Kirk Allen and John Kraft — two military veterans — live in Edgar County which just might be the most corrupt county in the country. For a couple of watchdogs, it’s a target rich environment.... Considering the fact that, according to Forbes, their home county’s government has racked up over $79 million in debt all on its own while serving only 18,000 residents, Kraft and Allen have their work cut out for them....That's citizenship.
In what was one of their most epic displays of political crime-fighting, which was captured on video, Allen and Kraft held the entire Clark County Park District Board under citizen’s arrest on May 13, 2014, for violating the Illinois Open Meetings Act, a Class C misdemeanor.
When asked if there would be public comment, one of the board members said, “I vote no.” Followed by five other board members.
Board attorney, Kate Yargus, could be heard on video saying there would be no public comment that night, and told the board members they were “free to go,” even after Kraft’s citizen’s arrest announcement. She tried to cite statute to Kraft, but before she could finish, he said, “Just sit down, you are making yourself look like a fool.”
Deputies were dispatched to the scene, but instead, Clark County Sheriff, Jerry Parsley, personally responded that night. Parsley said he knew it was a heated situation and felt it would be best if he handled it. He said that Kraft handled the citizen’s arrest responsibly, and the board was definitely in violation of the Open Meetings Act by not allowing the public to speak.
“It’s not that they should have. They’re mandated to,” Parsley said. “The people need to have their voice. It’s not a dictatorship. It’s a democracy.”
The sheriff arrested six of the board members. The seventh board member was not arrested because he voted against the other members. As they were escorted out of the building, the crowd cheered.
Citizen's Arrest
Now this is rather inspiring.
Price Signals Work
At least, they work if they aren't entirely hidden from the consumer.
Prices for common medical tests like mammograms and MRIs are notoriously opaque. Negotiated rates between insurance companies and doctors or hospitals are sealed tight by contract. We know there's price variation, but comparing what one insurance company pays versus another is virtually impossible. That's why we here at KQED in San Francisco turned to members of our audience to help us find out what medical tests and devices cost....How can market functions hold costs down if we have no way of comparing the costs? Competition doesn't work at all in an environment like this.
We thought we would find variation, and indeed we did. In California, commercial insurers paid from $128 to $694 for a screening mammogram. In Los Angeles, one woman's insurer paid $600 more than the lowest-cost screening mammogram reported in the area. "I'm sure every woman who's had a mammogram had the exact same experience I did," this woman said. "It was a friendly technician, but I don't think that's worth maybe 600 extra dollars."
In lower-back MRIs, we found that for CPT code 72148, insurers paid from $467 to $1,567. But when we looked beyond commercial insurers, we found even greater variation — from a low of $255 to a self-pay price of $6,221 at an academic medical center. That $255 MRI was paid by Medicare, and was just a fraction of the facility's charge of $2,450.
At Risk
H. R. McMaster's speech at Georgetown included the following charges:
The warrior ethos is at risk because fewer and fewer Americans are connected to our professional military. Separation from our society is consequential because warriors depend on respect for what they do to maintain their self-respect.It was not always thus.
The warrior ethos is at risk because fewer and fewer Americans understand what is at stake in the wars in which we are engaged. How many Americans could, for example, name the three main Taliban organizations we are fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
The warrior ethos is at risk because some argue that victory over an enemy or winning in war is an old idea that is no longer relevant in today’s complex world.
The warrior ethos is at risk because some continue to advocate simple, mainly technologically based solutions to the problem of future war, ignoring war’s very nature as a human and political activity that is fundamentally a contest of wills.
The warrior ethos is at risk because popular culture waters down and coarsens the warrior ethos. Warriors are most often portrayed as fragile traumatized human beings. Hollywood tells us little about the warrior’s calling or commitment to his or her fellow warriors or what compels him or her to act courageously, endure hardships, take risks, or make sacrifices.
Somebody Broke Cass
Possibly me. If so, I've done myself a great harm, because her place has been one of the first things I've read each day for years.
Since she's disabled comments, I'll say here: I'll miss you. Fighting with you was one of my very favorite things. I'm guessing it wasn't always fun, but you asked for it, and it was always meant as a mark of respect. I'd rather fight with you than agree with almost anyone. That's why I kept doing it.
Pax tecum.
Since she's disabled comments, I'll say here: I'll miss you. Fighting with you was one of my very favorite things. I'm guessing it wasn't always fun, but you asked for it, and it was always meant as a mark of respect. I'd rather fight with you than agree with almost anyone. That's why I kept doing it.
Pax tecum.
The Reverend Horton Heat
I mentioned this band in conversation at Cass' place, and it occurs to me that some of you might appreciate them.
Good one, Glen
Prof. Reynolds paraphrases the President: I did not mislead the American public with that man, Jonathan Gruber.
Double Heh
I know not everyone here is a fan of Anonymous, but surely we can all enjoy this little tale of the time the Klan decided to declare a cyber war on the hackers.
As Jayne Cobb would say, "Saw that comin'."
As Jayne Cobb would say, "Saw that comin'."
Heh
This plays into the point I was making last week about business suits. The only function they serve is to signal that you are of a man of a certain class and status. Though men who don't wear them professionally may own one to wear to funerals, they are chiefly worn as a kind of costume that signals a professional purpose. It is possible to 'keep up with the styles' in suits, but it is also possible to purchase simple, classic cuts that don't go in or out of fashion especially. There were very limited rules governing the wearing of such suits even when etiquette was much more binding and universal than it is today. You don't wear a brown suit in the city, or once upon a time you didn't; but you can wear a charcoal suit pretty much anywhere but a truly formal occasion and expect to be well-received.
So we don't really look at the suit. It's not an outfit, it's not a fashion, it's a signal. Once we've received the signal, we don't really even see the suit itself. It doesn't matter what it looks like. Of course no one noticed. No one even looked at it.
He asks a really interesting question about halfway through the video about whether the differential treatment of men and women with regard to professional clothing is sexism, which he suggests -- and the female anchor agrees -- it may not be.
I would say that's right: it's differential treatment, but it's something particular about the business suit for men. If a man wears something besides a suit on a professional occasion, he certainly may be noticed! Lucy Steigerwald can take comfort in being right about this:
Dear feminists, I may be more contrarian than average. But I strongly suspect I am not the only person completely repulsed by your petty myopia. I am not of the right, but you’re certainly not making liberalism or feminism anything I wish to be affiliated with.I have heard the same opinion expressed by four very different people I know, one of them an extremely left-leaning academic of tremendous age. He did not ascribe the dustup to "feminism" but to "political correctness," for which he has no use regardless of who is involved. In his opinion, the shirt was tasteless, but the reaction was entirely out of proportion, especially given the occasion.
He also made a point I've heard several times from Glenn Reynolds, which is that the enforcers of political correctness have no real talents or accomplishments to balance against this man's, who helped land a spaceship on a comet hundreds of millions of miles away, the first time it's ever been done. It's a good point, which Eric Blair usually expresses: "Deeds, not words."
An Ally of a Sort
The British navy is so famous in history that no one may have recently asked just how potent it remains today.
When the Royal Navy has 38 admirals for 29 warships, the problem is not the 38 admirals, unless you are a British taxpayer (God help you). The problem, for the rest of us, is that one of the West’s great fighting forces only has 29 warships.... The Brits have no aircraft carriers, no cruisers, and a flawed and failing force of destroyers and submarines....The thing about the Marine Corps is that it is a corps in size: that is, a force that comes from combining divisions and some separates. Thus, the total force available to defend the realm is only half a corps: a division or two, at most. The article estimates they could currently deploy only one brigade.
This is not just a problem of too few ships for the heirs of Nelson. The British Army and RAF also faced cuts in personnel and capabilities following the 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review—and the security review of 2003, and that of 1998, and of 1990. As a result, the British Army is now about half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps.
Reaper
The Deep Army speaks:
A video posted online claims to show that ISIS militants have killed the captured US aid worker and former Army Ranger - Peter Kassig...It's a debt of honor. Be sure we will pay it.
USAWTFM: To those responsible, maybe tomorrow, next month, maybe twenty years from now someone wearing an arrowhead patch will cut your heart out while you are watching.
Net Neutrality
Touché, you little viper
John Roberts unfairly tries to force a redistricting lawyer to explain how race-based policies can be implemented without making race the predominant consideration.
Do You Sometimes Use A Chainsaw to Fell Trees?
If the answer to this question is "yes," you're entitled to the respect that deserves (which is substantial -- it's a dangerous bit of work if the tree is of any size). If you're a man and the answer to this question is "no," you may be mocked by women on the internet. Don't expect any sympathy from me, though.
Instead, go learn to use a chainsaw.
Instead, go learn to use a chainsaw.
The FBI and Mortal Sin
Somehow, although I am as historically aware as most Americans can be expected to be, I never knew until this morning that the FBI tried to get MLK to kill himself. The intense surveillance they deployed against him gave them a wealth of knowledge about his actions that they used to assemble this letter, which is disturbing but not surprising. That a police agency would attempt to fool one of its citizens into committing suicide is both horrible and shocking.
Of course, the FBI is only partially a police agency; they also think of themselves as a counterintelligence service. That is an inadequate excuse.
(H/t: InstaPundit.)
Of course, the FBI is only partially a police agency; they also think of themselves as a counterintelligence service. That is an inadequate excuse.
(H/t: InstaPundit.)
What would we do without Washington
AT&T pointed out that it would need to pause on $18 billion of fiber it intended to lay next year, while the FCC figures out whether it wants to demonize Internet profits to make the President happy. This provoked cries of "extortion," which is what we call it when someone says he's not going to provide a valuable service unless he's got a pretty good idea he can do it at a profit.
Only in Washington could a delay to seek regulatory clarity before spending $18 billion in shareholder money be called extortion. Even after six years of slow growth, the Obama crowd hasn’t figured out that punitive regulation reduces the incentive to invest.Well, we'll just force them to invest! And if that doesn't work, we'll confiscate their money and let the public sector do a great job instead, with their proven track record of achieving miracles by avoiding the evil profit motive, which is how socialist countries get so rich and ensure that all their citizens have a decent standard of living.
Stirring up the hairstyle
Not much ever happens to my hair. It's reached a certain length at which entropy just keeps pace with growth. If I'm not asleep, it's tied back in a ponytail. It gets washed from time to time. If I were looking for some high-maintenance options for generating a little drama, though, I couldn't do much better than these. Dang.
Dress and modesty
From "Kit and Kitty," a 1890 novel by R.D. Blackmore, who had no affection for ostentatious dress:
The Gutenberg work continues to engross me. I've done about 30,000 pages.
When I opened the door, I saw a very pretty girl, but no more to be compared with my darling Kitty, than a tulip with a lily of the valley. Although it was close upon winter now, she had a striped parasol, which I detest; and her velvet hat (turned down over one ear, and turned up at the other) had two kingfisher's wings stuck crosswise, and between them a gorgeous topaz humming-bird. You might look at my Kitty fifty times; and if any one asked you how she was dressed, you would have to say, "I have not the least idea," if you happened not to be a woman. But this young lady's attire compelled attention, and perhaps deserved it.All of Blackmore's works but 1869's "Lorna Doone" have gone out of print, says Wikipedia, which is a shame, because they're delightful. He was a great favorite of Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, and James Barrie. Luckily, Project Gutenberg has quite a few of Blackmore's works and soon will have more, including "Kit and Kitty."
The Gutenberg work continues to engross me. I've done about 30,000 pages.
There's "Colonel."
Also "Sergeant," "Captain," and "Doctor."
For all my marriage has given me, all it has allowed me to be and to experience, there is no title to recognize that. It’s just ‘mister,’ for every man.I prefer to be addressed by my first name: "Sir."
SWF (Sperm Whale Fishery)
Thus did Melville suggest whalers signify their profession on their calling cards.
I wonder if we're seeing the end of fishing entirely, as we have already seen the end of sperm-whale fishing.
I wonder if we're seeing the end of fishing entirely, as we have already seen the end of sperm-whale fishing.
"This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont... "If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds.
Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries.
Silent Beach Spring
This environmental scare piece about sand depletion reminded us of the old joke about what would happen if the USSR took over the Sahara Desert: "For five years, nothing, and then a sand shortage."
Sine Qua Non
What would America be without men like these?
A few months later, Nate's battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel William Seely, traveling the country to visit the parents of his fallen Marines, came to see the Krissoff family. Bill and Austin took him for a hike around Lake Tahoe's Emerald Bay, and Bill asked Seely about medical care for Marines in Iraq. Seely told him that every Marine battalion deploys with a surgeon and numerous medics, all from the Navy. As Seely described the role of the battalion surgeon, the penny dropped for Bill.So a little while later...
That's what I want to do, he thought. I want to be a battalion surgeon.
Bill was as lean as his boys. He stayed fit by biking, hiking, kayaking, and skiing. He figured he could meet the military's physical requirements, so he called up a Navy recruiter in San Francisco and offered up his services. The recruiter posed a series of questions. Finally, he asked how old Bill was.
"Sixty," Bill said.
"Um, that's a problem," the recruiter replied. "You're too old." Anyone over forty-two who wants to join the Navy Reserve medical corps needs an age waiver, the recruiter explained. He wasn't optimistic about the possibility of a sixty-year-old obtaining one.
Three days after meeting Bush, Krissoff received a phone call from the same Navy recruiter who had scoffed at his request to join a few months earlier. "I have orders to meet with you by the end of the day," the recruiter said. When Krissoff replied that he was trailering a horse with his wife and could not immediately drive down to San Francisco -- three hours away by car -- the recruiter was undeterred. "I'm coming up to see you," he said.
Drive On
Very late getting to it today, due to computer problems. I'll try to make it up with this piece from none other than Johnny Cash. It's not one of his more famous pieces, so it may even be new to some of you.
Drive on, warriors.
UPDATE: How about one from Hank Williams, Sr?
Drive on, warriors.
UPDATE: How about one from Hank Williams, Sr?
Differential Treatment
One of the cases Cass and I have tangled over a few times back in 2012 is the case of Rick Santorum's children going to a Pennsylvania public school though he spent most of the year living in Leesburg, VA. I thought Santorum's point was valid -- he owned a house in the appropriate district, paid the taxes on that home which funded the school system, and the fact that his official duties as a senator from Pennsylvania kept him near Washington most of the time shouldn't imply that he ceases to be a citizen of the state (and city) which elected him to represent them in Washington. Cass thinks it's a violation of the rules, and breaking the rules for your personal advantage is dishonest and dishonorable.
The saga ended with the Santorums withdrawing their children and homeschooling them. The state of Pennsylvania tried to get them to pay its estimate of what it cost to have those students in the school, but failed to collect. (It is unclear to me why the Santorums should be asked to pay in any case: they'd already paid their taxes, both there and in Leesburg. At most the one school district should have billed the other, not asked for a third payment on top of the two sets of property taxes already paid, either of which should have guaranteed access to education. But I digress)
I bring it up today not to tug at Cassandra's braids, but to inquire after the very different treatment encountered in a similar case.
1) McDowell is black, Santorum white. It is not clear that this difference is relevant, but a great deal of internet commentary has focused on the fact that she is black, so it's necessary to mention it.
2) She is poor, and he is rich. Rich enough to afford good lawyers, for example, who could keep the matter at bay. She seems to have plead largely because of the stress of the process (as Mark Steyn often says, when it comes to American law, the process is often the punishment).
3) She was homeless, and so paid no property taxes anywhere. Santorum paid property taxes in both school districts. Her child's right to a free education does not actually depend on her paying any taxes, or owning any homes, but the fact that she paid nothing to anyone does create a differential with the Senator, who had in fact paid everything he would have been asked to pay.
4) It is difficult to say where a homeless person's district properly is. The state elected to proceed with this method presumably out of a desire to keep homeless people from living in vans parked in the districts of richer citizens -- a kind of anti-vagrancy method. In the Santorum case, they did actually own property in both districts, paid the taxes on both, and lived in both places during different parts of the year. So the difficulty came not from them not having a home, but from interpreting the rules governing someone who owns more than one home.
5) She is a nobody, and he is a sitting Senator.
6) Different state laws are relevant: her case happened in Connecticut, not in Pennsylvania or Virginia.
In any case, the different outcomes are noteworthy. In the case of Santorum, the punishment was a lot of news stories that tarnished (for some) his standing as a candidate for President. Even if they'd gotten what they wanted out of him, it would have been a repayment of costs. In the case of McDowell, she also didn't repay the costs -- because she couldn't possibly, not because she won the argument. But nobody seems to have even suggested that the Senator should go to jail for fraud over the matter, whereas McDowell is going down for five years.
That last fact strikes me as madness, even given all the differentials in the cases. What is it going to benefit the state of Connecticut to pay to feed and house and guard her for five years? Clearly she is no danger to anyone, and the motive for her crime -- if crime it really ought to be -- was merely to seek what any mother ought to want for her child.
We don't have a very good answer to homelessness, especially not to trying to help the children of the homeless escape a similar fate. Even so this is a terrible stab at an answer, separating a mother who loves her child from that child, sending the mother to prison for half a decade, and sending the child to whatever the state's uncaring institutions devise.
Perhaps Senator Santorum ought to lobby for a pardon for her. It would be just for him to do so.
The saga ended with the Santorums withdrawing their children and homeschooling them. The state of Pennsylvania tried to get them to pay its estimate of what it cost to have those students in the school, but failed to collect. (It is unclear to me why the Santorums should be asked to pay in any case: they'd already paid their taxes, both there and in Leesburg. At most the one school district should have billed the other, not asked for a third payment on top of the two sets of property taxes already paid, either of which should have guaranteed access to education. But I digress)
I bring it up today not to tug at Cassandra's braids, but to inquire after the very different treatment encountered in a similar case.
A mother who pleaded guilty to fraudulently enrolling her six-year-old son in the wrong school district has been sentenced to five years in prison. Tonya McDowell sent her son to an elementary school in Norwalk, Connecticut, instead of her home city of Bridgeport. The 34-year-old, who was homeless when she was charged with felony larceny last year, said she wanted the best education possible for the boy.There are differences in the cases.
1) McDowell is black, Santorum white. It is not clear that this difference is relevant, but a great deal of internet commentary has focused on the fact that she is black, so it's necessary to mention it.
2) She is poor, and he is rich. Rich enough to afford good lawyers, for example, who could keep the matter at bay. She seems to have plead largely because of the stress of the process (as Mark Steyn often says, when it comes to American law, the process is often the punishment).
3) She was homeless, and so paid no property taxes anywhere. Santorum paid property taxes in both school districts. Her child's right to a free education does not actually depend on her paying any taxes, or owning any homes, but the fact that she paid nothing to anyone does create a differential with the Senator, who had in fact paid everything he would have been asked to pay.
4) It is difficult to say where a homeless person's district properly is. The state elected to proceed with this method presumably out of a desire to keep homeless people from living in vans parked in the districts of richer citizens -- a kind of anti-vagrancy method. In the Santorum case, they did actually own property in both districts, paid the taxes on both, and lived in both places during different parts of the year. So the difficulty came not from them not having a home, but from interpreting the rules governing someone who owns more than one home.
5) She is a nobody, and he is a sitting Senator.
6) Different state laws are relevant: her case happened in Connecticut, not in Pennsylvania or Virginia.
In any case, the different outcomes are noteworthy. In the case of Santorum, the punishment was a lot of news stories that tarnished (for some) his standing as a candidate for President. Even if they'd gotten what they wanted out of him, it would have been a repayment of costs. In the case of McDowell, she also didn't repay the costs -- because she couldn't possibly, not because she won the argument. But nobody seems to have even suggested that the Senator should go to jail for fraud over the matter, whereas McDowell is going down for five years.
That last fact strikes me as madness, even given all the differentials in the cases. What is it going to benefit the state of Connecticut to pay to feed and house and guard her for five years? Clearly she is no danger to anyone, and the motive for her crime -- if crime it really ought to be -- was merely to seek what any mother ought to want for her child.
We don't have a very good answer to homelessness, especially not to trying to help the children of the homeless escape a similar fate. Even so this is a terrible stab at an answer, separating a mother who loves her child from that child, sending the mother to prison for half a decade, and sending the child to whatever the state's uncaring institutions devise.
Perhaps Senator Santorum ought to lobby for a pardon for her. It would be just for him to do so.
Hmm
From a long article attacking conservative ideas about poverty, some thoughts on the collapse of marriage among the lower and middle class:
The author got around to studying men in poor communities too, though it took some effort. "Edin [says] she'd never been interested in studying men. 'It's fun to write about people with a strong heroic element to the story,' she says. 'Women have that. Men don't have that.'"
But the men she talked to had yet another surprising attitude: they thought having kids out of wedlock was a good thing they were doing in the world. It was a way of adding something hopeful and promising to an otherwise bleak landscape.
A whole lot of the thinking going on in the article will not be what you expect, both from the authors and from their subjects.
Next Edin took up the question of why low-income mothers so often put childbearing before marriage. Far from eschewing marriage as an institution, she found, poor women idealized it to such an extent that it became unattainable. They didn't believe that a marriage born in poverty could survive.Emphasis added.
In a society that increasingly saw marriage as a choice, not a requirement, low-income women were embracing the same preconditions as middle-class women. They wanted to be "set" before marrying, with economic independence to ensure a more equitable partnership and a fallback should things go bad. They also wanted men who were mature, stable, and who had mortgages and other signs of adulthood, not just jobs.
"People were embracing higher and higher standards for marriage," Edin explains. From a financial standpoint alone, "the men that would have been marriageable [in the 1950s] are no longer marriageable now. That's a cultural change." The low-income women in Edin's study reported that decent, trustworthy, available men were in short supply in their communities, where there were often major sex imbalances thanks to high incarceration rates....
Marriage was so taboo among her subjects that Edin discovered two couples in her sample who claimed they were unmarried at the time of their babies' birth but were actually not. One of the women had even been chewed out by her grandmother for marrying the father of one of her children.
The author got around to studying men in poor communities too, though it took some effort. "Edin [says] she'd never been interested in studying men. 'It's fun to write about people with a strong heroic element to the story,' she says. 'Women have that. Men don't have that.'"
But the men she talked to had yet another surprising attitude: they thought having kids out of wedlock was a good thing they were doing in the world. It was a way of adding something hopeful and promising to an otherwise bleak landscape.
A whole lot of the thinking going on in the article will not be what you expect, both from the authors and from their subjects.
Listen to the Experts
In the event our civilization ever does follow Grim's ideas (which I partly share) and reintroduces corporal punishment as an alternative to prison...it will be important to consider the testimony of expert floggers from the past in deciding "what for" and "how much." One of the all-time experts was doubtless the Duke of Wellington himself, in his testimony before the Commission on Military Punishments, and part of it is given here.
There is no punishment which makes an impression upon anybody except corporal punishment. You send a man into solitary confinement; nobody sees him in solitary confinement, and nobody knows what he is suffering while he is in solitary confinement, and therefore this punishment is no example to the thousand men who are there upon the parade at the same time. The man may suffer so much in solitary confinement as that he will not be guilty of the offence again; but that is not the principle of punishment—that is not the intention oepunishment. The real meaning of punishment, if it means any thing, is example—it is to prevent others, by the example of what they see the criminal suffer, from committing the same or a similar offence...I am aware that lately, in the gaols of this country in general, a system of solitary confinemeat has been adopted and silence enforced. I do not know how far this has answered...but I understand that in America, for instance, at Sing Sing, and at some other places, the resource is corporal punishment...Here are a few other quotes from testimony before the commission, including a couple of exchanges with Wellington.
Q: "Must not a certain time elapse before corporal punishment can be inflicted, on account of the proceedings of the court martial?"If the Good Old Duke was right, deterrence works, and speed is of the essence. Lieutenant-Colonel Fane, at the second link, seemed to agree:
A: "There was a very summary proceeding, which is now discontinued, which is called a drum-head court martial; but the man is brought to a court martial as soon as possible. A court martial is ordered; the forms take a certain time, but the man is sure of being tried, and, if convicted, of being punished. But, besides this punishment by court martial, there is in all [British] Armies the provost. I do not mean to say that the provost could be used for the purpose of enforcing an order of that description, but the provost is always liable to be used to prevent any irregularity: for instance, if there is a system of plunder going on, the provost is ordered to prevent it, and he punishes those taken in fact on the spot."
Q: "Towards the latter time of your service in the Peninsula, was corporal punishment very frequent in the Army, or more frequent than it had been in the beginning?"
A: "I cannot say that I know exactly how it was in the regiments. I rather believe it was not so frequent. I am positively certain that crime had most enormously diminished; that there was not one crime for one hundred that there were in the beginning of the time. I think my orders shew it. There was a man convicted of robbery; and I pardoned him, because the crime had become so rare...
Q: "Do you conceive that the Army, when it left France from the Pyrenees, was in as efficient state for service as an Army can well be brought to?"
A: "I always thought that I could have gone anywhere and done anything with that Army. It was impossible to have a machine more highly mounted and in better order, and in a better state of discipline than that Army was. When I quitted that Army upon the Garonne, I do not think it was possible to see anything at a higher state of discipline; and I believe there was total discontinuance of all punishment."
Q: "Have you seen cases in which the infliction of corporal punishment has failed in reforming the individuals punished, but, on the contrary, has rather hardened their feelings, and made them more reckless?"
A: "I think, in the course of my military life, I have seen one or two desperate characters that nothing would have reclaimed; and that very severe punishment in their cases tended more to harden than reclaim them."
Q: "Though such men are generally repeatedly punished in that way?"
A: "They have been; but I have also seen men when on service, who, knowing that the punishment of death would be awarded to them for the crime, which was plunder, persevere in it, until they heard or saw the provost-marshal was coming up in the rear of the division. I mean to say, by that, that I think the fear of immediate corporal punishment had more effect upon them than the chance of being tried and hanged."
Long Live the Queen
We will never forget how she sang the Star Spangled Banner after 9/11. Today, as we approach what the British call "Remembrance Day," England's gentlemen stopped a knife attack against her person.
The Sun reported that four men who had planned a savage knife attack on the Queen were arrested yesterday.... Threats on British troops and in the London streets have accelerated since the U.K. joined in the mission to take out ISIS in August, but terror activities had been ongoing. 69 suspected terrorists have been arrested in 2014. 13 of those were after the announcement that British Special Forces were to hunt the members of ISIS, among them radicalized Brits in Iraq who executed two Brits among other Extremists members.
Repeal the 17th!
About ten years ago, then Senator Zell Miller introduced legislation to repeal the 17th Amendment. At the time it was a new idea to me, and I was unprepared to take sides on it in spite of the endorsement of the idea by the one man in Washington I most respected. Here's what he said at the time.
It ends on a happy note. The 18th Amendment was repealed. Why not the other two?
[N]o matter who you send to Washington -- for the most part smart and decent people -- it is not going to change much.Bill Whittle has a new piece on the subject, putting it in the context of the whole set of amendments that came out of the Progressive Era of American politics. The 16th was all about income taxes, to give the Federal government new wealth and power to act; the 18th about Prohibition, to give the Federal government new power to reach into the lives of every American and restrain their personal choice about what to drink with dinner. And the 17th, well...
The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic.
It is the system that stinks. And it's only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists.
Perhaps then the answer is a return to the original thinking of those wisest of all men, and how they intended for this government to function.
Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this generation of leaders some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, dead, dead. It isn't even on life support. That line on the monitor went flat sometime ago.
You see, the reformers of the early 1900's killed it dead and cremated the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators.
Up until then, U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures, as Madison and Hamilton had so carefully crafted.
Direct elections of senators, as good as that sounds, allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it's filling judicial vacancies or issuing regulations.
The state governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along with the popular fad of the time.... As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other.
The election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures was the linchpin that guaranteed the interests of the states would be protected.
It ends on a happy note. The 18th Amendment was repealed. Why not the other two?
Coitado de quem só pensa o mal
I just returned from a little vacation in Portugal and Spain. (And discovered that Google doesn't trust me to log into applications like Blogger or even the comments...it wanted to confirm with text messages I couldn't receive, or by my having set up code numbers I didn't know about before.) But this tale has waited centuries for you to hear it and is no worse for a week or two more.
We visited the National Palace of Sintra, in Portugal, supposedly the westernmost palace in Europe. It started as a Moorish fortress but passed to the kings of Portugal in the old, familiar way.
I particularly enjoyed the legend of the Magpie Chamber, whose ceiling is painted with over a hundred magpies:
Each of those magpies is carrying a rose in one claw, and a scroll in its beak that says Por Beme (“for the good”).
The legend is that Queen Philippa walked in on King João I of Portugal when he was kissing one of her ladies-in-waiting, and the flustered monarch stammered out the words “Por Bem”…as if to say, this was perfectly innocent; a kiss is just a kiss.
The queen accepted it, but talk went around, as talk will…and the story is that the king had the ceiling painted to spite the chatterboxes. Each magpie carries a red rose in its claw, as a symbol of the King’s loyalty to his queen (a daughter of John of Gaunt, and thus a member of the House of Lancaster ). And each carries a scroll in its beak reading POR BEM.
True or not, I liked the story because it reminded me of Edward III and the Knights of the Garter. Thus the title of my post, courtesy of Mrs. W. In Portuguese: “Poor of him who only thinks of evil.”
And if that “coitado” made you think it was something naughty, well, then, Honi soit qui mal y pense.
We visited the National Palace of Sintra, in Portugal, supposedly the westernmost palace in Europe. It started as a Moorish fortress but passed to the kings of Portugal in the old, familiar way.
I particularly enjoyed the legend of the Magpie Chamber, whose ceiling is painted with over a hundred magpies:
Each of those magpies is carrying a rose in one claw, and a scroll in its beak that says Por Beme (“for the good”).
The legend is that Queen Philippa walked in on King João I of Portugal when he was kissing one of her ladies-in-waiting, and the flustered monarch stammered out the words “Por Bem”…as if to say, this was perfectly innocent; a kiss is just a kiss.
The queen accepted it, but talk went around, as talk will…and the story is that the king had the ceiling painted to spite the chatterboxes. Each magpie carries a red rose in its claw, as a symbol of the King’s loyalty to his queen (a daughter of John of Gaunt, and thus a member of the House of Lancaster ). And each carries a scroll in its beak reading POR BEM.
True or not, I liked the story because it reminded me of Edward III and the Knights of the Garter. Thus the title of my post, courtesy of Mrs. W. In Portuguese: “Poor of him who only thinks of evil.”
And if that “coitado” made you think it was something naughty, well, then, Honi soit qui mal y pense.
She Might Be Right About This One
CampusReform is calling attention to the writings of a feminist professor who wants to eliminate prison for women. The argument she's forwarding is better than the soundbite version of it, though. "Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men. It is the case against the prison industrial complex and for community-based treatment where it works better than incarceration."
If you formalize what she is calling that essential argument, it sounds reasonable:
1) (Fact) The majority of offenders are nonviolent but poorly educated persons who have suffered abuse in their lives.
2) (Assumption) Offenders of this kind should be rehabilitated rather than destroyed or permanently removed from society.
3) (Fact) Prison is very expensive, involves significant harm to persons, and shows poor outcomes in rehabilitation.
4) (Fact) Community intervention centers show a much better rate of success at rehabilitation. ("The program coordinator has told me that 68 percent of the women who completed the program had no further involvement with the criminal justice system.")
5) (Conclusion) Therefore, for the class of nonviolent offenders, community intervention centers are better options than prisons.
I've marked as "facts" those assertions that can be empirically verified. Facts, for this purpose, are statements that could be true or false. If the facts she asserts are true, and you share the moral principle she is assuming in premise (2), the conclusion seems to follow.
You get to "no women should ever go to prison" only by the magic of clever headlines designed to draw eyes. However, it is true that this would largely eliminate women from prisons; there aren't that many women in prisons to start with, and she estimates this kind of program could remove 80% of those few.
I would argue that prisons are such a bad option that we should eliminate them generally, replacing them with a three-tiered system of financial, corporal and capital punishments. That would involve a significant expansion of capital punishment, though, to deal with the kind of un-reformable cases we currently pay vast fortunes to keep in prisons. Corporal punishment likewise is often a reasonable alternative: for example, English law in the 15th century held that rapists should be castrated or executed, understanding that the castration often was adequate. We tend to argue that corporal punishment is too great a violation of human dignity to employ, but the truth is that prison involves substantial informal capital punishment and ongoing violations of human dignity: exposure to rape and beatings, periodic strip searches by authorities, etc. If we are honest with ourselves about that, we see that we aren't choosing not to violate human dignity, but choosing between options that violate dignity. Of these, corporal punishment may often be the lesser violation.
Both the increase in capital punishment and the re-introduction of corporal punishment are very much against the current mood of the American people. I'm not expecting Congress to pass a law in the next few years pursuing this set of options; I just think, philosophically, that it's a better set of options. Prisons create people who are permanently unemployable and dangerous, and they require prison guards who are also at risk of significant moral harm from their duty to act in ways that violate human dignity in a regular and ongoing basis. We'd be better off if we could move towards a nation in which we did not have so many prisoners, nor so many prisons.
In the meanwhile, this professor's proposal might be a reasonable place to start.
UPDATE: The comment crew at Hot Air responds to the proposal 'America should stop putting women in jail for anything' with:
"+1. Front line combat duty instead."
If you formalize what she is calling that essential argument, it sounds reasonable:
1) (Fact) The majority of offenders are nonviolent but poorly educated persons who have suffered abuse in their lives.
2) (Assumption) Offenders of this kind should be rehabilitated rather than destroyed or permanently removed from society.
3) (Fact) Prison is very expensive, involves significant harm to persons, and shows poor outcomes in rehabilitation.
4) (Fact) Community intervention centers show a much better rate of success at rehabilitation. ("The program coordinator has told me that 68 percent of the women who completed the program had no further involvement with the criminal justice system.")
5) (Conclusion) Therefore, for the class of nonviolent offenders, community intervention centers are better options than prisons.
I've marked as "facts" those assertions that can be empirically verified. Facts, for this purpose, are statements that could be true or false. If the facts she asserts are true, and you share the moral principle she is assuming in premise (2), the conclusion seems to follow.
You get to "no women should ever go to prison" only by the magic of clever headlines designed to draw eyes. However, it is true that this would largely eliminate women from prisons; there aren't that many women in prisons to start with, and she estimates this kind of program could remove 80% of those few.
I would argue that prisons are such a bad option that we should eliminate them generally, replacing them with a three-tiered system of financial, corporal and capital punishments. That would involve a significant expansion of capital punishment, though, to deal with the kind of un-reformable cases we currently pay vast fortunes to keep in prisons. Corporal punishment likewise is often a reasonable alternative: for example, English law in the 15th century held that rapists should be castrated or executed, understanding that the castration often was adequate. We tend to argue that corporal punishment is too great a violation of human dignity to employ, but the truth is that prison involves substantial informal capital punishment and ongoing violations of human dignity: exposure to rape and beatings, periodic strip searches by authorities, etc. If we are honest with ourselves about that, we see that we aren't choosing not to violate human dignity, but choosing between options that violate dignity. Of these, corporal punishment may often be the lesser violation.
Both the increase in capital punishment and the re-introduction of corporal punishment are very much against the current mood of the American people. I'm not expecting Congress to pass a law in the next few years pursuing this set of options; I just think, philosophically, that it's a better set of options. Prisons create people who are permanently unemployable and dangerous, and they require prison guards who are also at risk of significant moral harm from their duty to act in ways that violate human dignity in a regular and ongoing basis. We'd be better off if we could move towards a nation in which we did not have so many prisoners, nor so many prisons.
In the meanwhile, this professor's proposal might be a reasonable place to start.
UPDATE: The comment crew at Hot Air responds to the proposal 'America should stop putting women in jail for anything' with:
"+1. Front line combat duty instead."
We had to lie
Yeah, we lied and we played hide the ball, but that's what it took to get the bill passed, so what choice did we have? And now, what, the Supreme Court is going to enforce the stuff that we wrote that way on purpose to induce people to misunderstand us? How fair is that?
"This All Comes Down To Nine Words In The Law..."
"...where arguably the government was unclear."
So says Ezra Klein about the new dagger at the throat of Obamacare, either because of a lack of understanding or because that is what he has been asked to say.
Still, if you watch his video, at exactly the 1:00 mark you can see that the highlighted section goes on a little bit longer: something about "under 1311"? What's that all about?
Now Klein has spoken to all manner of politicians who swear up and down that this was some sort of drafting error. All of us who remember the actual debate probably remember that this was an intentional plan to try to force the hands of the states.
Leave that aside, though. Pretend the words "established by the States" aren't present. Grant them their rewrite of the entire highlighted section of the law -- the 'nine words.'
Section 1311 isn't what authorizes these other exchanges to exist. Thus, if this 'all comes down to nine words,' we should win on the merits. You can take the nine words back, and it won't make any difference.
So says Ezra Klein about the new dagger at the throat of Obamacare, either because of a lack of understanding or because that is what he has been asked to say.
Still, if you watch his video, at exactly the 1:00 mark you can see that the highlighted section goes on a little bit longer: something about "under 1311"? What's that all about?
There are three key sections of the bill: 1311 establishes state exchanges; 1321 establishes federal exchange; 1401 establishes premium assistance through subsidies. Sections 1311 and 1401 are tied together to show how to funnel subsidies through state exchanges. However, there is no parallel language to tie Section 1321 into a way to funnel subsidies through the federal exchange. Thus, the federal subsidy to states’ exchanges, according to Max Baucus one of the originators of the bill, was an incentive for states to comply with the law.So, in other words, even if you wipe out the "established by a State" language -- the way SCOTUS decided to re-author the individual mandate as a tax -- you still have the problem that the Federal exchanges were not established under section 1311. Their legal authority to exist does not come from that section of the law. Thus, the law does not support their receiving Federal subsidies.
Now Klein has spoken to all manner of politicians who swear up and down that this was some sort of drafting error. All of us who remember the actual debate probably remember that this was an intentional plan to try to force the hands of the states.
Leave that aside, though. Pretend the words "established by the States" aren't present. Grant them their rewrite of the entire highlighted section of the law -- the 'nine words.'
Section 1311 isn't what authorizes these other exchanges to exist. Thus, if this 'all comes down to nine words,' we should win on the merits. You can take the nine words back, and it won't make any difference.
Overtreatment
Even without a concerted effort to promote screening, thyroid cancer incidence in the United States is up threefold since 1975. To reverse this trend, we need to actively discourage early thyroid cancer detection.Sometimes early diagnosis just means treating people who would have been fine, and for whom the risks of treatment are greater than the risks of the "disease."
Employer mandates
The Washington Examiner is sorting through what it might mean if the Supreme Court enforces the letter of the ObamaCare law and disallows federal subsidies in states that refused to set up their own insurance exchanges. Some consequences are fairly obvious, but this is one I hadn't thought about:
The (currently delayed) requirement for larger businesses to purchase insurance for their workers or pay penalties is triggered in cases in which at least one employee obtains government subsidies to purchase insurance. In states where subsidies cannot be distributed, the penalties won't apply. Therefore, a ruling against the government could set up a scenario in which businesses want to flock to states with federal exchanges as a way of getting around the employer mandate.
Mandate for moats
RedState is not feeling conciliatory:
Republicans ran this year on very little of substance. Their brand ID is still very underwater with the American public. There is no program right now that the American public is clamoring for the Republicans to undertake with one exception: they hate what President Obama is doing and they want Republicans to stop it. Exit poll after exit poll last night showed that the single most important thing in the minds of the voters this year was the looming shadow of death Obama cast on all his Democrat allies.
If voters really wanted people who would work closely with Obama and other Democrats to “get things done,” they would have just voted for more Democrats. After all, virtually every elected Democrat has “worked with” Obama (in the sense of doing exactly everything he asked) for the last six solid years. Say what you want about the information level of the average voter, but absolutely no one was confused into thinking that they were replacing a Democrat with a Republican in the hopes that the Republican would be more friendly to the Democrat agenda.
Common ground
There are Republicans--even conservatives!--with agendas, even if they're not in the leadership. Mike Lee is a coherent kind of guy:
We should find common ground that advances our agenda, rather than let the idea of common ground substitute for our agenda.
. . . In 2015, this “low-hanging fruit” we’ll hear about will be items like corporate tax reform, Obamacare’s medical device tax, patent reform, and perhaps the Keystone XL pipeline approval.
. . . Insofar as the pent-up K Street agenda includes good ideas, then by all means let’s pass those pieces by huge margins and send them to the president. But a new Republican majority must also make clear that our support for free enterprise cuts both ways—we’re pro-free market, not simply pro-business. To prove that point, we must target the crony capitalist policies that rig our economy for large corporations and special interests at the expense of everyone else—especially small and new businesses.
. . . Republicans should seek common ground between conservative principles and the interests and needs of the general public, not just between Washington Republicans and Washington Democrats. And the search for that genuinely common ground will point to a lot of low-hanging fruit too, even when it comes to the proper relationship between government and business. We could pass legislation winding down the Export-Import Bank or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. We could—and really, must—eliminate the taxpayer bailouts for big insurance companies in Obamacare’s “risk corridors” program. Or we could start to break up taxpayer subsidies for the energy industry or large agribusinesses.
Anti-cronyism legislation is win-win for the GOP. It is good policy, restoring growth and fairness to an economy that Big Government and Big Business have rigged against the little guy. And it’s even better politics, standing up for the middle class while pinning hypocritical Democrats between their egalitarian talking points and their elitist agenda.
Wymyn of color
I was told, as Cassandra so often says, that there would be no math in this election.
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.We all love the Navy SEALs (see esp. comment four), seriously... but there's a reason we get jokes like this.
“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.”
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."
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:
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.
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 forhim 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Yes, let's.
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.)
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!)Ok, well, how did that work out?
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.
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).Well, then. I suppose all's well that ends well, as the saying goes.
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.
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 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.
The contrast between the early questions and the last ones is painful.
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.
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.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 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."
The Quest for Philosophical Rigor
Drunk Frenchmen are psychopaths, which for some reason this study confuses with accurate philosophy.
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.
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.
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.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?
$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?
"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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)