Yours truly, though a lifelong Southern Democrat, is enough of a "Reagan Democrat" to have merited an invitation to the Red State Gathering this weekend. I was there with Uncle Jimbo, and we had an excellent time. The main feature was a set of speeches and Q&A with many of the Republican Presidential candidates. (Jim Webb, the leading Southern Democrat, did not attend and was probably not invited, but it would have been nice if he had been.) I'm going to give you my sense of them.
Donald Trump was going to speak on Saturday evening, but did not appear because Erick Erickson told him he was no longer welcome. This was because of Trump's remarks about a female reporter, which were as rude as they could possibly have been. We don't speak of ladies in that way in Georgia, and Erickson properly told him not to darken the door.
Before that, however, Trump had already made a small splash. What I heard from a sponsor was that the conference had been trying to get him to appear early on the first day, as Trump has his own 757 and could be there before anyone else. Trump's people refused, as they didn't want to have him speak early in the morning. So they the conference tried to schedule him at some other time, but his people put them off until all the slots were filled. Then Trump's people decided they wanted him to come, so the conference tried to help him by allowing him to speak at a separate location from the conference proper (the College Football Hall of Fame) where they were having the closing party. Trump's people accepted, and immediately began to tell reporters that he was the "keynote" speaker, and that Red State 'had to rent a larger hall to accommodate all his crowds.'
Nice.
Of the serious Presidential candidates, Jeb Bush was clearly the media favorite. The press mobbed him like no one else. He had almost no support in the hall, though: I only met one professed Jeb Bush supporter, a guy in a red-white-and-blue suit and tie ensemble who had purchased red, white, and blue custom leather wing-tip dress shoes to go with it.
Fiorina was a crowd favorite, but everyone is worried about her experience problem. She could help herself a lot if she could put together a kitchen cabinet because people would be much readier to support her if they knew she had top, competent people who had committed to being in her corner.
Rick Perry was there without a security detail. But, you know, he carries.
Uncle J was pleased by Walker, long his favored candidate, whom he thought presented himself as competent, experienced, and a proven winner.
For me, the two best speeches were given by Rubio and Cruz. They were quite different speeches. Both of them sounded like Ronald Reagan, but different Reagans.
Rubio's was a solid General Election speech. It was warm, hopeful, moving, filled with references to family and hope and economic progress. It reminded me of the later Reagan, the Reagan of his Farewell address in which he summed up all that America had accomplished in his tenure. You came away feeling like Rubio had a similar Morning-in-America vision, and honestly believes he could turn things around and make the place shine again.
Cruz did not give a speech of that kind. Cruz is out for blood.
His speech was a Reagan Insurgency speech, the kind of speech Reagan might have given before he won the nomination in 1980. Cruz is as angry at the Republican leadership in the Senate as he is at the Democrats. He outright accused them, in exactly these words, of "playing for the other team." He is furious about the direction of the country, and is committed to overthrowing the Republican leadership, gaining the Presidency, and overturning everything Obama ever did.
The crowd was really feeling it. They reacted to that speech like no other thing I saw. These people are out for blood too.
Good.
Speaking well
The Earl of Chesterfield's account of a bill he introduced in the House of Lords in 1751 to reform the Julian Calendar:
I acquainted you in a former letter that I had brought in a bill into the House of Lords, for correcting and reforming our present calendar, which is the Julian, and for adopting the Gregorian. . . . It was notorious, that the Julian calendar was erroneous, and had overcharged the solar year with eleven days. Pope Gregory XIII. corrected this error [in 1582]; . . . It was not, in my opinion, very honourable for England to remain in a gross and avowed error, especially in such company; the inconvenience of it was likewise felt by all those who had foreign correspondences whether political or mercantile. I determined, therefore, to attempt the reformation; I consulted the best lawyers, and the most skilful astronomers, and we cooked up a bill for that purpose. But then my difficulty began; I was to bring in this bill, which was necessarily composed of law jargon and astronomical calculations, to both of which I am an utter stranger. However, it was absolutely necessary to make the House of Lords think that I knew something of the matter, and also to make them believe that they knew something of it themselves, which they do not. For my own part, I could just as soon have talked Celtic or Sclavonian to them as astronomy, and they would have understood me full as well; so I resolved to do better than speak to the purpose, and to please instead of informing them. I gave them, therefore, only an historical account of calendars, from the Egyptian down to the Gregorian, amusing them now and then with little episodes; but I was particularly attentive to the choice of my words, to the harmony and roundness of my periods, to my eloquence, to my action. This succeeded, and ever will succeed; they thought I informed, because I pleased them; and many of them said, that I had made the whole very clear to them, when, God knows, I had not even attempted it. Lord Macclesfield, who had the greatest share in forming the bill and who is one of the greatest mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, spoke afterwards with infinite knowledge, and all the clearness that so intricate a matter would admit of; but as his words, his periods and his utterance were not near so good as mine, the preference was most unanimously, though most unjustly, given to me....
Salad
From The Holy State, by Thomas Fuller (1642):
[A]t our yeoman's table you shall have as many joints as dishes. No meat disguised with strange sauces, no straggling joint of a sheep in the midst of a pasture of grass, beset with salads on every side, but solid substantial food . . . .From Pale Fire, Vladimir Nabokov (1962):
I am a strict vegetarian...The usual questions were fired at me about eggnogs and milkshakes being or not being acceptable to one of my persuasion. Shade said that with him it was the other way around: he must make a definite effort to partake of a vegetable. Beginning a salad, was to him like stepping into sea water on a chilly day, and he had always to brace himself in order to attack the fortress of an apple.
Choking shale
The Democratic Party may yet succeed in choking the life out of the shale-oil industry, but if that's what the Saudis were trying to do, it's back-fired:
Khalid Alsweilem, a former official at the Saudi central bank and now at Harvard University, . . . wrote in a Harvard report that Saudi Arabia would have an extra trillion of assets by now if it had adopted the Norwegian model of a sovereign wealth fund to recyle the money instead of treating it as a piggy bank for the finance ministry. The report has caused [a] storm in Riyadh.
"We were lucky before because the oil price recovered in time. But we can't count on that again," he said.
OPEC have left matters too late, though perhaps there is little they could have done to combat the advances of American technology.
In hindsight, it was a strategic error to hold prices so high, for so long, allowing shale frackers - and the solar industry - to come of age. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.That's a funny aside about allowing solar to "come of age," though. I'm afraid that genie has only begun to think of peeking over the edge of the bottle.
This Is Alarming
I can't recall any time in years in which the US has had no aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf -- which, by the way, we call "the Arabian Gulf" in order to side with the Gulf States against Iran's claim to the waters. Just a coincidence that this first "gap" in years is going to coincide with Congress' Iran vote, but it does make it easier for Iran to be provocative if it decides to be. Maybe they'll be on good behavior in the hope of not provoking a no vote, but maybe not, and in any case hope is not a plan.
Apparently a Serious Concern in Sydney, Australia
"Dungeons and Dragons: sinister craze or good night in?"
You're a little late to the party. We did this like thirty years ago in America. Turns out, it's just good fun. Kids benefit from trying on various roles, exploring what it means to be heroic.
Some of them even go on to try out the lessons they learned in real life. Imagine.
You're a little late to the party. We did this like thirty years ago in America. Turns out, it's just good fun. Kids benefit from trying on various roles, exploring what it means to be heroic.
Some of them even go on to try out the lessons they learned in real life. Imagine.
Criminal
The NY Post is reporting that the FBI inquiry into Clinton's emails is a criminal probe. But the claim is qualified.
“My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.The problem is that their CI branch and their criminal branches are separate. We could still be looking at merely a counterintelligence assessment, somehow separate from a questioning of her security clearance. But keep an eye on it. There's an outside chance that the Department of Justice might be interested, for a moment, in justice.
“They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”
MONKROCK
From a Real Clear Religion article I recently ran across:
And they have their own coffee, as well at t-shirts, art, etc.
There are obvious similarities between punk rock and religious monasticism.
Both are cultures that deviate from the mainstream. Both eschew high fashion in favor of simplicity. Both believe in a Do It Yourself (DIY) ethic. (Corporate label won't sell your record? Produce and distribute it yourself. The secular world is obsessed with fame and toys? Wear a robe and shave your head.)
Punks and monks are about a stripped-down opposition to a sinful world that can [b]e sermonized into making sense.
Enter MONKROCK. The all-caps official name of the company is the brainchild of Kevin Clay, a musician and artist who lives in Tennessee. Clay, who is a "lay monastic," believes that the most authentic expression of punk in 2015 is traditional Catholic monasticism.
...
And they have their own coffee, as well at t-shirts, art, etc.
It's True What They Say...
You know you've really got trouble when the soldiers stop complaining about the food.
OPSEC: Pull Her Clearance
I've never heard of this group of "former special operations forces and intelligence community members," but they do sound like they know what they're talking about.
As we discussed here recently I think it's the obvious thing to do, and so obvious that in any other case it would have been done the same afternoon. Whatever you think about whether or not charges should be filed, there's simply no reason this shouldn't have been done at the first sign of clear evidence of document mishandling, even pending the investigation. You don't wait until someone is convicted to pull their clearance: they don't have a right to it, so there's no due process concern about life or liberty being taken from them, and you can always restore it later if they are vindicated. It's what we'd do with absolutely anyone else.
I know: she's above the law. She's above the rules. And that's why she needs to be President.
As we discussed here recently I think it's the obvious thing to do, and so obvious that in any other case it would have been done the same afternoon. Whatever you think about whether or not charges should be filed, there's simply no reason this shouldn't have been done at the first sign of clear evidence of document mishandling, even pending the investigation. You don't wait until someone is convicted to pull their clearance: they don't have a right to it, so there's no due process concern about life or liberty being taken from them, and you can always restore it later if they are vindicated. It's what we'd do with absolutely anyone else.
I know: she's above the law. She's above the rules. And that's why she needs to be President.
Journalistic Standards of Writing
Business Insider wants you to know that while the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton's server, they aren't investigating Clinton herself.
The Post reports that the unusual system was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, replacing a server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.Where they wrote "unusual" I might have said "illegal," since at minimum Clinton was violating the Federal Records Act. I suppose journalists usually say "allegedly illegal," as well they might here since there are apparent violations not only of that act but of the acts governing the care of classified material. Still, no one in authority has dared to allege illegality. Those concerns have been raised only by other journalists, and who are journalists to challenge the powerful?
When Your Father Sends You A "Thug Life" Video
I think the song is "You Are My Sunshine," sung in Austrian German. From a former, long-time captain of the Volunteer Fire Department.
I Don't Know Why
But this came to mind today:
And this is apropos as well, in the broader cultural context we find ourselves in:
And this is apropos as well, in the broader cultural context we find ourselves in:
The FOX Cut
So, my guy in this election is Jim Webb, who though he has been a Republican in other years is running as a Democrat this time. He may yet have a moment, if the Hillary collapse continues, and I think it's right to be prepared for it should it come. On the other hand, this is the right time to be keeping an eye on the primary in general. If I've learned anything about American politics, it's that only those who are interested early have any hope of affecting the outcome. For that reason, these early stories can really matter. Here's one that does: FOX News has picked its debate partners.
It's a shame about Santorum, since he is a Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and for the same reasons the most socially conservative figure in the race. He did very well in 2012, holding off the establishment machine longer than anyone. I realize some among you thought he was a faker about his moral convictions, and he has not polled well this year. Being a frontrunner four years ago doesn't make you a contender today. If he is to come back from this he'll have to earn it.
Otherwise, it seems like the best candidates -- Cruz, Walker -- and the worst ones -- Bush, Trump -- will all be there. Should be a good brawl.
It's a shame about Santorum, since he is a Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and for the same reasons the most socially conservative figure in the race. He did very well in 2012, holding off the establishment machine longer than anyone. I realize some among you thought he was a faker about his moral convictions, and he has not polled well this year. Being a frontrunner four years ago doesn't make you a contender today. If he is to come back from this he'll have to earn it.
Otherwise, it seems like the best candidates -- Cruz, Walker -- and the worst ones -- Bush, Trump -- will all be there. Should be a good brawl.
A Strange Definition of Hypocrisy
An author named Damon Linker has an article in which he claims that pro-life advocates are hypocrites. It starts reasonably:
So, OK, I'm open to his argument. He comes down to a moderate pro-choice position at least to viability, which is not my position but one I'm prepared to see as reasonable. He's got thoughtful arguments. So what's this about hypocrisy?
1) It's not true that pro-lifers in general oppose birth control, or strive to keep it from being available. In fact, the last I heard there was a faction on the Republican pro-life side that was advocating making birth control over the counter. So not only would you not have to ask your priest if you could use it, you wouldn't have to ask a doctor or a pharmacist either. You could just go grab a bottle of the stuff like you would Tylenol. So there's a pro-life position in accord with his stated views.
By the same token, there are people who hold firmly to all the traditional values but don't necessarily want the government to be the enforcer. For a long time that was my position: pro-choice only in the limited sense of not being willing to actually outlaw and prosecute people over abortion, but pro-life in the strong sense of believing that abortion was obviously immoral. A good person ought not to do it except in a very limited set of cases involving the death of the mother. Other solutions ought to be chosen. That doesn't mean that prison is the answer for those who make what I think is the immoral choice, any more than I would want to see people imprisoned for divorcing or even adultery. So there's a vigorous pro-life option available without force.
2) For the subset that remains, it's hardly hypocrisy to hold to a set of non-conflicting religious doctrines. For Catholics, yes, abortion is a grave sin in addition to a moral crime. Birth control is also forbidden, but not by a conflicting argument, by the same argument about God's purpose for human sexuality. It's the same argument that leads to both conclusions. How can this be hypocrisy?
As I've mentioned here a number of times, to the eternal boredom of everyone, Kant comes to the same position from an argument he believed based on pure practical reason. Whatever Kant was, he wasn't a hypocrite!
On sexual matters especially, there's a danger of hypocrisy in the usual sense of the term: we often really believe in the truth of doctrine, but fall away from practicing it due to temptation. It may well be that the doctrine is so strict that few are able to fully practice it perfectly all the time. Human weakness is not a good argument for abandoning a doctrine soundly based on reason, though, and it's an even worse argument for those who believe the position is derived from divine purpose.
For those who actually live the doctrine, the charge of hypocrisy is wholly unwarranted. They're being honest about what they think is best, and trying to pursue a society in which it is the norm. That's just what they ought to do.
I'm never more dumbfounded by my fellow liberals than when they profess not to be in the least bit morally troubled by abortion. Which means that I've been dumbfounded a lot over the past few weeks.I have indeed heard exactly these variations lately. Somehow the real moral problem exposed by the videos is... that someone made the videos. That should be punished!
Come on, admit it — you've heard variations on it, too:
Those videos of Planned Parenthood employees nonchalantly discussing killing unborn human babies, dismembering them, and selling the parts for medical research — how could anyone object to that? What should really make us angry is that these pro-life activists filmed the videos in the first place. And if you want to see something truly despicable — a genuine moral outrage — there's this dentist who hunted down and shot a lion in Africa...
So, OK, I'm open to his argument. He comes down to a moderate pro-choice position at least to viability, which is not my position but one I'm prepared to see as reasonable. He's got thoughtful arguments. So what's this about hypocrisy?
[T]he pro-life movement, which consists largely of conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants, doesn't just want to lower the abortion rate. It also wants to win a culture war in the name of "traditional values" — and encouraging the widespread use of birth control doesn't fit with its conception of tradition, which holds that women are first and foremost meant to be mothers, children are a gift from God, pre-marital sex should be strongly discouraged, both husband and wife should be "open to life" during sexual intercourse, abortion should never be considered an acceptable choice, and the government should enforce all of this by outlawing the procedure.There's two things to say about that.
1) It's not true that pro-lifers in general oppose birth control, or strive to keep it from being available. In fact, the last I heard there was a faction on the Republican pro-life side that was advocating making birth control over the counter. So not only would you not have to ask your priest if you could use it, you wouldn't have to ask a doctor or a pharmacist either. You could just go grab a bottle of the stuff like you would Tylenol. So there's a pro-life position in accord with his stated views.
By the same token, there are people who hold firmly to all the traditional values but don't necessarily want the government to be the enforcer. For a long time that was my position: pro-choice only in the limited sense of not being willing to actually outlaw and prosecute people over abortion, but pro-life in the strong sense of believing that abortion was obviously immoral. A good person ought not to do it except in a very limited set of cases involving the death of the mother. Other solutions ought to be chosen. That doesn't mean that prison is the answer for those who make what I think is the immoral choice, any more than I would want to see people imprisoned for divorcing or even adultery. So there's a vigorous pro-life option available without force.
2) For the subset that remains, it's hardly hypocrisy to hold to a set of non-conflicting religious doctrines. For Catholics, yes, abortion is a grave sin in addition to a moral crime. Birth control is also forbidden, but not by a conflicting argument, by the same argument about God's purpose for human sexuality. It's the same argument that leads to both conclusions. How can this be hypocrisy?
As I've mentioned here a number of times, to the eternal boredom of everyone, Kant comes to the same position from an argument he believed based on pure practical reason. Whatever Kant was, he wasn't a hypocrite!
On sexual matters especially, there's a danger of hypocrisy in the usual sense of the term: we often really believe in the truth of doctrine, but fall away from practicing it due to temptation. It may well be that the doctrine is so strict that few are able to fully practice it perfectly all the time. Human weakness is not a good argument for abandoning a doctrine soundly based on reason, though, and it's an even worse argument for those who believe the position is derived from divine purpose.
For those who actually live the doctrine, the charge of hypocrisy is wholly unwarranted. They're being honest about what they think is best, and trying to pursue a society in which it is the norm. That's just what they ought to do.
Insurgent Action Report
Charles Koch has struck up a partnership with the United Negro College Fund.
I think we missed an opportunity to reach out to the Occupy Wall Street crowd when that was going on. I think we're also missing an opportunity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement. With OWS, we have a shared concern with crony capitalism, and with BLM, it's legal reform.
We don't have to agree with everything they want, and we don't even have to like them. But building relationships and working with the left's own protest movements to achieve our goals would be a twofer in every case.
He and [UNCF President Michael] Lomax have found common ground over the issue of criminal justice reform, a cause that Koch Industries has taken up. And Koch expressed concern about the recent spate of high-profile incidents in which black men have died at the hands of police officers.
I think we missed an opportunity to reach out to the Occupy Wall Street crowd when that was going on. I think we're also missing an opportunity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement. With OWS, we have a shared concern with crony capitalism, and with BLM, it's legal reform.
We don't have to agree with everything they want, and we don't even have to like them. But building relationships and working with the left's own protest movements to achieve our goals would be a twofer in every case.
A Conservative Insurgency
Kurt Schlichter's book Conservative Insurgency: The Struggle to Take America Back 2009-2041 presents a battle plan for conservatives willing to fight for reform. It is written as a novel and told as a graduate student oral history project of how conservatives retook American institutions from the universities to Hollywood to, of course, the state and federal governments. In a way, it is the antidote to Dan Simmons's Flashback where everything has gone wrong.
The book assumes Hilary won in 2016 and 2020 and that conservatives lost power in the federal government through the end of her time as president. But, by then, the conservative insurgents, the Tea Party and many like-minded folk, liberals mugged by the reality of what the liberal agenda does, etc., are prepared to fight back and they begin winning in very interesting, and plausible, ways.
Schlichter is a retired infantry colonel, trial lawyer, and, only naturally given the previous, a stand-up comedian. He worked for Andrew Breitbart and has apparently been around the talk radio and Fox channels. He brings all of these perspectives to this book.
It's a quick read and only 280 pages, and it sounds like a good plan to me.
The book assumes Hilary won in 2016 and 2020 and that conservatives lost power in the federal government through the end of her time as president. But, by then, the conservative insurgents, the Tea Party and many like-minded folk, liberals mugged by the reality of what the liberal agenda does, etc., are prepared to fight back and they begin winning in very interesting, and plausible, ways.
Schlichter is a retired infantry colonel, trial lawyer, and, only naturally given the previous, a stand-up comedian. He worked for Andrew Breitbart and has apparently been around the talk radio and Fox channels. He brings all of these perspectives to this book.
It's a quick read and only 280 pages, and it sounds like a good plan to me.
Christina Hoff Sommers on how Feminism Went Wrong
It's an interesting conversation between two low-key, nuanced thinkers from the right. I don't necessarily agree, but her account is well-informed by decades of involvement.
A Good Head On Her Shoulders
I don't know how many of you saw Ronda Rousey's 34-second fight this weekend, but I did, and she has been very well taught. The most important thing she's got going for her from my perspective is that she's got her mind right. She understands what she's there to do, and she doesn't get distracted from doing it. That's more complicated than it sounds, as MMA is more complicated than boxing and it's fairly complex even in boxing. In brief, she's come to understand how the human body can be destroyed, and she's very good at recognizing opportunities to apply the right kind of force to the first opening she comes by that has that destructive potential. That's a mental game as much as a physical one, although you have to do the physical work to train your body to react to the openings in the right way.
So it's not too surprising -- especially since she tends to win very quickly, and therefore limits the number of shots to the head that she takes -- that she's got a good mind to go with her strong jab. Asked about whether she'd like to fight a man, since she's dominating among women, she looked outside of herself and her own situation and recognized something important about the message such a fight would send.
So it's not too surprising -- especially since she tends to win very quickly, and therefore limits the number of shots to the head that she takes -- that she's got a good mind to go with her strong jab. Asked about whether she'd like to fight a man, since she's dominating among women, she looked outside of herself and her own situation and recognized something important about the message such a fight would send.
“I don’t think it’s a great idea to have a man hitting a woman on television,” Rousey told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “I’ll never say that I’ll lose, but you could have a girl getting totally beat up on TV by a guy — which is a bad image to put across. With all the football [domestic violence] stuff that’s been happening, not a good idea. It’s fun to theorize about and talk about, but it’s something that’s much better in theory than fact.”Today, I came across an interview in which a female reporter tried to get her on board with the 'gender disparity in pay' line. Rousey was not buying it. "If I got to the point that I had like 50 fights," she said, she'd be making the kind of money the top male boxers make at the height of their careers. "But at this point, I have eleven."
Pornography as Anti-Islamist Weapon
Vice magazine reports on a feature length pornographic film featuring Islamic symbolism. The accompanying photos are R-rated, not X-rated, though of course they are images from the promotional materials for a pornographic film. If you go to read the article, set your expectations accordingly.
What is interesting is the psychological claim that the filmmaker is claiming:
I obviously haven't seen the film, and don't intend to. However, it strikes me that Vice isn't well placed to judge the impact of the film. Clearly the filmmaker is right about the effect of the veil as it is experienced by women in the region. Some may experience the veil as Islam claims to intend it to be experienced, as a liberation from the tyranny of continual male sexual attention. For others, her reading has to be close to right. What that means is that not only is this symbolism going to be powerful for those women, it's also going to be powerful symbolism for men from the cultures where veiling is tied to issues of sex. It may end up being more effective than they expect, in spite of its banality, because it touches on symbols that are deeply-felt for the Middle Eastern audience in a way they are not here.
So, there's an ethical question: would that be good, to have a beneficial effect achieved through the method of pornography? If you were trying to disrupt Islamist systems and found this was effective, is it a method you'd endorse? Or is the harm done too great to apologize for the good? You might want to include a brief discussion of whether you think pornography is in fact harmful, and if so just how, as philosophical opinions on that differ sharply.
What is interesting is the psychological claim that the filmmaker is claiming:
First and foremost, I want to make sure that everyone knows I'm not trying to incite another Charlie Hebdo incident. But [our four scenes] basically represent different women from different regions in the Middle East, different kinds of ideas. [We're] trying to be a little titillating, obviously, with the different kids of traditional dress. But I started the video by [thinking]: For Middle Eastern women, veiling is not just a way to suppress her sexual freedom, it's a symbol for all the human rights violations against these women like rape and domestic violence.Vice wasn't very impressed with the effect. "At its core," the judge, "the film is a prime example of banal ignorance fueling bigoted imagery."
[It's about] taking the veil off.
I obviously haven't seen the film, and don't intend to. However, it strikes me that Vice isn't well placed to judge the impact of the film. Clearly the filmmaker is right about the effect of the veil as it is experienced by women in the region. Some may experience the veil as Islam claims to intend it to be experienced, as a liberation from the tyranny of continual male sexual attention. For others, her reading has to be close to right. What that means is that not only is this symbolism going to be powerful for those women, it's also going to be powerful symbolism for men from the cultures where veiling is tied to issues of sex. It may end up being more effective than they expect, in spite of its banality, because it touches on symbols that are deeply-felt for the Middle Eastern audience in a way they are not here.
So, there's an ethical question: would that be good, to have a beneficial effect achieved through the method of pornography? If you were trying to disrupt Islamist systems and found this was effective, is it a method you'd endorse? Or is the harm done too great to apologize for the good? You might want to include a brief discussion of whether you think pornography is in fact harmful, and if so just how, as philosophical opinions on that differ sharply.
Pressure Mounts on Clinton Emails
Not against Hillary herself, of course, but the water has risen high enough that Huma Abedin now has to tread it.
UPDATE: The NY Daily News reminds us of a precedent: Bill Clinton's CIA director, whom he pardoned for a very similar offense.
Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, cracked down on the delay tactics exercised in the effort to build a moat around her e-mails. He ordered Clinton and two of her closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to “describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.” He also ordered them to confirm that that “they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department.” And if “all such information has not yet been produced,” they are ordered to produce it “forthwith.”I assume they will have a lot of trouble recalling, though there is a point at which you can risk charges of contempt going down that road. I suppose they might try the lane cleared for them by Ms. Lois Learner: 'I have done nothing wrong, and plead the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination.'
UPDATE: The NY Daily News reminds us of a precedent: Bill Clinton's CIA director, whom he pardoned for a very similar offense.
The law is plain. Under the Espionage Act of 1917, “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information is a punishable offense. If such information is “removed from its proper place of custody,” the responsible government official faces a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment....
Only after a year of spinning wheels did CIA managers finally refer the matter to the Justice Department. Attorney General Janet Reno responded initially with the most minimal conceivable action, suggesting that Deutch’s security clearance be reviewed. But after the CIA’s critical report became public in 2000, igniting a firestorm on Capitol Hill, prosecutors swung into high gear.
Yet just as Deutch was ready to agree to a plea bargain, the matter came to an abrupt end. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Clinton issued a surprise pardon to his wayward CIA director.
The Arian heresy
Much blood has been spilled over the vexing question of how to consider Christ's dual human and divine nature. I've been proofing a book about Mennonite or Anabaptist martyrs in the 16th century and came across this account of the interrogation and torture of a woman who refused to go along with the orthodox line on this and many other matters:
These Anabaptists got into deadly trouble for two other persistent errors. First, they denied infant baptisms, going so far as to renounce their own, if they had occurred, and insisting on a new baptism as reasoning, consenting, and believing adults. Often the main focus of their tortured interrogations was to get them to name the parties who had been present at their adult baptisms; it was their primary glory to refuse to answer. Second, they declined to receive the Catholic eucharist, considering the doctrine of transubstantiation to be a superstition or idolatry. These were the two heresies that most worked up their inquisitors, to judge by the summaries of their trials and sentences.
For their own part, the shock troops of the Reformation had a bad habit of killing people who persisted in holding or attending Masses, on the ground that it was a deadly heresy to engage in this idolatry. It was a very bad time, and hard to imagine in these days. It would be nice to think that's because we now understand that our duty lies more in examining our own conscience than that of others. More likely, though, it's hardly anyone takes the form of worship seriously enough to imagine killing or dying for it.
In the sixth place she was asked whether she did not believe that Christ had assumed his flesh from Mary. But she confessed that he was from above, and had come down from the Father; that the Word had become flesh, even as John says: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." And as he himself says, that he is the bread which came down from heaven. That he was also the only reconciler, redeemer and advocate. To investigate further, was not necessary to her salvation. John 8:23; 1:14; 1 John 1:1; John 6:31; Rom. 5:10; 1 John 2:1.That's a good response, I think: "To investigate further, was not necessary to her salvation." I can't believe it was necessary to anyone else's care for her salvation, either, particularly if the investigation was backed up by torture and death by burning (the sentence routinely handed down for unrepentant Anabaptists). There are some detailed explanations of spiritual mysteries that we are not privy to. Nor have we been encouraged to believe we are either authorized or obligated to ferret out the explanation by exhaustive analysis, and certainly not that we need to kill each other over our diverse results.
These Anabaptists got into deadly trouble for two other persistent errors. First, they denied infant baptisms, going so far as to renounce their own, if they had occurred, and insisting on a new baptism as reasoning, consenting, and believing adults. Often the main focus of their tortured interrogations was to get them to name the parties who had been present at their adult baptisms; it was their primary glory to refuse to answer. Second, they declined to receive the Catholic eucharist, considering the doctrine of transubstantiation to be a superstition or idolatry. These were the two heresies that most worked up their inquisitors, to judge by the summaries of their trials and sentences.
For their own part, the shock troops of the Reformation had a bad habit of killing people who persisted in holding or attending Masses, on the ground that it was a deadly heresy to engage in this idolatry. It was a very bad time, and hard to imagine in these days. It would be nice to think that's because we now understand that our duty lies more in examining our own conscience than that of others. More likely, though, it's hardly anyone takes the form of worship seriously enough to imagine killing or dying for it.
The definition of insanity
If inflation has missed the Fed's 2% target for 38 straight months, my husband wonders, "Could it be that there's little or no correlation between the Fed's tool and its intended result? But no, that's crazy talk."
"Governing"
Is Mitch McConnell essentially a sell-out, or is he so desperate to look like he can govern better than Harry Reid that he's forced to pass every crony capitalist measure that crosses his desk as the compromise price-tag for his own ostensible priorities?
Sweet Mental Revenge
I've never cared for the lyrics of the Waylon Jennings classic. I've always liked the music of the song.
Rebels and Rhetoric
What do we do with the Confederate battle flag?
Hoyt Axton
vs. Alfonzo Rachel
This goes back to Grim's post expressing some doubt about whether the Democrats were actually responsible for all of history's horrors. That may be debatable. After all, I don't believe the Black Death was a Democratic policy, though I'm not sure. It does bear some resemblance to the ACA ...
However that may be, the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and Bull Connor. I think we should use that in our rhetoric against progressives again and again and again. We need to destroy the lie that conservatives are racists, and pointing out this history is one important avenue of attack. EDIT: As Grim points out in the comments, I know the history is much more complicated than Rachel paints it, but my point here is about how rhetoric about the flag can help or hurt us. Right now it's hurting us, and we can change that.
But what would that do to us? A lot of Southern conservatives feel a real connection to some aspects of the old Confederacy, and if we take up Rachel's rhetoric, does that start a conservative civil war?
10,000 Posts, Home Defense Artillery, and a Modern Order of Knighthood
Grim's last post last night was the 10,000th for the blog, apparently.
Backyard Ballistics arrived this week. Heh Heh. You'll have to imagine the evil grin.
Have any of you heard of the International Order of St. Hubertus? I ran across their website while looking for information on St. Hubertus (also St. Hubert), patron saint of hunters, and thought the order looked interesting. From their website:
Backyard Ballistics arrived this week. Heh Heh. You'll have to imagine the evil grin.
Have any of you heard of the International Order of St. Hubertus? I ran across their website while looking for information on St. Hubertus (also St. Hubert), patron saint of hunters, and thought the order looked interesting. From their website:
The International Order of St. Hubertus is a worldwide organization of hunters who are also wildlife conservationists and are respectful of traditional hunting ethics and practices. Founded in 1695, the motto of the Order is “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes” or “Honoring God by Honoring His Creatures.”
Purpose of the Order
- To promote sportsmanlike conduct in hunting and fishing
- To foster good fellowship among sportsmen from all over the world
- To teach and preserve sound traditional hunting and fishing customs
- To encourage wildlife conservation and to help protect endangered species from extinction
- To promote the concept of hunting and fishing as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity
- To endeavor to ensure that the economic benefits derived from sports hunting and fishing support the regions where these activities are carried out
- To strive to enhance respect for responsible hunters and fishermen
The International Order of St. Hubertus is a true knightly order in the historical tradition. The Order is under the Royal Protection of His Majesty Juan Carlos of Spain, the Grand Master Emeritus His Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke Andreas Salvator of Austria and our Grand Master is His Imperial and Royal Highness Istvan von Habsburg Lothringen, Archduke of Austria, Prince of Hungary.
Well, That's Embarrassing...
Apparently one of the Islamist shooters in Texas may have come to the party with a Fast and Furious gun.
Of Course
REPORT: Navy to Charge Officer Who Fired on Islamist During Chattanooga Terror Attack.
A friend of mine at CENTCOM told me, before it was public knowledge that the two had exchanged fire with the terrorist, that there was talk about whether they could be eligible for Purple Hearts or even valor awards. Their actual chain of command has come up with the more obvious response. Joseph Heller, call your office.
UPDATE: Jim Webb says he'd set the Navy straight if he were President. I doubt ours will, but I expect we'll hear from Tennessee's Senators about this before too long.
UPDATE: The Chattanoogan gets a statement from the Navy to the effect that no one has been charged, though the matter is still under review. PJ Media considers that confirmation that charges are being considered; The Chattanoogan reads it the other way.
My sense is this: of course the Navy was, and perhaps still is, considering charges. It had regulations that were broken. That's why the title of this post was "Of Course." That process had gotten far enough along that LCDR White was given a heads up that he should prepare himself to face possible charges, and he prepared himself by contacting retired LTC Allen West. West had faced very serious charges himself under what White might consider similar circumstances, i.e., he violated regulations in a manner his conscience told him was right and necessary. In both cases, significant good came out of it (LTC West saved his men from falling into a waiting ambush, and LCDR White was able to assist in the evacuation of the recruiting station under hostile fire). West would be a natural person to reach out to for advice on how to handle a situation like this.
West has since become a Congressman, and after that a professional commentator, and decided to conduct a fire mission in support of White. That's appropriate in my view: one reason we sometimes advise servicemembers to "call your Senator" is that the bureaucracy often errs in favor of the hard application of the rule over the wise application of judgment. In a case where the rule is obviously wrong and the judgment was obviously well-considered and properly applied, it's good to provide a counterweight. As a former Congressman himself, West knew what could be done if he could garner Congressional support for White's case.
So, all of you who contacted your Senators or other Congressmen, thank you. You've probably helped to save a good man.
A friend of mine at CENTCOM told me, before it was public knowledge that the two had exchanged fire with the terrorist, that there was talk about whether they could be eligible for Purple Hearts or even valor awards. Their actual chain of command has come up with the more obvious response. Joseph Heller, call your office.
UPDATE: Jim Webb says he'd set the Navy straight if he were President. I doubt ours will, but I expect we'll hear from Tennessee's Senators about this before too long.
UPDATE: The Chattanoogan gets a statement from the Navy to the effect that no one has been charged, though the matter is still under review. PJ Media considers that confirmation that charges are being considered; The Chattanoogan reads it the other way.
My sense is this: of course the Navy was, and perhaps still is, considering charges. It had regulations that were broken. That's why the title of this post was "Of Course." That process had gotten far enough along that LCDR White was given a heads up that he should prepare himself to face possible charges, and he prepared himself by contacting retired LTC Allen West. West had faced very serious charges himself under what White might consider similar circumstances, i.e., he violated regulations in a manner his conscience told him was right and necessary. In both cases, significant good came out of it (LTC West saved his men from falling into a waiting ambush, and LCDR White was able to assist in the evacuation of the recruiting station under hostile fire). West would be a natural person to reach out to for advice on how to handle a situation like this.
West has since become a Congressman, and after that a professional commentator, and decided to conduct a fire mission in support of White. That's appropriate in my view: one reason we sometimes advise servicemembers to "call your Senator" is that the bureaucracy often errs in favor of the hard application of the rule over the wise application of judgment. In a case where the rule is obviously wrong and the judgment was obviously well-considered and properly applied, it's good to provide a counterweight. As a former Congressman himself, West knew what could be done if he could garner Congressional support for White's case.
So, all of you who contacted your Senators or other Congressmen, thank you. You've probably helped to save a good man.
What's that party again?
Chris Matthews amused many of us by asking Debbie Wasserman-Schultz innocently, "What's the difference, really, between Socialists and Democrats?" Kevin Williamson tries to sort out the socialist-vel-non beliefs of Bernie Sanders supporters by mingling with the crowd:
Aside from Grandma Stalin there, there’s not a lot of overtly Soviet iconography on display around the Bernieverse, but the word “socialism” is on a great many lips. Not Bernie’s lips, for heaven’s sake: The guy’s running for president. But Tara Monson, a young mother who has come out to the UAW hall to support her candidate, is pretty straightforward about her issues: “Socialism,” she says. “My husband’s been trying to get me to move to a socialist country for years — but now, maybe, we’ll get it here.” The socialist country she has in mind is Norway, which of course isn’t a socialist country at all: It’s an oil emirate. Monson is a classic American radical, which is to say, a wounded teenager in an adult’s body: Asked what drew her to socialism and Bernie, she says that she is “very atheist,” and that her Catholic parents were not accepting of this. She goes on to cite her “social views,” and by the time she gets around to the economic questions, she’s not Helle Thorning-Schmidt — she’s Pat Buchanan, complaining about “sending our jobs overseas.”
L’Internationale, my patootie. This is national socialism.Williamson talks to another fan:
He goes on a good-humored tirade about how one can identify conservatives’ and progressives’ homes simply by walking down the street and observing the landscaping. Conservatives, he insists, “torture” the flowers and shrubbery, imposing strict order and conformity on their yards, whereas progressives just let things bloom as nature directs. I am tempted to ask him which other areas in life he thinks might benefit from that kind of unregulated, spontaneous order, but I think better of it.
Doesn't everyone?
A BBC article reports on people who experience music as an almost sexual pleasure.
The article also observes how idiosyncratic the response is. The author uses an Adele song (whoever she is) as an example of particularly evocative dissonances, but when I eagerly went to listen to it, I found it didn't do a thing for me. Then, something like "Women of Ireland" that tears my heart out of my chest leaves someone else cold. And there's the enduring mystery of why I've been completely indifferent to every Mozart piece I've ever heard, when there may be no other composer so universally beloved. Why can't I hear it? The reaction either happens or it doesn't; there's no explaining it.
The article also observes how idiosyncratic the response is. The author uses an Adele song (whoever she is) as an example of particularly evocative dissonances, but when I eagerly went to listen to it, I found it didn't do a thing for me. Then, something like "Women of Ireland" that tears my heart out of my chest leaves someone else cold. And there's the enduring mystery of why I've been completely indifferent to every Mozart piece I've ever heard, when there may be no other composer so universally beloved. Why can't I hear it? The reaction either happens or it doesn't; there's no explaining it.
Songs of Brokenness from "Horse Soldiers! Horse Soldiers!"
The Iran-Contra scandal always gave me doubts about both Reagan and Col. North. Of course, back then I was a very different person, one who mostly believed the New York Times and other MSM outlets. Maybe I should revisit the issue with my now-more-wary eyes.
A Distant, Sideways Reply From Frost
"You know Orion always comes up sideways.
Throwing a leg up over our fence of mountains,
And rising on his hands, he looks in on me
Busy outdoors by lantern-light with something
I should have done by daylight, and indeed,
After the ground is frozen, I should have done
Before it froze, and a gust flings a handful
Of waste leaves at my smoky lantern chimney
To make fun of my way of doing things,
Or else fun of Orion's having caught me.
Has a man, I should like to ask, no rights
These forces are obliged to pay respect to?"
So Brad McLaughlin mingled reckless talk
Of heavenly stars with hugger-mugger farming,
Till having failed at hugger-mugger farming,
He burned his house down for the fire insurance
And spent the proceeds on a telescope
To satisfy a lifelong curiosity
About our place among the infinities.
Internet performance art.
The recipe is actually pretty good. I was surprised by the Tahini. I like his kitchen.
A Boy Named Sue
I trust you all know the song, and that the poem was written by Shel Silverstein. When I was in Jerusalem last year, the Israelis didn't know either, and were surprised to learn that Johnny Cash -- of whom they had heard -- had sung songs written by a Jew. Not just did he, but this is one of Cash's best.
May God defend such partnerships, and truth-speaking of this degree.
May God defend such partnerships, and truth-speaking of this degree.
Reply to Frost
A reply to "Revelation," in a similar form.
If you're going to tell me where you are
There is something I will want to know:
Can you navigate by a star,
Or is your guess by to-and-fro?
For those who can speak the stars
Are wondrous fellows to engage,
But most speak of the near and far
Like minor guests upon the stage.
Where is your heart? Where your mind?
That is what I hoped to hear from thee:
How fearsome that we speak so blind,
Like ancient echoes on the sea.
Ranger School Update
Of those three women who were permitted to try a third time at Ranger School, two have made it through the mountain phase at Camp Frank D. Merrill. There remains only the swamp phase between them and graduation. If they both succeed, that will set the female pass rate at 10%, assuming three tries, with the male pass rate standing at 45%.
Though I think this experiment has roundly proven that women should continue to be excluded from Ranger School, and indeed the infantry in general, these two women are extraordinarily worthy of praise. I have nothing but the deepest respect for them and their glorious accomplishment.
Though I think this experiment has roundly proven that women should continue to be excluded from Ranger School, and indeed the infantry in general, these two women are extraordinarily worthy of praise. I have nothing but the deepest respect for them and their glorious accomplishment.
Clinton: A Literary Analogy
The appearance of malfeasance that burdens Clinton’s political ambition as did Jacob Marley’s chains has lost much of its shock value if only because new revelations about her alleged misconduct are a near daily occurrence.The latest one is about a dodgy Swiss bank with which she has a massive financial relationship.
Does anyone think she will really be elected? She's the worst candidate ever. I've yet to speak with any American who actually wants her as President, and I travel in fairly wide ideological circles.
Progress? A Political Cartoon
I am generally disinclined to accept arguments that "Democrats" are responsible for every horror in human history. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, I understand, but he was also a brilliant man whose political work has mostly laid the ground for centuries of human flourishing. So for me, the partisan angle rings hollow.
The bigger question, though, has to do with the changing of human beings into salable property. The key difference is that the human beings are dead, and so do not have to consciously suffer the indignity of being treated as property. But we wouldn't accept that it was right to kill people in order to treat them as property: if these were any other sort of person it would be no defense at all to say that you'd killed them before you sold their body parts for someone else's proprietary use. Neither do we generally allow organ sales from even elderly persons who have died, though they like others may donate their organs, precisely to avoid the moral dangers of creating a market in human organs that might encourage profit-seekers to hasten the death of human beings in order to harvest organs.
The matter should be troubling. There are a lot of philosophical angles from which to approach it. As a society, we have not given any of them adequate thought.
11 thoughts about Cecil the Lion
Including:
8) Some activists (who I respect) associated with completely unrelated causes (which I support) have been complaining about the relative attention that Cecil the lion is receiving, which is not helpful. It’d be super great if everyone could knock off the “lots of people care about a dead lion but I haven’t personally observed them caring about a completely unrelated issue that I personally think is more important” nonsense. People are allowed to care about multiple things. People are allowed to care about different things than you. Threatened species conservation is an important thing. There are also other important things. And no one has ever won anyone over to their side by saying “you’re dumb for caring about the thing you care about, care about the thing I care about instead.”
9) It is possible to be concerned about many aspects of trophy hunting while acknowledging that it can help conservation in some contexts. It is possible to think that what this dentist did to Cecil the lion was bad, but still think that threatening to kill the dentist is bad. It is possible to think that threatening to kill the dentist is bad, but still think that folks saying that “any criticism of hunting is silly and extremist because some critics threatened to kill a dentist” is bad. This is called nuance. More people on the internet should learn about it.
Barack Obama's Speech
No, not that one. Not that one either. The one that he gave in Kenya this week. It's drawn remarkable praise from the Wall Street Journal and Commentary magazine.
At first, he tells a touching anecdote that persuades me that he really does feel a tie to Kenya in a way that he never did anywhere else.
It sounds like a good plan, Mr. President. I'm all in favor of enforcing the rule of law on the powerful. The folks at the top need to be held responsible when they betray the public trust. You've still got a year or so to get started on it.
At first, he tells a touching anecdote that persuades me that he really does feel a tie to Kenya in a way that he never did anywhere else.
I was a young man and I was just a few years out of University. I had worked as a community organizer in low-income neighborhoods in Chicago. I was about to go to law school. And when I came here, in many ways I was a Westerner, I was an American, unfamiliar with my father and his birthplace, really disconnected from half of my heritage. And at that airport, as I was trying to find my luggage, there was a woman there who worked for the airlines, and she was helping fill out the forms, and she saw my name and she looked up and she asked if I was related to my father, who she had known. And that was the first time that my name meant something. (Applause.)So he is speaking to a people who are recognizably his people in a deep and special way. He talks about his family. He talks about the indignities the British heaped on him, such as referring to him as a "boy" when he was a grown man and a military veteran of the British King's African Rifles. He talks about how hard it was for his father to get admitted to any university, finally succeeding in Hawaii. He does not mention his own story, because of course they know it. He wants to use the shared history of suffering to make a point that aligns what he wants to say about Kenya with what he wants to say about his own life. And that is this:
For too long, I think that many looked to the outside for salvation and focused on somebody else being at fault for the problems of the continent. And as my sister said, ultimately we are each responsible for our own destiny.There's a lot to like in the address. Emphasis on the importance of the rule of law if Kenya is to succeed:
Here in Kenya, it's time to change habits, and decisively break that cycle. Because corruption holds back every aspect of economic and civil life. It’s an anchor that weighs you down and prevents you from achieving what you could. If you need to pay a bribe and hire somebody’s brother -- who’s not very good and doesn’t come to work -- in order to start a business, well, that’s going to create less jobs for everybody. If electricity is going to one neighborhood because they’re well-connected, and not another neighborhood, that’s going to limit development of the country as a whole. (Applause.) If someone in public office is taking a cut that they don't deserve, that’s taking away from those who are paying their fair share.Emphasis added.
So this is not just about changing one law -- although it's important to have laws on the books that are actually being enforced. It’s important that not only low-level corruption is punished, but folks at the top, if they are taking from the people, that has to be addressed as well. (Applause.) But it's not something that is just fixed by laws, or that any one person can fix. It requires a commitment by the entire nation -- leaders and citizens -- to change habits and to change culture. (Applause.)
Tough laws need to be on the books. And the good news is, your government is taking some important steps in the right direction. People who break the law and violate the public trust need to be prosecuted.
It sounds like a good plan, Mr. President. I'm all in favor of enforcing the rule of law on the powerful. The folks at the top need to be held responsible when they betray the public trust. You've still got a year or so to get started on it.
A Small Problem
Hillary Clinton has a problem. In a new Quinnipiac University national poll, more than one in three voters say that the most important trait they are looking for in a 2016 candidate is being "honest and trustworthy." Almost six in ten of those polled said that Hillary Clinton lacks those two traits."Don't know if" is a fixable problem. I doubt that's the problem she has.
Uh oh.
Clinton's problems with the honest/trustworthy question is not new. As I wrote back in April:There's a widespread belief in her capability to do the job she is running for. There's also widespread distrust in her personally. People admire her but don't know if she's honest.
Understanding Agriculture
This guy doesn't:
No, they won't. If they can't sell them to the grocery store, they'll sell them to the rendering plant. If you don't eat them, your dog will eat them in his dog food, or they'll be used to make glue.
What may happen if enough people stop eating chicken is that fewer chickens will ever be born. It would be very odd to describe this as "saving" a chicken: there will never have been a chicken to save.
If you want to reform factory agriculture, fine. I like farm fresh eggs that come from free range chickens, and that's mostly what we eat -- a friend of the wife's has a whole bunch of them. I agree that, in general, we should try to structure our relationship with animals in a way that is humane and respects the animal's nature.
But come on. Before you set out to reform an industry, at least learn how it works.
Suppose a supermarket stocks chickens in units of 1,000. If you buy two or three chickens every month, and then stop, you probably won't cause them to stock 1,000 less. But you might if the supermarket is just at the threshold between order sizes. That will likely only happen about 1 in 1,000 times you buy chicken — but when you do, you save 1,000 chickens.That's right, you will save a thousand chickens. The farm will just continue to feed them, and they'll live out their lives in poultry bliss because of your virtuous decision not to buy a chicken.
No, they won't. If they can't sell them to the grocery store, they'll sell them to the rendering plant. If you don't eat them, your dog will eat them in his dog food, or they'll be used to make glue.
What may happen if enough people stop eating chicken is that fewer chickens will ever be born. It would be very odd to describe this as "saving" a chicken: there will never have been a chicken to save.
If you want to reform factory agriculture, fine. I like farm fresh eggs that come from free range chickens, and that's mostly what we eat -- a friend of the wife's has a whole bunch of them. I agree that, in general, we should try to structure our relationship with animals in a way that is humane and respects the animal's nature.
But come on. Before you set out to reform an industry, at least learn how it works.
"Sometimes, If Someone Delivers Before..."
In this latest video, the Planned Parenthood doctor explains that they can get intact organs on those occasions when the baby is delivered before the abortion could be carried out. That one is going to be fun to explain. I assume the defense will be that the doctor was only talking about stillbirths, as otherwise you mean that you delivered the baby alive, killed it, and then dissected it. It doesn't sound like that is what she's talking about, though: I'm not sure how to understand her follow-on comments about Planned Parenthood's intentions if she's talking about a child that is already dead. It makes perfect sense if "the procedure" is an abortion, in which case the child was alive.
This video underscores my suspicion, developed in response to Elise's comments below, that the real intent here was to catch PP in lawbreaking (here the Infant Born Alive Act) and it just turned out to be viscerally horrifying. The structure of the video comes across as strange, as the thing they're trying to prove isn't the takeaway for the viewer.
This video underscores my suspicion, developed in response to Elise's comments below, that the real intent here was to catch PP in lawbreaking (here the Infant Born Alive Act) and it just turned out to be viscerally horrifying. The structure of the video comes across as strange, as the thing they're trying to prove isn't the takeaway for the viewer.
Clinton Emails Had Lots of Classified Data, From 5 Different Intelligence Agencies Including NSA
No one thinks she's going to be made to suffer formal legal penalties. She is obviously above the law. But there's law, and then there's bureaucracy. So a question for all of you keeping score at home: Will Hillary Clinton lose her security clearance?
Her clearance is doubtless inactive because she has been out of the government for a while, but it is doubtless a clearance of the highest level: TS/SCI, for Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmentalized Information. It happens that I know quite a bit about what is involved in obtaining and maintaining such a clearance. There is not a doubt in my mind that any normal person found to have passed classified information through their un-secure private email would be stripped of their clearance that afternoon, and would probably never be adjudicated eligible again.
There is no formal requirement that someone standing for President has to be eligible for a security clearance, of course. She will still be given access to anything at all in spite of being ineligible. Further, Mrs. Clinton is at the end of her public career: if she is not elected President, she will not serve in any other capacity.
Thus, there is no reason not to enforce standards in the usual way. Does anyone think that will happen?
Her clearance is doubtless inactive because she has been out of the government for a while, but it is doubtless a clearance of the highest level: TS/SCI, for Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmentalized Information. It happens that I know quite a bit about what is involved in obtaining and maintaining such a clearance. There is not a doubt in my mind that any normal person found to have passed classified information through their un-secure private email would be stripped of their clearance that afternoon, and would probably never be adjudicated eligible again.
There is no formal requirement that someone standing for President has to be eligible for a security clearance, of course. She will still be given access to anything at all in spite of being ineligible. Further, Mrs. Clinton is at the end of her public career: if she is not elected President, she will not serve in any other capacity.
Thus, there is no reason not to enforce standards in the usual way. Does anyone think that will happen?
Are you a pile of goop? Period.
It's getting harder to differentiate who is and who isn't. Ed Morrissey argues that we should quit focusing on whether Planned Parenthood's organ sales produced a profit:
Planned Parenthood wants to keep the debate on these points to deflect from the real debate — the nature of abortion itself, and the deliberate minimization in language that has allowed it. Abortion defenders claim that the procedure does not terminate life, and that it has no more moral meaning than excising a tumor or a cyst, a "clump of cells" in the most common construction. On Twitter, a young actor in Hollywood offered a more crude assessment this week. "A pile of goop should not have more rights than a human being," Lucas Neff tweeted, "period."
* * *
The true danger to Planned Parenthood and the entire industry is the exposure of their hypocrisy. The two positions of "clumps of cells" and negotiating over human organs from abortions are mutually exclusive. One cannot extract human organs from "a pile of goop," or from tumors or undifferentiated "clumps of cells." Human organs come from human beings, and the only way to harvest them from unborn human beings is to kill them first. The videos cut through all of the misdirection, all of the antiseptic generalities used in defense of abortion, to expose its true nature — and that's what has Planned Parenthood panicked over the videos.
70th Anniversary of the Sinking of the USS Indianapolis
Today marks the 70th Anniversary of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. Of the crew of about 1200, only 900 survived the initial sinking. Before they were rescued four days after the sinking, another 600 would die of exposure, dehydration, and shark attacks. Most Americans only know about this because of the movie Jaws, where Quint describes the ordeal of the sailors and Marines who survived the initial sinking. But because it was described in a movie, most people assume it is a work of fiction.
It was not.
I encourage everyone to watch the following video and hear the first hand account of a survivor of the USS Indianapolis.
Quit arguing
Kurt Schlichter says it's time to stop wasting your breath on gun-control advocates who are arguing in bad faith:
Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”
Thanks for bringing that up
Now that you mention it, the Michigan Supreme Court says, not only are private unions prohibited from forcing workers to join and pay dues, the state civil service commission similarly has no business requiring government employees to pay public union dues:
In 2012 Michigan passed a right-to work statute that lets workers decide whether to join a union and thus pay union dues. The United Auto Workers (UAW), which represents 17,000 state workers, brought a lawsuit claiming the law doesn’t apply to its members because their employment terms are set by the Michigan Civil Service Commission.
Bad call. The Civil Service Commission had long held that, while public employees could opt out of the union, they had to pay union fees. On Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the commission had no such constitutional authority “to compel civil service employees to make involuntary financial contributions.”That comes under the legal heading of "sorry I filed that lawsuit in the first place."
Union membership has plummeted in Wisconsin and Indiana since similar worker freedom was allowed. The largest state teachers union in Wisconsin has lost more than half of its 40,000 members in four years.Did I forget to mention, Scott Walker for president?
124%
So I got notified of my health insurance cost increase for next year. I still have one of those 'grandfathered' plans, and last year it went up by twenty-plus percent in cost. This year, it's going up in price by nearly a quarter. This is not a "Cadillac" plan. I have to pay ten grand out of pocket before it covers anything. The only reason to maintain it versus an Obamacare plan is that it has a real network: almost anyone around is on the network. If you get hurt or sick, you can get care anywhere around. If I switched to Zero-care, good luck finding anyone who will see you for anything at all.
Sure has been nice, this ride into "Affordable Care." I'm sure I'm not the only one who has really enjoyed it. The major effect for me is that I'm now paying hundreds of dollars a month more for the same insurance.
Sure has been nice, this ride into "Affordable Care." I'm sure I'm not the only one who has really enjoyed it. The major effect for me is that I'm now paying hundreds of dollars a month more for the same insurance.
Lost sons returned--actually, not
Update: my mistake, or rather Ace's--that was a link to a 2005 article about two other boys who were found after being missing on the water for six days. Sadly, still no word on this week's boys.
I wouldn't have given a plugged nickel for the chances of these two teenagers, who have been missing off the coast of South Carolina for six days. Their boat was found a couple of days ago, with no sign of the boys. The initial report doesn't explain how they got separated from the boat, but, incredibly, both boys are alive and doing pretty well.
Their neighbor Joe Namath had been helping fund the search-and-rescue effort.
The Sword in the Stone
King Arthur is supposed to have lived in or around AD 500. However, the legend of the sword in the stone does not originate with him. It was attached to the Arthurian tradition perhaps in the 12th century -- this site credits Robert de Boron, and Wikipedia seems to agree -- some decades after Geoffrey of Monmouth's famous history revived Arthur as a figure explaining why a set of kings from the continent could reasonably claim to be the legitimate royalty over the British Isles. Arthur had ruled both in Brittany and in Britain, by tradition, and the Norman kings would go on to claim the right to rule over the whole territory comprising his legendary kingdom.
The sword in the stone is usually supposed to be related to the Volsung saga in Norse. In that saga, Odin drives a magic sword into a tree as a gift for the man who can remove it. Only Sigmund is able to free it. This sword later breaks, and its shards are re-forged by his son (with assistance from a magic dwarf). The resulting sword, Gram, is the sword Sigurd uses to kill the dragon. This sword is the clear predecessor for Tolkien's Narsil/Anduril, the sword that was broken. The story of Gram is not completely unlike the Arthurian story, with a divinely-given sword, the freeing of which results in a test, and which later breaks and must be replaced. In Malory, the sword in the stone breaks in a fight with king Pellinore, from which Arthur is only rescued by Merlin's intervention. Merlin then takes Arthur and introduces him to the Lady of the Lake, who grants him Excalibur. However, in earlier versions of the story, Excalibur and the sword in the stone are the same sword.
I remind you of all of this to pass on another possible origin for the sword in the stone story, via D29. The timing is just about right. It will have happened some decades before Robert de Boron's poetry.
The sword in the stone is usually supposed to be related to the Volsung saga in Norse. In that saga, Odin drives a magic sword into a tree as a gift for the man who can remove it. Only Sigmund is able to free it. This sword later breaks, and its shards are re-forged by his son (with assistance from a magic dwarf). The resulting sword, Gram, is the sword Sigurd uses to kill the dragon. This sword is the clear predecessor for Tolkien's Narsil/Anduril, the sword that was broken. The story of Gram is not completely unlike the Arthurian story, with a divinely-given sword, the freeing of which results in a test, and which later breaks and must be replaced. In Malory, the sword in the stone breaks in a fight with king Pellinore, from which Arthur is only rescued by Merlin's intervention. Merlin then takes Arthur and introduces him to the Lady of the Lake, who grants him Excalibur. However, in earlier versions of the story, Excalibur and the sword in the stone are the same sword.
I remind you of all of this to pass on another possible origin for the sword in the stone story, via D29. The timing is just about right. It will have happened some decades before Robert de Boron's poetry.
The legendary sword in the stone still stands in Italy. While connected to Arthurian legend and British history, this Sword in the Stone is associated with a Catholic saint. Visitors can see it in the Montesiepi chapel, near Saint Galgano Abbey in Chiusdino, in Tuscany.A video of the sword and the stone, around which was later built an abbey, can be seen here.
The legend surrounds the story of brave knight Galgano Guidotti, who was born in 1148 near Chiusdino. After spending his youth as a brave knight, Galgano decided to follow the words of Jesus in 1180 and retired as a hermit near his hometown.
Galgano is said to have stuck his sword onto a rock in order to use it as a cross for his prayers. One year later Galgano died, and in 1185 Pope Lucius the 3rd declared him a saint.
After Galgano's death, according to legend, countless people have tried to steal the sword. In the chapel you can see what are said to be the mummified hands of a thief that tried to remove the sword and was then suddenly slaughtered by wild wolves.
The sword was believed to be a fake for years. However, recent studies examined the sword and the hands, and the dating results as well as metal and style of the sword all are consistent with the late 1100s, early 1200s. This lends credence that the story on which the English sword and the stone is based on originated with Guidotti in Italy.
Michael Bay Is Making A Movie About Benghazi
It will be very interesting to see how this is portrayed, and what repercussions it might have for the Clinton campaign. Will it shy away from the question of her responsibility? Will it try to make it look like she couldn't have done anything? That's my suspicion, but if not, then it could be explosive.
Here's the movie's website, but there's not much but the trailer there now.
Jurisdiction Stripping
Sounds kinda dirty, but Adam Freedman over at National Review claims it's the answer to the USSC overstepping itself on the same sex marriage issue, and federal courts, too, for that matter. What is it?
... it involves nothing more than Congress’s exercising its constitutional authority to define the limits of federal judicial power. The idea of using Congress to rein in activist judges is not new; in fact, it was once advocated by a young lawyer in the Reagan administration named John Roberts. ...
Congress should listen to the young John Roberts and abolish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — and all federal courts — over cases involving state laws defining marriage. At the moment, such legislation would require a two-thirds majority to overcome President Obama’s inevitable veto. But come January 20, 2017, if there is a Republican in the White House, jurisdiction-stripping legislation could become a reality. Every GOP presidential candidate should commit to signing such a bill the moment it crosses his or her desk. The jurisdiction of federal courts is almost entirely a matter of congressional discretion. The Constitution creates only one court — the Supreme Court — and then gives Congress the power to “ordain and establish” lower federal courts as it sees fit. Since Congress has no obligation to create lower federal courts in the first place, it has every right to limit the jurisdiction of those courts it chooses to create.
As for the Supreme Court, its appellate jurisdiction — that is, its ability to review lower-court decisions — is subject to “such Exceptions, and . . . such Regulations as Congress shall make.” ...
Historically, Supreme Court jurisdiction was far more limited than it is today. Until 1889, the Supreme Court could not hear appeals in federal criminal cases. Until 1914, the Court had no right to review state-court decisions striking down state laws or upholding federal law. Essentially, state courts had the last word unless they struck down a federal law or denied the applicability of a federal right.
In the end, it only throws the ball back into the states' court, but it's an interesting idea. Is it a realistic one?
Well, That's Interesting
Among reasons not to drink Mountain Dew:
11. It’ll Dissolve a MouseThis claim appears to check out. Of course, your stomach lining is strong.
Recently there was a law suit involving a mouse that was found in a can of mountain dew, and PepsiCo’s legal defense suggested that the consumer planter the mouse. They did this by admitting that a mouse left in a can of mountain dew for the period of time that the mouse was supposedly in the can the consumer purchased would have completely dissolved.
Greetings, Denizens of the European Union!
I am informed by our generous hosts at Blogger/Google that you have passed a law mandating that we inform you about our use of cookies, and possibly obtain your consent. If you are coming in from an EU country (or visit an EU-hosted version of this site) you should see an appropriate notice automatically courtesy of our hosts.
I'm not actually sure what cookies Google and or Blogger use on this site. You can consent to them or not, as you prefer. Be aware, however, that as an American I reject any suggestion that I have a duty to obey your laws.
We are a free people. We make our own laws. Keep yours to yourselves.
If this notice constitutes a hate crime in your jurisdiction, please note that this is just too bad.
I'm not actually sure what cookies Google and or Blogger use on this site. You can consent to them or not, as you prefer. Be aware, however, that as an American I reject any suggestion that I have a duty to obey your laws.
We are a free people. We make our own laws. Keep yours to yourselves.
If this notice constitutes a hate crime in your jurisdiction, please note that this is just too bad.
You Can't Mock This Stuff
If this was a joke, what would you say differently?
What on earth are they trying to teach our children?
The guide also discourages the use of “mothering” or “fathering,” so as to “avoid gendering a non-gendered activity.”It's amazing. Instead of saying "healthy," say "non-disabled," but don't then say "disabled"!
What on earth are they trying to teach our children?
Strange I've Not Heard Of This Before
Washington state has a law called "mutual combat," which allows people to engage in freely engaged fisticuffs if supervised by a police officer. This sounds like just the sort of thing I've long advocated. I can't seem to find much data on how it's worked out, though, which probably means that it hasn't been a total disaster.
An Old Folk Song About That Coward Robert Ford
From The Long Riders, a traditional folk song about Jesse James. Outlaw songs tend to romanticize the hero, but Robert Ford deserves his infamy.
Vote for the Socialist?
I'm certainly not planning on it, but I'll say this for Sen. Sanders: he has a refreshing habit deflating rather than hiding behind buzzwords.
Ezra KleinI think it's fair to say that, having read this interview, you will know what Bernie Sanders really thinks about everything. I applaud him for that, even where I think he is badly wrong in his thinking. Honesty and directness are the hallmarks of a healthy democracy. We ought to share out views openly and clearly, debate them vigorously, and then choose. Lies and deceit are not befitting in the leadership of a free people. Indeed, it becomes questionable how free any democratic choice can be when its leadership habitually deceives about their intentions.
I want to make a turn to foreign policy. Is there a particular foreign policy school of thought you ascribe to? Do you describe yourself as a realist or a democratic socialist?
Bernie Sanders
I don't know what that means. I trust we're all realists.
Ezra Klein
I'm not sure we are.
Bernie Sanders
I don't know what that word means.
...
Ezra Klein
Do you view yourself as a Zionist?
Bernie Sanders
A Zionist? What does that mean? Want to define what the word is?
Incunabula
The Vatican Library has been digitizing its collection, making many beautiful works from throughout the 2000 year history of the Church available to view. Among these are incunabula, that is, printed works from the earliest period of printing. Given our recent discussion of the early history of printing, I thought some of you might enjoy looking at them.
You can visit that section directly through this link.
You can visit that section directly through this link.
The Third Planned Parenthood Video
An interview with one of their doctors, who fainted the first time she was asked to do what they had hired her to do. “I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” she says.
Beware if you aren't ready for similar sights. "Toward the end, though, an undercover camera catches the horrifying reality of organ harvesting. The hands and feat of dismembered fetuses are clearly visible."
Beware if you aren't ready for similar sights. "Toward the end, though, an undercover camera catches the horrifying reality of organ harvesting. The hands and feat of dismembered fetuses are clearly visible."
Impossible thrust
That EM propulsion system that appears to defy the law of conservation of momentum doesn't seem to be going away. I'm hoping someone (James?) can chime in.
Huckabee: No, Really, Genocide
'You're talking about killing the Jews in Israel. Or, at least, the Iranians are sure talking about it.'
He could be wrong, but there's the very great danger that he might be right. I mean, we all saw the thing the Supreme Leader sent out that has a silhouette of Obama holding a gun to his own head. What's suicidal about war with Iran? Nothing, unless they have access to nuclear weapons.
By the way, we don't know what we promised as a condition of this deal, as no American was allowed to see it. And since neither the main deal nor the side deals treat the Bushehr heavy water reactor, we still haven't seen the terms. We have absolutely no idea what we're agreeing to.
He could be wrong, but there's the very great danger that he might be right. I mean, we all saw the thing the Supreme Leader sent out that has a silhouette of Obama holding a gun to his own head. What's suicidal about war with Iran? Nothing, unless they have access to nuclear weapons.
By the way, we don't know what we promised as a condition of this deal, as no American was allowed to see it. And since neither the main deal nor the side deals treat the Bushehr heavy water reactor, we still haven't seen the terms. We have absolutely no idea what we're agreeing to.
Planning to Carry More Often?
Instapundit has a good reason to direct you to Amazon, and if you like those holsters by all means buy through him.
But if you want something a little better, allow me to recommend Mernickle. They can hook you up with an heirloom.
But if you want something a little better, allow me to recommend Mernickle. They can hook you up with an heirloom.
Those IGs Are the Heroes of this Story
I'm beginning to understand why the administration is so concerned to cut them off at the knees.
Analysis from Hot Air. An IRS love song from Remy.
Analysis from Hot Air. An IRS love song from Remy.
Tour de France
Congratulations to the winner, in what one news source is calling "the single most dominant performance in the 112-year history of the event."
The World is Upside Down
The President has given the green light to Turkey's bombing of the Kurds, the only effective resistance to ISIS in Iraq except for the Iranian-backed Shia militias. US and British veteran volunteers are fighting alongside the Kurds, and will now be at risk of being killed by NATO bombs.
Why? Turkey was just struck by a major ISIS bombing attack this week. Of course, it struck the secular opposition party, not the ruling Islamist party.
Why? Turkey was just struck by a major ISIS bombing attack this week. Of course, it struck the secular opposition party, not the ruling Islamist party.
"The Most Important Battle You've Probably Never Heard Of"
Well, the headline was written for the general public, not denizens of the Hall! The date was eight hundred years ago today, and the battle was Bouvines:
"Without Bouvines there is no Magna Carta, and all the British and American law that stems from that. It's a muddy field, the armies are small, but everything depends on the struggle. It's one of the climactic moments of European history."
Cowboy Mounted Shooting
Ed Driscoll at InstaPundit has published a couple of photos of a mounted shooting competition. This is a fun sport, although you should take it with a grain of salt. The .45s in this competition are loaded with wax for safety reasons, and it disintegrates under the pressure of the explosive gas created by the cartridge going off. That's why, in the second shot, you see what appear to be rays of light going off in many directions: they are bits of burning wax flying through the air. As you can see, they don't go all that far before burning up and falling out of the air. That means it's safe to shoot guns in the arena with spectators all around you -- as long as they are more than a few feet away, there's no danger to them.
However, it also means that the revolver is acting more like a shotgun than like a revolver being fed traditional solid bullets. The accuracy of the riders is thus somewhat difficult to judge. Would they have hit the balloon if they'd been firing lead flat nose rounds? Maybe! It's still a lot of fun.
However, it also means that the revolver is acting more like a shotgun than like a revolver being fed traditional solid bullets. The accuracy of the riders is thus somewhat difficult to judge. Would they have hit the balloon if they'd been firing lead flat nose rounds? Maybe! It's still a lot of fun.
What's the Worst Problem in Human Thought?
Overconfidence, says Daniel Kahneman. Stereotyping is unavoidable in spite of its tragic nature:
It's an issue we discuss here from time to time. It's what I mean when I talk about physical reality being analogical rather than logical. If "human" was a logical object, you could make claims about a human that would be absolutely certain to hold for any human. It turns out that you can't do this with logical certainty: even claims that hold almost all the time ("a human being has two eyes," "a human being is either male or female," "a human being will have exactly one parent of each sex") turn out to admit of exceptions. We are blindsided by the exceptions because we think of the category as logical, but it's really a stereotype -- or, as I prefer to explain it, the members of the category are members by a relationship of analogy. It's not that they really belong to a hard, logical category. It's that we've found ways in which they seem to be alike, and have made analogies between them in our minds.
Recognizing that should do something to undermine the problem of overconfidence, as you suddenly become aware that much of your understanding of the world is built on shaky ground. It is characteristic of analogies that they always fail. Sooner or later, your analogies will break.
By the way, his examples are interesting because tables and chairs are artifacts rather than naturally occurring things like human beings. With artifacts, you really can make at least some logical claims because they were created by a human mind for a particular purpose. You can say with certainty that "any artifact that is a table will be potentially be capable of holding objects up off the floor or ground" because that's what a table is. These are actually the best case scenario for stereotypes about physical objects that hold universally.
“Think of it this way. A form of stereotyping is involved in understanding the world. So I have a stereotype of a table, I have a stereotype of chairs. Now when you start having stereotypes of social groups, it’s the human mind at work. It’s not a different mind. It’s what you need to get around in the world.” You can slow down and become aware of this, Kahneman believes, but the underlying mechanism isn’t going to change.Not that he's in favor of it: the article goes on to relate his experience as a victim of the Holocaust. But compared to overconfidence, stereotyping is at least mostly useful most of the time. It's absolutely necessary to understanding the world, even though it leads us to error now and then.
It's an issue we discuss here from time to time. It's what I mean when I talk about physical reality being analogical rather than logical. If "human" was a logical object, you could make claims about a human that would be absolutely certain to hold for any human. It turns out that you can't do this with logical certainty: even claims that hold almost all the time ("a human being has two eyes," "a human being is either male or female," "a human being will have exactly one parent of each sex") turn out to admit of exceptions. We are blindsided by the exceptions because we think of the category as logical, but it's really a stereotype -- or, as I prefer to explain it, the members of the category are members by a relationship of analogy. It's not that they really belong to a hard, logical category. It's that we've found ways in which they seem to be alike, and have made analogies between them in our minds.
Recognizing that should do something to undermine the problem of overconfidence, as you suddenly become aware that much of your understanding of the world is built on shaky ground. It is characteristic of analogies that they always fail. Sooner or later, your analogies will break.
By the way, his examples are interesting because tables and chairs are artifacts rather than naturally occurring things like human beings. With artifacts, you really can make at least some logical claims because they were created by a human mind for a particular purpose. You can say with certainty that "any artifact that is a table will be potentially be capable of holding objects up off the floor or ground" because that's what a table is. These are actually the best case scenario for stereotypes about physical objects that hold universally.
Filial Piety
For reasons I won't go into, I was looking back at some old posts about my father and grandfather. There's one in particular I'd like to bring forward.
The Ides of March.
Much of this was written way back in 2004. I was a better writer, then. Things have become clouded that were once clear. It is good to revisit the old days when skies were bright.
The Ides of March.
Much of this was written way back in 2004. I was a better writer, then. Things have become clouded that were once clear. It is good to revisit the old days when skies were bright.
Against Genocide
Mike Huckabee apparently thinks he's found the unifying characteristic of foreign and domestic policy.
Justice Ginsburg said that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." The author didn't follow up to ask which populations those were, but we can see the results fairly plainly. Huckabee's language is explosive, but there's a valid point buried where he's digging.
UPDATE: Huckabee says he really means it on the dangers of genocide in Israel.
"This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal.An Evangelical mother I know sent me a graphic the other day that asserts that, if you kept a moment of silence for every American baby killed by abortion since Roe, you would be silent for over a hundred years. If "moment" means "minute," that's true even with the five year old data from the link. America's population would not necessarily be fifty-seven million greater since we could easily have cut into that by not opening the floodgates of immigration. It would be substantially more black and less Latino, though, as without abortion the black population would be 36% larger than it is. Around a third of black babies are aborted at their mothers' own choice, albeit a choice frequently made under the duress of poverty.
...
"The fact that [Planned Parenthood is] getting between $500-540 million of taxpayer money is really a disgrace. It is disgusting to fund an organization like Planned Parenthood that chops up babies and sells the parts like parts to a Buick. America needs to come to grips with a 42-year nightmare of taking babies from their mother’s womb. This needs to come to an end."
Justice Ginsburg said that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." The author didn't follow up to ask which populations those were, but we can see the results fairly plainly. Huckabee's language is explosive, but there's a valid point buried where he's digging.
UPDATE: Huckabee says he really means it on the dangers of genocide in Israel.
You Might As Well
Headline: "CIA Mulls Pulling US Spies Out Of China After Massive OPM Hack Likely Compromised American Identities."
Sexual Orientation and Free Will
In "How Choice and Emotion Can Influence Sexual Orientation," Ronald Pisaturo argues against biological and social determinism and for free will as the determiner of sexual orientation. He takes a position that bears some resemblance to an argument I've seen here before, one of Grim's, I think, that we express free will not always in the moment, but in habits. That is, there is no moment when someone makes a conscious decision to be homosexual or heterosexual, but that these orientations are the culminations of many decisions over many years.
It is particularly interesting to me because he argues that heterosexuality is also a choice (or, a long series of choices). In the past, I have simply assumed heterosexuality was the norm and there was no need for a choice, but Pisaturo's argument here intrigues me and I will have to think about it.
In any case, it is an argument I am highly susceptible to, so I invite anyone who is interested to read and poke holes in it, or say whatever else you'd like to say about it.
It is particularly interesting to me because he argues that heterosexuality is also a choice (or, a long series of choices). In the past, I have simply assumed heterosexuality was the norm and there was no need for a choice, but Pisaturo's argument here intrigues me and I will have to think about it.
In any case, it is an argument I am highly susceptible to, so I invite anyone who is interested to read and poke holes in it, or say whatever else you'd like to say about it.
That's Exactly the Problem
“Planned Parenthood has broken no laws," Cecile Richards, the president of the non-profit, said on "This Week."UPDATE: Wonderful.
Near Miss in Austin
Apparently your immigration from California is posing the same kind of problem for Texas that migration to Atlanta has posed for Georgia these last thirty years. The Austin city council almost voted to ban... barbecue smoke.
Austin City Council members passed a preliminary plan in April to put restrictions on smoke from barbeque restaurants. Some Austin residents complain of the barbecue smoke saying they can’t enjoy their homes they purchased before some of these restaurants moved in.How do you ban barbecue in Texas, any more than in the South? And what kind of person complains about the smell of barbecue smoke? I'm not sure there's a more wonderful smell on God's green earth than barbecue smoke.
The city council’s current proposal will require... at least $100,000 in extra investments for most barbecue restaurants as they will be forced to buy extra smokers along with severely expensive diffusers, and in some cases will have to lease or purchase more property.
...
It is effectively a ban on barbecue restaurants in a town known for its barbecue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)