa who have been treating large numbers of Ebola patients under primitive conditions need to be able to go right back to work at their American hospitals as soon as they return, without waiting 21 days to see whether they're unlikely to have contracted the disease?

I thought the bowling doctor in New York was a little complacent, but at least he didn't (as far as I know) go back to work at his ER while he was self-monitoring for 21 days.

Do Police Kill Blacks At The Same Rate as Lynching?

So, I encountered the following badge on Facebook:

That is a shocking claim, isn't it? I decided to try and see if it was true.

The source for the claim seems to be this article in the UK Guardian. Here's the fuller version of the claim:

Not terribly long ago in a country that many people misremember, if they knew it at all, a black person was killed in public every four days for often the most mundane of infractions, or rather accusation of infractions – for taking a hog, making boastful remarks, for stealing 75 cents. For the most banal of missteps, the penalty could be an hours-long spectacle of torture and lynching. No trial, no jury, no judge, no appeal. Now, well into a new century, as a family in Ferguson, Missouri, buries yet another American teenager killed at the hands of authorities, the rate of police killings of black Americans is nearly the same as the rate of lynchings in the early decades of the 20th century.

About twice a week, or every three or four days, an African American has been killed by a white police officer in the seven years ending in 2012, according to studies of the latest data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That number is incomplete and likely an undercount, as only a fraction of local police jurisdictions even report such deaths – and those reported are the ones deemed somehow “justifiable”. That means that despite the attention given the deaths of teenagers Trayvon Martin (killed by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman) and Jordan Davis (killed by a white man for playing his music too loud), their cases would not have been included in that already grim statistic – not only because they were not killed by police but because the state of Florida, for example, is not included in the limited data compiled by the FBI.

So the "rate" that she's talking about is "once every three or four days."

However, there's an ambiguity at work. The American black population in 1900 was 8.8 million; today, it is over 38 million. Thus, the "rate" in the statistical sense is only 0.231 the rate of lynchings in 1900 (assuming that 1900 is a good proxy for her claim about when lynchings were once-every-four-days, and that all her numbers are right).

So is the claim true? Yes, and at the same time also no.

Religious Tests

Matt Walsh writes:

The answer is clear. We object to the baker or the photographer refusing to service gay weddings because we’ve deemed that expression to be anti-gay. And anti-gay expression is always wrong. Remember what we’ve said time after time: it has no place in our society. Churches are in our society, aren’t they?...

We force chapels to marry gays and bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings because we find Christianity abhorrent and detest the very thought of anyone attempting to live by its tenets.

That’s all. That’s it. That’s what everything comes down to. Nothing more, nothing less.

If we have banned people from practicing their faith in their private lives because we disagree with it, why wouldn’t we try and eradicate the hive itself?

If Christians are barred from running their private businesses according to their religious convictions, then haven’t we made a statement about those convictions? They’re unwelcome. Illegitimate. There’s no place in a civilized society for them.

Spurious Connections

The correlations are legitimate, but...

No Common Ground

This is a fairly basic principle, and it's hard to see how you can work around the disagreement.

During an National Rifle Association event in Iowa in 2012, state Sen. Joni Ernst, now the Republican nominee for Senate in the state, said she carries a 9-millimeter gun around everywhere and believes in the right to use it even if it’s against the government if they disregard her rights.

“I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter, and it goes with me virtually everywhere,” Ernst said during a speech at the NRA’s Iowa Firearms Coalition Second Amendment Rally in Searsboro, Iowa, as flagged by The Huffington Post on Thursday. “But I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family — whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”

As opposed to what exactly? The opposite of this statement is the following:

“I do not believe in the right to carry, and I do not believe in the right to defend myself and my family — whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”

Is there any free person anywhere that doesn’t reserve the right to defend himself against a person who would do him harm, or who believes that, should the government turn, he would be better off going quietly into the night?

The alternative positions are pretty hostile. Really, some of the ones linked by Memeorandum are so hostile and vile that I won't link to them. But here's Ed Kilgore, at least:

Now this is a guaranteed applause line among Con Con audiences, for reasons that have relatively little to do with gun regulation. The idea here is to intimidate liberals, and “looters” and secular socialists, and those people, that there are limits to what the good virtuous folk of the country will put up with in the way of interference with their property rights and their religious convictions and their sense of how the world ought to work. If push comes to shove, they’re heavily armed, and bullets outweigh ballots. It’s a reminder that if politics fails in protecting their very broad notion of their “rights,” then revolutionary violence—which after all, made this great country possible in the first place—is always an option. And if that sounds “anti-democratic,” well, as the John Birch Society has always maintained, this is a Republic, not a democracy.

I can understand not appreciating what you are reading as an attempt to intimidate you, personally. Still, the principle sounds reasonable to me. In fact, if I were going to articulate it, I'd not focus as she does on a right to defend. The right -- the one the Founders asserted -- is not limited to defense from the government's depredations. It is a right "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Is there any American who doesn't believe that? Is it possible to be an American, in the spiritual sense, without believing it? The 14th Amendment makes citizens of everyone born here, but perhaps that isn't wise: perhaps it isn't birth but faith that makes Americans.

Smart, Smart Diplomacy

Secretary of State John Kerry:

We've said from day one that if North Korea wants to rejoin the community of nations, it knows how to do it. It can come to the talks prepared to discuss denuclearization. And the United States is fully prepared -- if they do that and begin that process, we are prepared to begin the process of reducing the need for American force and presence in the region because the threat itself would then be reduced.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, a few hours later:

We the United States do not intend to change our policy on deployment of our forces in the Republic of Korea. In fact, I think it's just the opposite. We continue to strengthen and advance that policy we've had for over 60 years. We are upgrading it, adjusting on deployments, on rotational deployments. We think there is more stability, more security, more continuity in those deployments.

Bowling with Ebola

If you've been wondering how thoroughly an Ebola case in New York City would convulse the nation's media outlets, wonder no more.  Just turn on any cable new show or google "New York Ebola doctor."  It's going to be wall-to-wall for the duration.

Who Doesn't Benefit From A New Racial Slur?

So apparently in the confines of academia, there's a sense that it would be really nice if we could come up with a good racial slur to use against whites. Well, non-Southern whites, that is: everyone already knows a mess of slurs for uppity Southerners.

I cajole a few of them into “Cracker” and “Red Neck.” We can usually get to “Hillbilly” or “Trailer Trash” or “White Trash,” possibly even “Peckerwood,” before folks recognize the “Cletus the slack-jawed yokel” pattern of class discrimination here. And being that we are at a top ranked west coast university, not only do we all share basic middle class aspirations, but we can feel pretty safe in the fact that there are no “Red Necks” here to insult.

There probably are quite few. Southern poor whites are as underprivileged -- and as poor -- as almost any minority group. So naturally, of course, they're the one the culture is readiest to insult should they break out of their hills and come down into town where they don't belong.

What is really wanted is a good way to insult the rest of the white community. The first author takes a stab at it -- given that he's looking for a good way to insult white, left-leaning college students at his own university, I was amused to see that we'd gotten there first.

Still, it's not good enough, argues a second thinker. The problem is that it's possible to avoid being slandered by changing behavior, which is not how racial slurs are supposed to work. They're supposed to taint you forever, no matter what you do:

It is a label that denies the individuality of the target and forces him to into a set of predefined stereotypes. And there is nothing the target to can do to exempt himself. It is beyond achievement, effort, or choice. You just *are* are Black or Latino or Jewish or “white privileged”. Definitively, a person of Euro-Caucasian descent can never stop being white privileged.

And just like those other racial slurs, being white privileged undercuts anything a person individually accomplishes. Maybe he can be the nicest of the White Privileged that his Black and Latino friends know. Maybe he can be “one of the good ones” who “knows his place” as the beneficiary of American institutional racism. But he can never be other than white privileged. White privileged is the Bizarro-world version of the presumption that a Black student was accepted to an exclusive university because of his skin-color. If you are white privileged, it means that — although you might have never treated anyone inequitably based on their race, creed, or national origin, although you might have even shown a degree of favoritism to races different than your own, although you might have had no valuable socio-economic connections when starting out, although you might have worked very hard and risked much to achieve whatever you have — but still you vicariously share in the sin of every cop (white or black or brown) who stops and tickets a black man in an expensive car because he stood out on the highway. And it asserts you have even reaped unspecified rewards from those encounters—rewards not shared by other categories.

White privileged is the true white racial slur, and no one has been slow to throw it around. It is used the same as any other racial slurs: To deny the target his individuality, to brand him with the failures of the worst member of his category and with the stereotypes in the minds of others, to disparage the quality of his achievements and potential, and to implicitly demand more from him than others.

There's some merit to this suggestion. No one should be expected to take seriously an argument framed around a racial slur, which would dismiss 'privilege' arguments on the same terms. Further, it justifies a response exactly similar to the response we expect should we call someone of a given race by a slur. If that ends badly for you, most people will agree that you brought it on yourself.

So, motion carried. Good to know that our fine academic minds are still working on solving the hard problems bedeviling the nation! Thanks to their tireless efforts, we've devised a new racial slur. Surely there's nothing America needed more.

Better microscopes

I heard recently that a Nobel Prize had been given for advances in light microscopy, and wondered why we would be fooling around with light after determining some time back that really detailed pictures required electromagnetic radiation with smaller wavelengths.  The answer turns out to be that those smaller wavelengths really tear up whatever we're trying to look at, particularly living cells.  The new microscopy uses some kind of system of multiple passes that makes possible fantastic videos of living processes such as cell division, as you can see in the remarkable videos here.

Travel monitors

This actually strikes me as a pretty sane measure:  state health officials will be trying to monitor all incoming travelers from the Ebola-stricken countries for 21 days.  It's not airtight, obviously, and I have real doubts about whether the health officials will have the resources or the determination to follow through instead of treating this like a public-relations box to check off, but it's a step.  All our experience, including our good luck with the families of Thomas Duncan, Nina Pham, Amber Vinson, and the Spanish nurse, points to the probability that Ebola doesn't spread very readily early on.  If we keep a sharp eye on the people most likely to be developing symptoms in the next few weeks, we increase our chances of getting them into isolation before they're most dangerous.  At least, I'd like to hope that no one on this "watch list" could be turned away unthinkingly from an ER.

The Beggar's Opera - in Italian!

And a very good production, too (outside of Mrs. Peachum).

Sergeant at Arms, Do Your Office

The Sergeant at Arms is an ancient office that, for quite some time, has been chiefly ceremonial. Not today.

According to reports, most of downtown Ottawa has been locked down as at least one suspect is still reportedly on the loose. The gunman reportedly first attacked the soldier at the National War Memorial and then went into the Canadian parliament building. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is safe. Harper reportedly was to meet with Malala Yousefzai, who was recently named a co-recipient of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize....

Media reports now indicate that police are searching for multiple gunmen, and are also trying to block bridges into Quebec. One gunman who entered the Canadian parliament building was reportedly killed by Parliament's sergeant at arms.

Well done, brother.

UPDATE: Confirmation.

Fantino said parliament's head of security, Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), had shot a suspect dead.

"All the details are not in, but the sergeant-at-arms, a former Mountie, is the one that engaged the gunman, or one of them at least, and stopped this," Fantino said. "He did a great job and, from what I know, shot the gunman and he is now deceased."

UPDATE: "Sergeant at Arms gets standing ovation after shooting terrorist while wearing tails."

Why Would Any Man Vote Democrat?

So asks Dr. Gordon Finley, via Dr. Helen, via Dr. Glen Reynolds. Since such a well-educated consort wants to know, allow me to answer.

As a citizen of the Great State of Georgia, allow me to say that I am seriously considering voting for Michelle Nunn. My reasons are the same reasons she is doing very well across the state.

The reason Michelle Nunn is running more-or-less even with Perdue is that she comes from a family famous in the state for excellent service in the Senate. Her father is almost a watchword for what a good Senator should look like. In addition, she's made her career working with the Bush family ever since the first Bush administration. So Republicans can look at her and see a woman who can reach across the aisle, has plenty of respect from their own party, and has a kind of life-long apprenticeship from the man whose Senate career Georgia voters already most respect.

David Perdue comes from the same family as Sonny Perdue, a recent governor who broke key election promises to base voters, and was unimpressive as governor. David Perdue has no experience in politics from which to judge, but he made his career on Wall Street, a place whose name normally turns up in Georgia elections as a curse: e.g., 'If elected, I will defend the values of Main Street against Wall Street.'

For that matter, I am considering voting for Jason Carter, Jimmy Carter's grandson. This is not because I am enthusiastic about him as a candidate. It is because Nathan Deal, the Republican incumbent, has been a terrible governor. Longtime readers of the page will remember that I supported his candidacy in 2010, on the strength of his having been a perfectly decent congressman (in my district) for a long time. His performance as governor ought to be disqualifying for a second term.

Partly I think the length of his service in Washington is responsible, as it detached him from his state for so long and attached him to powerful national interests instead. A man who had spent more time at home would not have bungled last year's blizzard so badly, because any native son of Georgia should have known how huge a disaster even a few inches of snow and ice would be for the state.

Setting all that aside, however, how can you excuse the worst unemployment rate in the entire nation? This isn't Detroit! A Republican governor with a Republican legislature, if he accomplishes nothing else, ought at least to be a spur to the economy. If he can't do that -- and very manifestly he cannot -- how can he possibly put himself forward for a second term?

Well, I know the arguments against voting Democratic, because they are helpfully mailed to me by various interest groups. Presumably a Democratic governor and Senator cannot be trusted on gun rights, and will try to drive Georgia against its grain on social issues. A Democratic Senate is harmful in terms of court appointments, including to the Supreme Court in the event that a vacancy should occur. It is also harmful in terms of oversight, and there is perhaps even a positive national program that a unified Congress could push on a reluctant, lame-duck President.

The issues Dr. Helen and her cohort raise frankly don't rise to the same level of consideration. I don't dismiss them, but they pale beside the issues of national destiny and character we face.

Why might a man vote Democratic? I have not decided that I will, because the national concerns especially are very pressing. But now you know why I might: because the Democrats have recruited better candidates, and the Republicans currently serving at the state level have done a disgraceful job.

Excellent News

A paralyzed man is able to walk again, thanks to cells taken from an adult's nose.

It may even be possible for this to be replicated, "if funding can be raised." A comment on the story says:

"Raisman, who hopes to see at least three more patients treated in Poland over the next three to five years if the funding can be raised, said"

Wait - what? "if the funding can be raised"? If this report is accurate, there should be no question of funding. The procedure surely should be repeated in a careful study of 30 to 50 people, with funding from the NHS.

The cost is trivial - if we have (as we do) fixed budgets, then cut back on varicose vein surgery and gender-reassignment surgery to cover the costs of this research, No brainer.

You would think.

Tolerance

People have been arguing for a long time about what tolerance means. I admire this 19th-century attempt to sort out religious vs. civil tolerance and, in the civil sphere, individual vs. government tolerance:

For the purpose of clearing up ideas on toleration as far as lay in my power, I have presented this matter in a point of view but little known; in order to throw still more light upon it, I will say a few words on religious and civil intolerance,--things which are entirely different, although Rousseau absolutely affirms the contrary. Religious or theological intolerance consists in the conviction, that the only true religion is the Catholic, a conviction common to all Catholics. Civil intolerance consists in not allowing in society any other religions than the Catholic. These two definitions are sufficient to make every man of common sense understand that the two kinds of intolerance are not inseparable; indeed, we may very easily conceive that men firmly convinced of the truth of Catholicity may tolerate those who profess another religion, or none at all. Religious intolerance is an act of the mind, an act inseparable from faith; indeed, whoever has a firm belief that his own religion is true, must necessarily be convinced that it is the only true one; for the truth is one. Civil intolerance is an act whereby the will rejects those who do not profess the same religion; this act has different results, according as the intolerance is in the individuals or in the government. On the other hand, religious tolerance consists in believing that all religions are true; which, when rightly understood, means that none are true, since it is impossible for contradictory things to be true at the same time. Civil tolerance is, to allow men who entertain a different religion to live in peace. This tolerance, as well as the co-relative intolerance, produces different effects, according as it exists in individuals or in the government.

from Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their effects on the civilization of Europe, by the Rev. J. Balmes, 1851, p.57.

Prudence and cowardice

A good article in The Federalist about John Adams, including his thoughts on arbitrary government, why laws can never be amoral, and this analysis of prudence:

Fellow revolutionary Benjamin Rush noted to Adams that their friend Charles Lee dismissed prudence as a “rascally virtue.” Adams replied that “his meaning was good. He meant the spirit which evades danger when duty requires us to face it. This is cowardice, not prudence.” That was not prudence properly understood.

By prudence I mean that deliberation and caution, which aims at no ends but good ones, and good ones by none but fair means, and then carefully adjusts and proportions its good means to its good ends. Without this virtue there can be no other. Justice itself cannot exist without it. A disposition to render to every one his right is of no use without prudence to judge what is his right and skill to perform it.

Prudence divorced from the other virtues would become amoral pragmatism.

Stone

This weekend I was camped at Stone Mountain for the Highland Games. It's been a long time I've been going. After dark I walked by the lake, and looked at the mountain by night. From the campground the mountain blocks Atlanta. The sky behind that black granite bulk is orange. Look far away to the east, and at last you can see a rebel pair of stars.

As a boy I lived in a land full of stars, but I can remember the first time I saw the orange glow. It was on the horizon to the south, when I was a teenager. Atlanta was advancing into the county, a bit at a time, and it was eating up the stars. Now it is hard to see the stars from that place by night.

Since then I've lived in China, where the sky can be viewed in gradations. Walk up a hill as tall as Stone, and looking back down you can see the sky divided like a sand sculpture into a half-dozen stacking fields of increasing dark. Of course, you lived down there where it was worst.

I've also lived in Iraq, where the natural sky was clear and weatherless by day as by night: but once in a while, when a dust storm would come up, it would all turn as red as Mars.

Currently I live in a place where I can see the stars again, as they were when I was a boy. I don't know how long I can stay in such places. What a luxury it is, and how strange that it should be one. How sad, too, to think of all the boys growing up in all the cities -- most of humanity, now -- who never see the stars.

2LT Grigsby, 10th Indiana Cav.

A man after Ymar's very heart.

The adults step in

In a really satisfying courtroom/scandal thriller, after our heroes struggle seemingly in vain against the shadowy forces of conspiracy, Wilford Brimley shows up in the last scene to drag everyone into a conference room, dress them down, and announce how this stinking corruption is going to be shut down once and for all.  Sadly, it doesn't happen that often in real life, but it sure seems to have happened recently in California, where corrupt DOJ officials got caught extorting $55 million out of Sierra Pacific on trumped-up charges that it started a 2007 wildfire.  The grown-ups in the federal judiciary, instead of closing ranks, stepped up and did their jobs.  The Chief Judge for the Eastern District of California took the unheard-of step of recusing all Eastern District judges from the case and asking his bosses in the Ninth Circuit to appoint a new judge from outside his district.

I admit this is not a case I've been following closely, so I won't claim to have sifted the evidence or to possess any inside information supporting Sierra Pacific's claims.  It would be fair to suspect me of being quick to believe accusations of corruption against Eric Holder's agency.  The fact remains that the California federal district judges are not known for their hostility to the DOJ, so if the Chief Judge for the Eastern District  smells a rat, and is enthusiastically backed up by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, I imagine there's real fire underneath all that smoke.

Home

I've been reading Atul Gawande's fine new book, "Being Mortal," about that perennial favorite topic of mine, our insanely inadequate approach to end-of-life care.  When my aunt was enduring her final years in an assisted-living facility and, after she become bedridden with an inoperable broken hip, a nursing home, my cousins were mystified and exasperated by her unhappiness.  She had not been safe alone in her home in East Texas.  The assisted-living facility was a very nice one of its kind.  The family was reasonably attentive and generous.  Why was she always unhappy?  In describing the experience of his wife's grandmother, he almost exactly captures my aunt's woe:

Giving up her home on Greencastle Street meant giving up the life she had built for herself over decades. The things that made Longwood House so much safer and more manageable than the house were precisely what made it hard for her to endure. Her apartment might have been called "independent living," but it involved the imposition of more structure and supervision than she'd ever had to deal with before. Aides watched her diet. Nurse monitored her health. They observed her growing unsteadiness and made her use a walker. This was reassuring for Alice's children, but she didn't like being nannied or controlled. And the regulation of her life only increased with time. When the staff became concerned that she was missing doses of her medications, they informed her that unless she kept her medications with the nurses and came down to their station twice a day to take them under direct supervision, she would have to move out of independent living to the nursing home wing. [Her son and daughter-in-law] hired a part-time aide named Mary to help Alice comply, to give her some company, and to stave off the day she would have to transfer. She liked Mary. But having her hanging around the apartment for hours on end, often with little to do, only made the situation more depressing.

For Alice, it must have felt as if she had crossed into an alien land that she would never be allowed to leave. The border guards were friendly and cheerful enough. They promised her a nice place to live where she'd be well taken care of. But she didn't really want anyone to take care of her; she just wanted to live a life of her own. And those cheerful border guards had taken her keys and her passport. With her home went her control.

Gawande traces the treatment of the destitute elderly from  the disgraceful poorhouses of the early 20th century.  The first change, meant to be an improvement, was to hospitalize them.  At the time, medicine had little to offer beyond a clean, warm bed, adequate food and water, and kind nursing for those unlucky enough not to be able to find such things at home, with family.  Starting with the World War II era, the ability to treat infections with antibiotics suddenly converted hospitals from convalescent nursing homes to places of rapid, expert, intensive intervention and frequent cure.  Between 1946 and 1966 the U.S. built 9,000 new hospitals.  For a while, we emptied the poorhouses and placed their residents in hospitals.

We were disappointed to find, however, that the poorhouse problem hadn't gone away, despite the implementation of Social Security.  The problem was that the poorhouses weren't only for the poor:  they were also for those too frail to look after themselves alone. For those without family to care for them, it takes more than the ordinary pension to solve that problem.  Hospitals couldn't handle the burden, and in any case were ill-suited to long-term custodial care.  In 1954 Congress allocated funding for a wave of new "nursing homes":  13,000 were built by 1970.

If Gawande's wife's grandmother was uneasy about the loss of control in assisted living, she was devastated when she broke a hips and had to move into a nursing home, where she had no control over when to wake, sleep, bathe, or eat, or with whom she'd share a room; like my aunt, she was subjected to a series of abrupt changes in roommate, many of them delirious enough to keep her awake all night shouting.  "She felt incarcerated, like she was in prison for being old."  The home was not deliberately punitive, but it was an involuntary institutionalization, devoid of purpose or privacy.

Is it not possible, Gawande wonders, to maintain a life of freedom and worth when one has lost physical independence?  Are nursing homes and their inmates doomed to fight each other for control?

In the horrible places, the battle for control escalates until you get tied down or locked into your Geri-chair or chemically subdued with psychotropic medications. In the nice ones, a staff member cracks a joke, wags an affectionate finger, and takes your brownie stash away. In almost none does anyone sit down with you and try to figure out what living a life really means to you under the circumstances, let alone help you make a home where that life becomes possible.

This is the consequence of a society that faces the final phase of the human life cycle by trying not to think about it. We end up with institutions that address any number of societal goals--from freeing up hospital beds to taking burdens off families' hands to coping with poverty among the elderly--but never the goal that matters to the people who reside in them: how to make life worth living when we're weak and frail and can't fend for ourselves anymore.

 I haven't finished the book.  I'm hoping he has some ideas.  One of them certainly is going to be for elderly relatives to move in with the younger generation, an idea we've been wrestling with regarding my mother-in-law for some time.  I know that she'd hate leaving her home, even to live with us.  I have only to imagine leaving my home to move in with her to get an inkling of the horrifying prospect.  The only thing good that could be said about the plan is that it would beat a nursing home.

We should all be so lucky as to die relatively abruptly, at home.  My mother, stepmother, and father all died at home, not--unfortunately--abruptly, but at least without institutionalization.

Beyond red v. blue

Enough about political leanings.  Here are the important distinctions among states.

Our household is split 50/50 on this critical metric.

Not rendering unto Caesar

Russell Moore on the City of Houston's subpoena of anti-gay sermons:

Every authority, under God, is limited. Daniel is obedient to King Nebuchadnezzar, until the king decreed the way prayers should be offered. Peter and John are obedient to the authorities, until they are told how to preach, in which case they defy this authority (Acts 4:19-20).

Moreover, the issue is even clearer when we recognize that the City of Houston, and beyond that the broader American governing system, is, unlike in the case of Caesar, not the rule of one man (or one woman). There were all sorts of governing officials up and down the chain in the Roman Empire, but the ultimate accountability was Caesar himself. In our system of government, the ultimate “king” is the people. As citizens, we bear responsibility for electing officials, for speaking to laws that are made in our name, and for setting precedents by our actions. Shrugging this off is not the equivalent of Jesus standing silently before Pilate. It’s the equivalent of Pilate washing his hands, so as not to bear accountability for our own decisions and precedents set.

How would people react to a subpoena of Reverend Wright's sermons?

Repeal and replace

Gillespie's plan sounds like an improvement to me, even when reviewed in relentlessly hostile terms.

What's the federal government for?

It gets harder and harder to tell:

The shocking competence gap and the cavernous honesty gap — brought to you by the “most transparent administration in history” — make our heads spin as we careen from debacle to government-induced debacle. In the tumult, we can miss the main point: Why do we have a federal government?

Its purpose is to safeguard the American people and pursue our interests in the world, not to solve the world’s problems on our dime and, occasionally, by using us as laboratory mice. As free people, we can try to save the planet. The federal government, however, was not created to do it for us, much less to coerce us into implausible “humanitarian” schemes that always manage to line some crony’s pocket. National interest is our government’s only reliable compass, yet it has been discarded.

Friday Night MV

I think Fred and Ginger would have approved.

Why a travel ban wouldn't work

. . . and other hogwash from Politico.

1. It would choke off aid and could worsen the outbreak. Politico argues that a charter flight could cost $200,000 per person, and would stifle the inflow of health supplies to West Africa. But suppose we let commercial flights fly in, but not take any people out who hadn't been quarantined first? Sure, airlines would be reluctant to sell one-way tickets for $1,200 and take a loss on an empty return flight, but they could charge double for all one-way tickets. $2,400 a seat still beats $200,000. In any case, we've already got the military sending in supplies. What's more, every time we treat a case of Ebola here we spend a minimum of $500,000 in direct medical costs, not to mention the cost of all the after-the-fact tracking and isolation efforts.  Letting Duncan in has resulted in three such bills so far.  I don't see the good sense in economizing on charter-flight expenses.  What do you think it's cost Frontier Airlines for word to get out that one of its aircraft may have been contaminated?  How much money will Texas Health Presbyterian lose?  Would you schedule surgery there now?

2. It would make it harder to track infected people. Because they would lie and hide. None of that happening now, I guess.

3. Lawmakers are long on opinions, short on practical ideas. This is the usual "but Republicans won't get specific about alternatives" complaint, which works only when you're determined not to read a word Republicans publish on whatever the subject is, from healthcare to Ebola. What's the mystery about the practical way to make a travel ban work? We do it with communicable diseases in plants and animals all the time. More than a dozen countries already have imposed a travel ban on West Africa. Are their bans imprecise, impractical, or confusing in some way?

4. The math doesn't add up. The argument here seems to be that airport temperature screenings don't often turn up a problem. What to make of such a bizarre objection? Who's proposing airport temperature screenings that they're already supposedly doing anyway? We're talking about either an outright ban until the epidemic abates in West Africa, or a strict 21-day quarantine. We'd hope that a quarantine wouldn't identify many infected people, either, but the point isn't all the people who breathe a sigh of relief after 21 days and keep traveling: it's the occasional person who comes down with symptoms in that time and immediately goes into super-isolation and treatment. Politico's other argument is the vague "best to treat the problem at its source" business that I've been hearing everywhere. I agree it's a really good idea to treat the problem at its source, but that obviously entails keeping the problem largely at its source while we try to treat it. Ebola is not going to get any easier to stamp out if we let it swamp all the first-world hospitals, too.