I see that one of the last remaining greats of country music has announced his retirement today. He was never one of my very favorite singers, even at the top of his career, but my mother adored his singing.
Here is a song of his that remains relevant.
Islam is the War on Women
This is not where I expected Dr. Ben Carson to plant his flag. I thought he'd defend his comments on 'not supporting a Muslim for President' as a matter of personal choice as a voter, which everyone has a right to make. A substantial part of the Democratic Party would decline to support any Evangelical Christian for that office for similar personal concerns about the way the tenets of those faiths play with issues of importance to them as voters.
Instead, he's doubling down on a formal objection that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization -- and the Constitution -- unless Muslims become extremely flexible on its law. America should be a "Judeo-Christian" nation that defends the rights of women.
The Anti-Defamation League posits an objection based on, I gather, concerns about how we might receive presidential candidates who came out against Jews the way Carson is coming out against (at least fundamentalist) Muslims. On the other hand, Front Page Magazine asks whether we can really expect "a black man to prove his tolerance by endorsing a religion that practices slavery?" Given the currency of the rise of ISIS and its practice of slavery justified by appeals to sha'riah law, that's a reasonable question. But they aren't just talking about ISIS: Front Page cites a Human Rights Watch report based on compensation levels for death in Jeddah based on the free or unfree status of the dead.
I'm not sure that 'protection of the rights of women' is even a Judeo-Christian thing, but rather a specifically Medieval European tradition. It has a Judeo-Christian root in the idea, expressed by Aquinas among others, that God created both male and female and loves them both equally. But it is a chivalric ideal to defend the rights of women as an especial duty of good men. Malory put it in the Arthurian oath, taken each year at the feast of Pentecost:
Instead, he's doubling down on a formal objection that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization -- and the Constitution -- unless Muslims become extremely flexible on its law. America should be a "Judeo-Christian" nation that defends the rights of women.
The Anti-Defamation League posits an objection based on, I gather, concerns about how we might receive presidential candidates who came out against Jews the way Carson is coming out against (at least fundamentalist) Muslims. On the other hand, Front Page Magazine asks whether we can really expect "a black man to prove his tolerance by endorsing a religion that practices slavery?" Given the currency of the rise of ISIS and its practice of slavery justified by appeals to sha'riah law, that's a reasonable question. But they aren't just talking about ISIS: Front Page cites a Human Rights Watch report based on compensation levels for death in Jeddah based on the free or unfree status of the dead.
I'm not sure that 'protection of the rights of women' is even a Judeo-Christian thing, but rather a specifically Medieval European tradition. It has a Judeo-Christian root in the idea, expressed by Aquinas among others, that God created both male and female and loves them both equally. But it is a chivalric ideal to defend the rights of women as an especial duty of good men. Malory put it in the Arthurian oath, taken each year at the feast of Pentecost:
“The king stablished all his knights, and gave them that were of lands not rich, he gave them lands, and charged them never to do outrageousity nor murder, and always to flee treason; also, by no mean to be cruel, but to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy, upon pain of forfeiture of their worship and lordship of King Arthur for evermore; and always to do ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succor upon pain of death. Also, that no man take no battles in a wrongful quarrel for no law, ne for no world’s goods. Unto this were all the knights sworn of the Table Round, both old and young. And every year were they sworn at the high feast of Pentecost.” (Le Morte d'Arthur, pp 115-116)Emphasis added, but it is already quite emphasized in the text: on pain of death. The oath states that Arthur would have hung one of his knights if he failed to defend a lady who needed his help.
Women Should Feel Free to Hike Alone
Backpacker magazine wants you to know that it's almost totally safe.
When we did five days in the Smokies last spring, we met a female hiker who was through-hiking the AT alone. She seemed to be having great fun, and is now getting close to finished according to her occasional online updates. Nothing she's written suggests that she's had even a moment's trouble from anyone. But that's an anecdote: Backpacker has the statistics.
When we did five days in the Smokies last spring, we met a female hiker who was through-hiking the AT alone. She seemed to be having great fun, and is now getting close to finished according to her occasional online updates. Nothing she's written suggests that she's had even a moment's trouble from anyone. But that's an anecdote: Backpacker has the statistics.
Good News / Bad News
Today's good news for Mrs. Clinton: she has one fewer scandal to worry about.
The bad news for Mrs. Clinton: it's because two of the scandals have merged.
UPDATE: "You may recall that she certified, on pain of perjury, that she had handed over copies of all of her work-related e-mails to the State Department. If you believe the AP, that statement is now known to be false.... I can’t believe I’m saying this but I think she really might be done as a viable candidate."
The bad news for Mrs. Clinton: it's because two of the scandals have merged.
UPDATE: "You may recall that she certified, on pain of perjury, that she had handed over copies of all of her work-related e-mails to the State Department. If you believe the AP, that statement is now known to be false.... I can’t believe I’m saying this but I think she really might be done as a viable candidate."
"How to Perform a J-Turn"
The Art of Manliness has some instructional driving advice. I have to admit I'd never heard of a "J-Turn."
Where I come from, in that situation we do what we call a "Bootlegger's Reverse."
You have to be comfortable driving in a skid, but that's an important part of your education as a young man growing up in Appalachia. Or used to be.
Where I come from, in that situation we do what we call a "Bootlegger's Reverse."
You have to be comfortable driving in a skid, but that's an important part of your education as a young man growing up in Appalachia. Or used to be.
Hail Autumn
Avalon, the "Isle of Apples," is associated with autumn because of the harvest of apples, and because the autumn brings about the time when the trees fall into sleep to reawaken in the spring. Avalon was the place where King Arthur was supposed to have been taken after the battle at Camlann, to rest and be healed that he might return at the hour of Britain's need. Malory expressed doubts about this story.
Thus of Arthur I find never more written in books that be authorised, nor more of the very certainty of his death heard I never read, but thus was he led away in a ship wherein were three queens; that one was King Arthur's sister, Queen Morgan le Fay; the other was the Queen of Northgalis; the third was the Queen of the Waste Lands. Also there was Nimue, the chief lady of the lake, that had wedded Pelleas the good knight; and this lady had done much for King Arthur, for she would never suffer Sir Pelleas to be in no place where he should be in danger of his life; and so he lived to the uttermost of his days with her in great rest. More of the death of King Arthur could I never find, but that ladies brought him to his burials; and such one was buried there, that the hermit bare witness that sometime was Bishop of Canterbury, but yet the hermit knew not in certain that he was verily the body of King Arthur: for this tale Sir Bedivere, knight of the Table Round, made it to be written.Of course in the Southern hemisphere, it is the coming of spring. Both seasons have their joys. In my own home of Georgia, we are delighting in the end of the long summer and the coming of bonfires, fall festivals, and cold-pressed cider. They joys of Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas are beginning to come to mind. It is a good time of year.
YET some men say in many parts of England that King Arthur is not dead, but had by the will of our Lord Jesu into another place; and men say that he shall come again, and he shall win the holy cross. I will not say it shall be so, but rather I will say: here in this world he changed his life. But many men say that there is written upon his tomb this verse: Hic jacet Arthurus, Rex quondam, Rexque futurus.
A Veteran's Criticism of BLM
So, an Iraq War veteran decides to go to school. He picks a college with a good reputation, Wesleyan, and decides to write for the student newspaper. This year, he published an article on the Black Lives Matter movement. He is not black. That in itself is fine, as long as the article in question is obsequious.
It wasn't.
Fortunately, so far, the President of Wesleyan is holding the line. Good for him.
It wasn't.
Police officers are looking over their shoulders as several cops have been targeted and gunned down. The week before classes started, seven officers were killed in the line of duty; a few were execution-style targeted killings.Guess what the response was.
An officer I talked to put it succinctly: “If they want to come after me, fine. Just come at me head on. Don’t shoot me in the back of my head. I’d rather go down with a fighting chance.”
Is this an atmosphere created by the police officers and racist elements in society itself? Many, including individuals in the Black Lives Matter movement, believe so.
Or is it because of Black Lives Matter? Many believe that as well, including a police chief who made his remarks after one of his officers was shot and killed—he claimed that Black Lives Matter was responsible for the officer’s death. Some want Black Lives Matter labeled as a hate group.
I talked to a Black Lives Matter supporter, Michael Smith ’18, who recoiled when I told him I was wondering if the movement was legitimate. This is not questioning their claims of racism among the police, or in society itself. Rather, is the movement itself actually achieving anything positive? Does it have the potential for positive change?...
[F]ollowing the Baltimore riots, the city saw a big spike in murders. Good officers, like the one I talked to, go to work every day even more worried that they won’t come home. The officer’s comments reminded me of what soldiers used to say after being hit with IEDs in Iraq. Police forces with a wartime-like mentality are never a good thing....
It boils down to this for me: If vilification and denigration of the police force continues to be a significant portion of Black Lives Matter’s message, then I will not support the movement, I cannot support the movement. And many Americans feel the same. I should repeat, I do support many of the efforts by the more moderate activists....
At some point Black Lives Matter is going to be confronted with an uncomfortable question, if they haven’t already begun asking it: Is this all worth it? Is it worth another riot that destroys a downtown district? Another death, another massacre? At what point will Black Lives Matter go back to the drawing table and rethink how they are approaching the problem?
Fortunately, so far, the President of Wesleyan is holding the line. Good for him.
The CENTCOM Mystery
Several DIA officers have gone whistleblower, charging that "senior officers" at US Central Command altered their intelligence assessments in a way designed to make the President's preferred policy toward ISIS look more successful than it is.
Intelligence analysts exist to provide unbiased, unvarnished assessments to decision-makers. Those assessments must be free to go wherever facts and reason dictate, even if it means going against the grain of a particular political narrative. Such independence is the currency of the analytical realm.This is a serious charge. It will be interesting to see what the IG determines.
The issue of independence is so critical it is essential that the analysts’ allegations of suppressed or altered intelligence assessments be investigated thoroughly and expeditiously. The Pentagon’s inspector general is on the case.
If the allegations are determined to be well founded it would mean that top brass at a combatant command violated the sacrosanct professional code of intelligence to provide objective analysis, free of political bias and personal agendas. The fact that as many as 50 analysts reportedly signed the complaint filed with the inspector general suggests that the problem is not a stand-alone case but systemic. Signing onto a whistleblowing complaint can easily be a career-ender. The analysts who made the very difficult decision to take this step must be commended for reporting their concerns about political influence corrupting their work.
Stupid is Relative
A clever guy says Dr. Carson is "shattering stereotypes about brain surgeons being smart."
It's stronger than that, you know. It's not that you can know a lot about brain surgery and not much about anything else. It's that you virtually have to know a lot about brain surgery and not much about anything else if you're going to be the guy who is very good at brain surgery. Dr. Carson was amazing as a brain surgeon. His profound intellect was focused like a laser for very many years.
A strong intellect can expand, once the area of focus is left behind. In time he could come to know many things, and be good at many things. He once showed a profound capacity to recognize the areas in which he was weak and needed help. I think only good things about the man. He still has tremendous potential.
Nor do I have much respect for the people who mock him, having none of his achievements nor anything to match them. People mock him for having a taxation plan based on tithing. If these clever guys took time to understand him, they'd see that the thing he says makes sense in his context. I don't doubt that he really does tithe. He's happy with what the church does with the money he gives it. He believes in God, so when he asks why the State needs more than God does, it's not rhetorical. Of course, there's an answer: God can work miracles with his money.
What's going on with people who raise this criticism, though, is worth understanding. It's not that they are simpletons because they believe in God. It's that they willingly give ten percent of what they make to the Lord through their church, and they are pretty happy with what the church does with that money in their community. They unwillingly give much more than ten percent to the State, and what comes of that money? The voluntary given in a way directed at a vision of the divine seems to do good things in their community. The vast sums sent to a distant and alien authority seem to return nothing good.
It's a sophisticated critique generally made by people who aren't always obviously sophisticated. Those who are too clever to grasp it aren't helping themselves. You know what Hank Williams said about putting down what you don't understand -- don't you? If you hang around here, you probably do. You probably even know which Hank Williams it was.
But if you don't, we won't mock you here in the Hall. Maybe you just studied something else. It was Hank Williams, Jr.
“When people found out I was a brain surgeon they would always assume I was some kind of a genius,” said Harland Dorrinson, a neurosurgeon in Toledo, Ohio. “Now they are beginning to understand that you can know a lot about brain surgery and virtually nothing about anything else.”
It's stronger than that, you know. It's not that you can know a lot about brain surgery and not much about anything else. It's that you virtually have to know a lot about brain surgery and not much about anything else if you're going to be the guy who is very good at brain surgery. Dr. Carson was amazing as a brain surgeon. His profound intellect was focused like a laser for very many years.
A strong intellect can expand, once the area of focus is left behind. In time he could come to know many things, and be good at many things. He once showed a profound capacity to recognize the areas in which he was weak and needed help. I think only good things about the man. He still has tremendous potential.
Nor do I have much respect for the people who mock him, having none of his achievements nor anything to match them. People mock him for having a taxation plan based on tithing. If these clever guys took time to understand him, they'd see that the thing he says makes sense in his context. I don't doubt that he really does tithe. He's happy with what the church does with the money he gives it. He believes in God, so when he asks why the State needs more than God does, it's not rhetorical. Of course, there's an answer: God can work miracles with his money.
What's going on with people who raise this criticism, though, is worth understanding. It's not that they are simpletons because they believe in God. It's that they willingly give ten percent of what they make to the Lord through their church, and they are pretty happy with what the church does with that money in their community. They unwillingly give much more than ten percent to the State, and what comes of that money? The voluntary given in a way directed at a vision of the divine seems to do good things in their community. The vast sums sent to a distant and alien authority seem to return nothing good.
It's a sophisticated critique generally made by people who aren't always obviously sophisticated. Those who are too clever to grasp it aren't helping themselves. You know what Hank Williams said about putting down what you don't understand -- don't you? If you hang around here, you probably do. You probably even know which Hank Williams it was.
But if you don't, we won't mock you here in the Hall. Maybe you just studied something else. It was Hank Williams, Jr.
"If You Wanna Embrace the Golden Calf..."
"...ankle and thigh and upper-half..."
Here it is.
Lest we forget: "...Comes the end, it won't be pretty..."
Here it is.
Lest we forget: "...Comes the end, it won't be pretty..."
This Analysis is Plausible
[Trump] is, as many say, making a mockery of the entire political process with his bull-in-a-china-shop antics. But the mockery in this case may be overdue, highly warranted, and ultimately a spur to reform....Well, any reform is still to be suggested. But a good mockery might help to illuminate the ways in which reform is needed.
Our Own Government is an Imminent Threat
So say half of Americans, including two-thirds of Republicans.
The question is a little simplistic. I don't think Jade Helm fantasies are in any danger of coming true. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that the IRS and the Department of Justice have become politicized, and are being used to advance the agenda of one side while protecting its cronies from the law. That's really dangerous.
The question is a little simplistic. I don't think Jade Helm fantasies are in any danger of coming true. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that the IRS and the Department of Justice have become politicized, and are being used to advance the agenda of one side while protecting its cronies from the law. That's really dangerous.
A Lesson in Capitalism
A drug company bought the rights to a 62 year old drug, and raised the price for dosages from $13.50 to $750. Reaction from the left:
Who thinks the per-dose price is going to approach $13.50 again in the near future? Anyone want to bet it may even go under that?
In what may go down in history as the textbook example of how dangerous an unregulated free market can be when a company decides it wants to be greedy, Turing Pharmaceuticals of New York hiked the cost of a powerful drug used to treat people with life-threatening illnesses like AIDS and cancer by over 5,000 percent overnight. Why? Because it will make the start-up company’s investors rich – and there is nothing patients and doctors could do about it.Reaction from the right: "Time to build a factory to make that drug in India."
Who thinks the per-dose price is going to approach $13.50 again in the near future? Anyone want to bet it may even go under that?
Cruz v. Rubio
I suspect Erickson is right about the way the race is headed, but that Allah is right about the way the endgame will go. Cruz and Rubio both gave great speeches at RedState Gathering. Cruz gives a barn-burner outsider speech, like the younger Ronald Reagan. Rubio gives a fantastic uplifting "Morning in America" speech, also much like Reagan but the sunnier Reagan of the later years.
Historically, Reagan follows Carter. This last eight years has brought America back to the Carter years in a number of ways -- not least of which is that inflation-adjusted income has declined to levels not seen since the mid-1970s, especially for men and native-born Americans. The Middle East situation shows Iran ascendant in a way that it hasn't been since the 1979 coup. The Russian bear is resurgent. Crime is up for the first time in decades.
Middle America may well be looking for a Reagan. If it comes down to Rubio versus Cruz, the question will be which of the Reagans they see on the stump better represents the Reagan they think they need.
Historically, Reagan follows Carter. This last eight years has brought America back to the Carter years in a number of ways -- not least of which is that inflation-adjusted income has declined to levels not seen since the mid-1970s, especially for men and native-born Americans. The Middle East situation shows Iran ascendant in a way that it hasn't been since the 1979 coup. The Russian bear is resurgent. Crime is up for the first time in decades.
Middle America may well be looking for a Reagan. If it comes down to Rubio versus Cruz, the question will be which of the Reagans they see on the stump better represents the Reagan they think they need.
“At Night We Can Hear Them Screaming...
"...but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine told his father.
If you don't interfere, you become complicit. How can the American military stand by while such things go on? We would not ally ourselves with ISIS, and ignore the slave auctions going on next door.
Or would we?
If you don't interfere, you become complicit. How can the American military stand by while such things go on? We would not ally ourselves with ISIS, and ignore the slave auctions going on next door.
Or would we?
The Dragon
Today I felled a big, dead oak. It was one I had considered dropping last year, but decided was too dangerous. It was still up this year, and must be well-seasoned. I always prefer to cut standing dead wood or at least badly damaged trees, so as to provide warmth for my family in winter without hurting the living forest. But dead wood is dangerous. The loss of the organic process means that there is no longer a living principle that is ordering the tree as a whole, keeping it together and repairing its flaws. The desiccation that follows death means that cells shrink, which produces fissures and weaknesses in the whole. It can splinter, shatter, collapse in unexpected directions. A big oak, even in death, is far stronger and vaster than you.
I had skill, strength, and a 55-cc chainsaw to serve for an enchanted spear. The oak came down, hard, and I am no worse for wear. I took a moment before I tackled it to prepare my soul as well as I could in case I failed, but in truth all days are like this. Some day the dragon must win.
Today you may have read of a young man killed on the return leg of a charity bicycle trip. I have met, almost, his wife. She was at the Red State Gathering that I attended with Uncle Jimbo, and is a long time friend of his. She came up and talked to him several times while I was with him, but being a bum he never thought to introduce us. Nevertheless, I know from their interactions that she is even now expecting a child with what is now her late husband. For what it is worth, from an almost acquaintance, I extend my deepest condolences to Mary Katharine Ham and her family.
We forget, how readily we forget, the dragon that lurks in wait for us. Memento Mori. Live better in the awareness that you will die.
I had skill, strength, and a 55-cc chainsaw to serve for an enchanted spear. The oak came down, hard, and I am no worse for wear. I took a moment before I tackled it to prepare my soul as well as I could in case I failed, but in truth all days are like this. Some day the dragon must win.
Today you may have read of a young man killed on the return leg of a charity bicycle trip. I have met, almost, his wife. She was at the Red State Gathering that I attended with Uncle Jimbo, and is a long time friend of his. She came up and talked to him several times while I was with him, but being a bum he never thought to introduce us. Nevertheless, I know from their interactions that she is even now expecting a child with what is now her late husband. For what it is worth, from an almost acquaintance, I extend my deepest condolences to Mary Katharine Ham and her family.
We forget, how readily we forget, the dragon that lurks in wait for us. Memento Mori. Live better in the awareness that you will die.
Done Quit Preaching and Gone to Meddling
I mean, I'm the furthest thing from a xenophobe. I've lived abroad in many places, and I make a point of befriending the immigrants I encounter and trying to make them feel welcome here. I have concerns about large-scale illegal immigration, and I think that even a nation of immigrants should manage its immigration so that it tracks with successful assimilation.
On the other hand, there are limits to patience and tolerance.
By the way, do you get the reference from the headline here? It's a story that used to be told by the late, great Lewis Grizzard. It's probably been told by others. It's about a new preacher who shows up in Appalachia, and is warmly received by his new congregation. The first Sunday he preaches on the Ten Commandments, and they love it. The second Sunday he preaches fire and brimstone on chastity and marital fidelity, and they love it. The third Sunday he preaches against the sins of drinking, and the evils of men making their living by moonshine. The congregation gets quiet for a while, and finally one man in the back stands up.
"What is it?" says the preacher.
"Son," answers the man, to the silent but clear approbation of the assembled, "You've done quit preaching, and gone to meddling."
On the other hand, there are limits to patience and tolerance.
By the way, do you get the reference from the headline here? It's a story that used to be told by the late, great Lewis Grizzard. It's probably been told by others. It's about a new preacher who shows up in Appalachia, and is warmly received by his new congregation. The first Sunday he preaches on the Ten Commandments, and they love it. The second Sunday he preaches fire and brimstone on chastity and marital fidelity, and they love it. The third Sunday he preaches against the sins of drinking, and the evils of men making their living by moonshine. The congregation gets quiet for a while, and finally one man in the back stands up.
"What is it?" says the preacher.
"Son," answers the man, to the silent but clear approbation of the assembled, "You've done quit preaching, and gone to meddling."
What Course of Action are You Suggesting, CAIR?
Dr. Carson says he would not support a Muslim for President. None are running, so nobody else is supporting a Muslim for President either. Nevertheless, somehow of course it's a huge issue. (Would I support a Muslim for President? Depends. Show me the particular Muslim you mean, and we'll talk about it.)
However, voters are free to support whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. How would you check that anyway? It's a secret ballot. My name's not even on it. If I were to tell you that I had intentionally applied a religious test to my vote, how would you know I was telling the truth? Are you going to correct it by deducting one vote for the candidate I claim was my choice? If you do that, I could vote for the Democrat and then loudly proclaim that obviously the Republican was the only one with correct religious values. That lets me vote twice, right?
So, no, Dr. Carson -- who holds no governmental office, and never has -- is not under any obligation as a private citizen not to apply a religious test in deciding how he will cast his vote. He may donate to or otherwise support whomever he likes, or not. CAIR doesn't seem to understand the Constitution it is charging him with violating, nor what the purpose of the clause might have been. To try to enforce that clause on private citizens is to attempt to enact a control of private religious opinions exactly opposed to the intention behind the 'no religious test' clause.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which calls itself the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., later called for Carson to withdraw from the race.Now, wait a minute. I think I understand the Constitution, and I'm pretty sure the 'religious test' clause applies to the government, not to the voters. The government is not free to establish a law that says, "Only Muslims may run for office X," nor can it hold that "No Muslims may run for office X," or even -- obliquely -- that "Anyone may run for office X, provided they eat pork as a condition of employment."
"Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,'" the group's executive director, Nihad Awad, said in a statement on Sunday. "We call on our nation's political leaders -- across the political spectrum -- to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race."
However, voters are free to support whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. How would you check that anyway? It's a secret ballot. My name's not even on it. If I were to tell you that I had intentionally applied a religious test to my vote, how would you know I was telling the truth? Are you going to correct it by deducting one vote for the candidate I claim was my choice? If you do that, I could vote for the Democrat and then loudly proclaim that obviously the Republican was the only one with correct religious values. That lets me vote twice, right?
So, no, Dr. Carson -- who holds no governmental office, and never has -- is not under any obligation as a private citizen not to apply a religious test in deciding how he will cast his vote. He may donate to or otherwise support whomever he likes, or not. CAIR doesn't seem to understand the Constitution it is charging him with violating, nor what the purpose of the clause might have been. To try to enforce that clause on private citizens is to attempt to enact a control of private religious opinions exactly opposed to the intention behind the 'no religious test' clause.
Havok Journal: No One Cares about the New Army Secretary's Sexuality
Well, the media does, because they were in full trumpet mode a few days ago. But Havok Journal's Scott Faith is right: we don't care. The guy's been the acting secretary for some time. He's been a long time Pentagon guy, and knows the job. It's true he's not a Veteran, but being openly gay was illegal in the military until the day before yesterday. As someone who thought that was a wise policy and would gladly restore it, I'm certainly not going to hold it against this guy that he didn't lie or cheat to check a box by getting into the service. Far from it. He didn't hide what he thought was right, he lived according to what he thought was right, and he found a way to serve his country out of uniform that is just as necessary to success down the line as any green-suited guy at the Pentagon. Whether or not we like his private life choices he did the right thing by his own lights, never lied about it, and found a way to serve anyway.
The guy we care about is this jackwagon Navy Secretary you've got sneering at and slandering the Marine Corps over which he has been given authority. That guy needs to go.
The guy we care about is this jackwagon Navy Secretary you've got sneering at and slandering the Marine Corps over which he has been given authority. That guy needs to go.
Irrational Fear
A Vox writer has one. He's aware that it isn't rational, although perhaps not completely aware of the degree of irrationality.
We take precautions against many dangers more remote than encountering an active shooter. Sometimes it only makes sense to do this if we wrap a bunch of them together, so that the probability begins to justify the expense of the precaution. I have a Homeowner's Insurance policy that exists to manage a bundle of many unlikely (but expensive) dangers associated with being a homeowner. It would be silly to buy a policy for any of those risks by itself, as all of them are quite unlikely. Taken together, though, they justify the minor annual expense of purchasing the policy.
So if you don't want to carry a gun and learn to use it accurately, OK. You're free to make that choice. But consider bundling the active shooter threat with a number of health-related threats associated with being a big guy who isn't "quick on his feet." Join a jujitsu club, or take Krav Maga, or something similar. The physical exercise will manage a bunch of other threats, and you'll also develop a much increased capacity to escape in the event of an active shooter -- perhaps even to overcome and triumph, if you happen to be in just the right place at the right time.
Like those guys on the French train. Heroes, we say, but the day before they were heroes they were just guys on vacation. American guys. Guys like you, if you choose to be like them.
What could I do in the face of a mass shooter? I don't own a gun. I've never even fired one. The idea that I could out-shoot a committed killer is a myth anyway. And while I'm big and strong at 6-foot-3 and 200 pounds, I'm not quick on my feet. I can't dodge a bullet, but I can't wrestle one either.Just as irrational as the distinction between "likely" and "unlikely" is the distinction between "difficult" and "impossible." You've reasoned that in the unlikely event of a shooter, it is impossible that you could do anything about it. Experience and evidence shows that this is wrong, and furthermore, that it's the way out of your problem.
We take precautions against many dangers more remote than encountering an active shooter. Sometimes it only makes sense to do this if we wrap a bunch of them together, so that the probability begins to justify the expense of the precaution. I have a Homeowner's Insurance policy that exists to manage a bundle of many unlikely (but expensive) dangers associated with being a homeowner. It would be silly to buy a policy for any of those risks by itself, as all of them are quite unlikely. Taken together, though, they justify the minor annual expense of purchasing the policy.
So if you don't want to carry a gun and learn to use it accurately, OK. You're free to make that choice. But consider bundling the active shooter threat with a number of health-related threats associated with being a big guy who isn't "quick on his feet." Join a jujitsu club, or take Krav Maga, or something similar. The physical exercise will manage a bunch of other threats, and you'll also develop a much increased capacity to escape in the event of an active shooter -- perhaps even to overcome and triumph, if you happen to be in just the right place at the right time.
Like those guys on the French train. Heroes, we say, but the day before they were heroes they were just guys on vacation. American guys. Guys like you, if you choose to be like them.
Silly Music for Saturday Night
Just a couple of silly little ditties for your enjoyment on a Saturday night.
This first one seems particularly apropos given that this was the week of the second GOP debate/melee:
And this one is just fun with numbers:
This first one seems particularly apropos given that this was the week of the second GOP debate/melee:
It Sure Seems That Way
The Conservative Review:
There is one enduring observation about contemporary party politics that serves as a guide to those perplexed by the actions of our politicians: whereas Democrats harness their base to advance the party’s liberal agenda, the Republican establishment works to undermine, deceive, and disenfranchise its own base the minute they have pocketed their support in the general election.The National Review:
Everything else makes sense once you internalize this observation.
The latest artifice from the GOP establishment is on display this week with their newest plan to make an end-run around the base and fund Planned Parenthood.
"Why on earth would Republicans do that?” That is a question I’ve been asked at least a dozen times since illustrating that the GOP has played a cynical game in connection with President Obama’s Iran deal. “Follow the money” is a common answer to questions about political motivation. It may not explain everything in this case, but it is certainly relevant.Maybe there's some brilliant plan, though.
This spring, Republican leadership colluded with the White House and congressional Democrats to enact a law — the Corker-Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act — that guaranteed Obama would be authorized to lift sanctions against Iran (the main objective of the terrorist regime in Tehran). The rigged law authorized Obama to lift sanctions as long as Republicans could not pass a resolution of disapproval. As Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, and other GOP leaders well knew, there was no way they would ever be able to enact a disapproval resolution over Obama’s veto. But the process choreographed by Corker-Cardin meant they would be able to complain about the deal and vote to disapprove it — thereby creating the impression that they were staunchly against the lifting of sanctions that they had already authorized.
I'm Not Even a Republican and this Makes Me Angry
The White House decided to use Donald Trump to call the entire Republican party racist.
It is too bad Josh Earnest wasn't able to summon the same kind of patriotism -- and class -- as Senator McCain. Trump is supposed to take responsibility for what some random guy said about the President. Is President Obama going to take responsibility for what his own Press Secretary said about half the country?
UPDATE: Charles C. W. Cooke points out, quite rightly, that both the 'Birther' and the 'Secret Muslim' themes started with Clinton in 2008. The 'Secret Muslim' thing tracked to her campaign directly, whereas the 'Birther' thing was allegedly some of her "diehard supporters." What I have heard is that it was her oppo research team running an astroturf campaign, but OK, let's grant that there is a chance she might have had some 'diehard supporters' in 2008.
"People who hold these offensive views are part of Mr. Trump's base," said Josh Earnest. "Mr. Trump himself would be the first to tell you that he's got the biggest base of any Republican politician these days. Now it is too bad that he wasn't able to summon the same kind of patriotism that we saw from Senator McCain, who responded much more effectively and directly when one of his supporters at one of his campaign events made the same kind of false claims.You may not have noticed, son, but it was Republicans who took down the Confederate flag across the South. They didn't rush to defend it. They fell all over themselves for the chance to pull it down.
Now what is also unfortunate is that Mr. Trump isn't the first Republican politician to countenance these kinds of views in order to win votes. In fact, that is precisely what every Republican presidential candidate is doing when they decline to denounce Mr. Trump's cynical strategy, because they are looking for those same votes.
Now other Republicans have successfully used this strategy as well. You will recall that one Republican congressman told a reporter that he was David Duke without the baggage. That congressman was elected by a majority of his colleagues in the House of Representatives to the third highest-ranking position in the House. Those same members of Congress blocked immigration reform. Those same members of Congress oppose reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Those same members of Congress couldn't support a simple funding bill because they are eager to defend the confederate flag.
So those are the priorities of today's Republican Party. And they will continue to be until someone in the Republican Party decides to summon the courage to stand up and change it."
It is too bad Josh Earnest wasn't able to summon the same kind of patriotism -- and class -- as Senator McCain. Trump is supposed to take responsibility for what some random guy said about the President. Is President Obama going to take responsibility for what his own Press Secretary said about half the country?
UPDATE: Charles C. W. Cooke points out, quite rightly, that both the 'Birther' and the 'Secret Muslim' themes started with Clinton in 2008. The 'Secret Muslim' thing tracked to her campaign directly, whereas the 'Birther' thing was allegedly some of her "diehard supporters." What I have heard is that it was her oppo research team running an astroturf campaign, but OK, let's grant that there is a chance she might have had some 'diehard supporters' in 2008.
Yes, Exactly
The biggest problem in American government today is the hyper-nationalization of government. Even in the middle of Republican presidential politics, even when every Republican candidate claims to be a "conservative," the myopic fixation on federal government resolution of every conceivable problem dominates everything, and the centralization of all power into our Potomac cesspool is largely ignored.His diagnosis of the problem is right. So, I think, is the solution, with one exception.
The problem, of course, is Washington. America is brought down not by awful governance in New York City or Chicago. America easily survives over-taxation in Massachusetts or over-regulation in California. The beauty of American government has always been federalism, the retention of most governmental power in sovereign states and not in a national government.
We need the spark of another American Revolution – a peaceful, constitutional, and political revolution, but a revolution nonetheless. It is wise to consider that the first American Revolution had more to do with the distant and arrogant rule of London than anything else. In much of America today, it is more 1776 than 2015. The peaceful, political revolution against Imperial Washington needs simply a great leader to win.The "great leader" we need is someone like Washington, who would do the job and go home. Otherwise, a "great leader" is likely to compound the problem by centralizing power in himself.
Rep. Duncan Hunter: Secretary Mabus Cannot Lead Marine Corps
First-time commenter ColoComment mentioned this letter from Representative Hunter to the SECDEF. He also thinks the Secretary of the Navy should resign over his refusal to even consider the evidence collected by the Marine Corps in its study of these issues.
Reports tonight indicate that the USMC is going to ask to keep combat jobs closed to women, at odds with Secretary Mabus, the President, and the other services. There is some question about whether Secretary Mabus will set aside the Marine Corps Commandant's recommendation as well.
Reports tonight indicate that the USMC is going to ask to keep combat jobs closed to women, at odds with Secretary Mabus, the President, and the other services. There is some question about whether Secretary Mabus will set aside the Marine Corps Commandant's recommendation as well.
Revolution Songs, II
He stole the tune, but that's true of "The Star Spangled Banner" as well. I like that they gave a brief biography at the beginning. Quite a man.
Reagan's movie library
This site has a list of every movie Reagan is supposed to have watched during eight years in the White House. It's surprisingly similar to what I'd have been likely to watch. That is to say, there are lots of things missing that I'd have enjoyed, but very few that I haven't seen or that I started and couldn't be bothered to finish.
Bill Kristol on Qualifications
Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard suggests that there's a real qualifications problem for the Republicans' two leading candidates.
I think you have to say that this applies to the top three leaders in the Republican party's primary so far, after Fiorina's performance at the last debate. She's never held any of those offices either. She has been a corporate officer, but that's far from the same thing (and so have both of the others).
Kristol goes on:
Trump is certainly the less qualified of the two, a self-regarding blowhard who’s not much of a conservative to boot, who is not now and will never be qualified to be president.Well, first times happen sometimes.
Carson is a Christian gentleman and a genuine conservative. But he’s not yet prepared to be president, and he’d have to show an awful lot of growth to be ready a year from now. What’s more, for either Trump or Carson to win the general election, voters would have to conclude that he is so extraordinary a figure that for the first time in American history, they would send a man to the White House who had neither held elective office nor served as a general officer or cabinet officer.
I think you have to say that this applies to the top three leaders in the Republican party's primary so far, after Fiorina's performance at the last debate. She's never held any of those offices either. She has been a corporate officer, but that's far from the same thing (and so have both of the others).
Kristol goes on:
The good news is the Democrats are probably in worse shape than the Republicans. There’s no good reason either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders should be our next president, and it’s very likely that belief is shared by a majority of Americans. The likeliest late entrants into the Democratic field—one or more of the septuagenarian group of Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and John Kerry—don’t exactly inspire either.There is one candidate on the Democratic side who has been a decorated military officer, a cabinet secretary, a diplomat and an elected Senator. But let's not talk crazy by including him on the list of possibilities, I guess.
No Confidence in Secretary Mabus
OAF Nation is impressed with him, in a bad way.
Not long after the Marine Corps released its findings on long term combat simulations with gender-integrated units, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus grabbed at every straw and went for just about every fallacious argument to be found in a Critical Thinking 101 college textbook. Aside from claiming that pre-existing institutional misogyny resulted in female Marine participants having trouble lifting their rucks over walls, and aside from claiming these 100 women were basically subpar to the phantom stock of vagina-owning death dealers the Marine Corps is keeping in some underground, undisclosed location, during his September 11th NPR interview, this jewel stood out from all others:I think he should resign. How can he command the force's respect after this?
"Women got injured a lot or more than men on duty. Men got injured four times as much as women off duty. So, we've got these knuckleheads who are, 'here, hold my beer and watch this,' . . . So, do we keep men from being in the infantry because they get hurt so much off duty? I don't think so."
There is so much to pick apart in that statement, but lets just focus on one issue. Now—let a former beer guzzling, dare devil, first-enlistment knucklehead take the floor.
The Cruz Conjecture
Via D29, a point about Cruz in the last debate:
Ted Cruz gives good answers, but it’s been two debates now in which it sure seemed like nobody wanted to give him any time to speak. The one time he was given a truly substantive and interesting question he came up with perhaps the most meaningful answer of the debate; namely, on the question of John Roberts as the Supreme Court Chief Justice appointed by George W. Bush. This occasioned a back-and-forth with Jeb! Bush, who attempted to chide Cruz for now being critical of Roberts but was steamrolled by a brilliant answer. Cruz noted that conservatives keep voting for Republicans and never seem to be satisfied with the results, largely because Republican presidents (all recently named Bush) take the easy way out rather than to do the hard things.
And Cruz looked at the nominations of David Souter instead of Edith Jones and Roberts instead of Mike Luttig as examples of the failure to deliver for conservatives. He noted that if Jones and Luttig were on the court instead of Souter and Roberts, Obamacare would have been found unconstitutional three years ago and all the state laws banning gay marriage would still be alive. Cruz then admitted supporting Roberts as the nominee, and said he regrets it.... what Cruz said was spot-on. The Bushes nominated two Supreme Court justices with no particular paper trail to prove an ideology, and in so doing weakened the court when to engage a full-throated ideological fight could have changed America for the better. That’s a great reason not to elect Jeb! as president — particularly when despite his reticence to use his last name the former Florida governor has done little to demonstrate his presidency would be any different from the uninspiring tenure of his father and brother.
Behavior Scoring
China is leading the way in building a 'social media' system that will track the loyalty of its subjects to every aspect of its state vision.
However, all is not well: the government has just been licensed to perform behavioral experiments on the American people to see if can 'nudge' us to 'better' behavior. The government has a history of trying out psychological experiments to control the American people that is not very charming. If you didn't watch this BBC documentary the first time around, you might want to do so this time.
China is proposing to assess its citizens' behavior over a totality of commercial and social activities, creating an uber-scoring system. When completed, the model could encompass everything from a person's chat-room comments to their performance at work, while the score could be used to determine eligibility for jobs, mortgages, and social services.I suppose it's already the case that your behavior on social media can help determine your eligibility for a job in America. Certainly it will be considered if you are up for a security clearance. We have a ways to go before they're tracking everything we do all the time to make sure we comply with the politically correct view before we obtain state services, though.
However, all is not well: the government has just been licensed to perform behavioral experiments on the American people to see if can 'nudge' us to 'better' behavior. The government has a history of trying out psychological experiments to control the American people that is not very charming. If you didn't watch this BBC documentary the first time around, you might want to do so this time.
Russia, Syria, and Ukraine
Daniel Drezner argues that everyone has lost in Ukraine, but that Russia has lost most.
USMC Top Sergeant Throws Away Rank for Honesty
In response to the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus saying the Marine Corps should've chosen better females for the infantry integration experiment, Sergeant Major Justin LeHew stated:UPDATE: The post he wrote has been taken down, but here's an article on it.
"...This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in the GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study.
They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything.
Listen up folks. Your senior leadership of this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to pursue whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security. The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry.
Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are badasses in their own right. In regards to the infantry... There is no trophy for second place. You perform or die.
Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy's ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man.
There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is. You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female batting in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees. It is what it is. As a country we preach equality.
But to place these mandates on the military before this country has even considered making females register, just like males, for the selective service is in all aspects out of touch with reality. Equality and equal opportunity start before you raise your right hand and swear and oath to this country.
Yes, we are an all volunteer force at the moment. Should this country however need to mobilize rapidly again to face the threats of the world like our grandfathers did, it will once again look to the military age males of this country to fill the ranks because last I checked, we did not require women to register for the selective service.
Until that happens, we should not even be wasting our time even thinking about opening up the infantry to women..."
Now he's under fire for posting this on Facebook and has since removed it. I'm sure the PC leaders will do everything they can to burn him.
Come Down With Your Rifle
We need to start searching out songs of the Revolution. Here's the first one.
"Here's two-legged game for your powder and ball. And share, share, the Green Mountain Air."
"Here's two-legged game for your powder and ball. And share, share, the Green Mountain Air."
A Memento of Times Happily Past
"The Negro Motorist Green Book," from 1949. An important quality of the book was that it helped motorists understand which places in a given town would serve them, so that they could eat without abuse, or sleep without fear.
We must find the way to recapture the glories of the earlier America without the poison of racism. It seems as if it should be easy -- simply dispose of race as the false construct that it is, and extend the arguments about the universal and natural rights of mankind to all of mankind. It hasn't proven easy. It still must be done.
We must find the way to recapture the glories of the earlier America without the poison of racism. It seems as if it should be easy -- simply dispose of race as the false construct that it is, and extend the arguments about the universal and natural rights of mankind to all of mankind. It hasn't proven easy. It still must be done.
This One's Not Satire
Headline: "After Three Days of Clashes on Temple Mount, US Calls on Israel To Ban Jews."
So, when I went to Israel in December, it was still the case that only Muslims could approach the Temple Mount. Jews were not allowed as a regular thing -- in Israel, mind -- and if they did approach for some special occasion, they had to be accompanied by a police officer who would physically remove them if they did anything that could be possibly interpreted as praying. The idea of Jews praying at the Temple Mount was impossibly offensive to the Muslim population because of the Al Aqsa mosque's presence atop that mount.
Very recently an Israeli Supreme Court decision set aside this longstanding practice. It stated that Jews, like Muslims, must be allowed to pray atop the Temple Mount. With the Jewish High Holidays upon us, this has become a flashpoint for violent protests against the Jews.
Naturally, the US State Department has taken the side of Jews staying away from the Temple Mount.
The most obvious and basic, the most fundamental American moral values are being violated in these matters. It has become a matter of course.
So, when I went to Israel in December, it was still the case that only Muslims could approach the Temple Mount. Jews were not allowed as a regular thing -- in Israel, mind -- and if they did approach for some special occasion, they had to be accompanied by a police officer who would physically remove them if they did anything that could be possibly interpreted as praying. The idea of Jews praying at the Temple Mount was impossibly offensive to the Muslim population because of the Al Aqsa mosque's presence atop that mount.
Very recently an Israeli Supreme Court decision set aside this longstanding practice. It stated that Jews, like Muslims, must be allowed to pray atop the Temple Mount. With the Jewish High Holidays upon us, this has become a flashpoint for violent protests against the Jews.
Naturally, the US State Department has taken the side of Jews staying away from the Temple Mount.
United States State Department spokesman John Kirby condemned the clashes on Monday, stating, “The United States is deeply concerned by the increase in violence and escalating tensions surrounding the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. We strongly condemn all acts of violence.”It is amazing to me that we have come to a pass at which "naturally" the US Department of State calls on Israel to ban Jews from worshiping freely at their most holy site, just as "naturally" the Secretary of the Navy immediately dismisses a carefully constructed scientific study that contradicts the political will of his superior even though it will lead to the deaths of his Marines.
“It is absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric and preserve unchanged the historic status quo on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount,” he added. The “historical status quo” Kirby is referring to is a ban on Jews on the Temple Mount.
The most obvious and basic, the most fundamental American moral values are being violated in these matters. It has become a matter of course.
Today's Quiz: Satire or Not?
Headline: "5 US Trained Rebels Fight ISIS."
Headline: "Guantanamo Bay Prisoner's Match.com Profile: 'Detained, but Ready to Mingle.'"
Just “four or five” U.S.-trained anti-ISIS fighters are combatting the so-called Islamic State, a top American military official told Congress on Wednesday, despite a program that cost as much as $500 million.
Headline: "Guantanamo Bay Prisoner's Match.com Profile: 'Detained, but Ready to Mingle.'"
Guantánamo Bay is not standing in the way of prisoner Muhammad Rahim al-Afghani’s desire to find love. His lawyer Carlos Warner runs an account for the terrorist on Match.com.
But These Are Our Newest Allies!
Canada shuts Iranian embassy, expels diplomats over vicious Antisemitism.
Marine Corps' "Gender Integrated Infantry Unit" Finishes Assessment
The latest in the quest to integrate women fully into line infantry units is the United States Marine Corps' nine-month study, just concluded, of a "gender integrated" infantry unit performing simulated combat. As a scientific experiment ought, it ran a standing infantry unit (all male) through the same paces to see how they compared. The results are as predictable as anything could possibly be.
The Marines haven't found anything new. The real question is whether we can accept the truth, or whether we just cannot. If we can't, in the end, Americans will die in some cornfield or ricefield or desert ditch because of it. Wars may be lost, the course of history may turn away from our vision of human liberty, but that's hard to get your head around. Just think of the kids you're leaving to die, Secretary Mabus. Think about the Marines you are personally condemning to death.
Women in a new Marine Corps unit created to assess how female service members perform in combat were injured twice as often as men, less accurate with infantry weapons and not as good at removing wounded troops from the battlefield, according to the results of a long-awaited study produced by the service....Naturally the results were immediately dismissed by the Secretary of the Navy. Some of the Marines involved in the study were so incensed by his refusal to take the results on board that they took the unusual -- and certain to be punished -- step of complaining openly to the press about the appointed civilian leadership.
Infantry squads comprising men only also had better accuracy than squads with women in them, with “a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system” used by infantry rifleman units. They include the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle (IAR) and the M203, a single-shot grenade launcher mounted to rifles, the study found.
The research also found that male Marines who have not received infantry training were still more accurate using firearms than women who have. And in removing wounded troops from the battlefield, there “were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups,” with the exception being when a single person—”most often a male Marine” — carried someone away, the study found.
The full study is more than a thousand pages long, Marine officials said....
Researchers hooked men and women alike up to a variety of monitors, and found that the top 25th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 25th percentile of men when it came to anaerobic power, a measure of strength, Marine officials said....
The gender-integrated unit’s assessment also found that 40.5 percent of women participating suffered some form of musculoskeletal injury, while 18.8 percent of men did. Twenty-one women lost time in the unit due to injuries, 19 of whom suffered injuries to their lower extremities. Of those, 16 women were injured while while carrying heavy loads in an organized movement, like a march, the study found.
Marines involved in a controversial experiment evaluating a gender-integrated infantry unit say they feel betrayed by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus after he criticized the results of a nine-month study that found women are injured more frequently and shoot less accurately in simulated combat conditions.The thing is, this study lines up perfectly with the results from the United Kingdom's tri-service longitudinal study of women in the military. They also found that, across the services and over time, women were less physically capable, less lethal because the strain on their bodies interfered with weapons accuracy, more likely to be injured, less capable of helping other soldiers who became wounded, and reduced the unit's ability to maneuver under fire.
“Our secretary of the Navy completely rolled the Marine Corps and the entire staff that was involved in putting this [experiment] in place under the bus,” said Sgt. Danielle Beck, a female anti-armor gunner with the task force....
To Beck, a 30 year-old who was one of the strongest women in the company, Mabus’s remarks were insulting.
“Everyone that was involved did the job and completed the mission to the best of their abilities,” said Beck, adding that Mabus’s remarks about the type of women in the experiment were a “slap in the face.”
“The caliber of the women in Weapons Company are few and far between in the Marine Corps,” she added. “They are probably some of the most professional women that anybody will ever have chance to work with, and the heart and drive and determination that they had is incomparable to most women in the Marine Corps.”
The Marines haven't found anything new. The real question is whether we can accept the truth, or whether we just cannot. If we can't, in the end, Americans will die in some cornfield or ricefield or desert ditch because of it. Wars may be lost, the course of history may turn away from our vision of human liberty, but that's hard to get your head around. Just think of the kids you're leaving to die, Secretary Mabus. Think about the Marines you are personally condemning to death.
Against Objectifying Objects
In spite of the funny title, I think there's a pretty good argument to be made here. It just isn't the argument being made.
The real argument against this is not what it will do to the robots, but what it will do to the users. The problem isn't that they're using an appliance for its designed purpose, but that they're treating their own sexuality as a toy. This isn't a new problem: it applies to all such uses. Here's Kant on the subject, from The Metaphysics of Morals.
Kant can be a little opaque, and there's a lot more that has to be read to appreciate his full argument, but in sketch he is arguing this:
1) All things that happen have a cause.
2) For most things, that cause is something else acting on the thing being changed, e.g., sunlight hits ice, melting it.
3) These actions are not free, because they are caused by something else acting upon you.
4) Human beings, and other rational beings, have a possibility to act freely.
5) This only occurs when we are our own cause.
6) When we act as animals, we are not behaving freely: we are giving in to being acted upon by an outside stimulation.
7) Rather, we are free only when we reason to the right thing to do, and do that.
8) We can reason that the obvious good of sexuality is the preservation of the species.
9) Other uses are mere animal ends, and lack dignity because they lack freedom: we are throwing away our rational freedom and allowing ourselves to be driven like an animal.
10) Thus, dignity is only compatible with rationally electing to use sex for its proper purpose.
This is not a new argument even to Kant, although he frames it in what he would call 'pure practical reason.' You can find the same basic argument in Aquinas or Aristotle. It's an argument that has always struck me as incomplete: it's missing something, though after years of considering it I'm less sure than ever that I can say just what it is missing. Aquinas' version is better -- he distinguishes not one but three goods associated with sex -- but it doesn't avoid the conclusion that only this one mode of sexuality is fully good and worthy of a free and dignified human being.
Whether or not it's quite right, though, it's surely a good part right. Thus, the strong argument against sex robots isn't that they will lead to people imagining exploiting women or children: what is more likely is that those people are already imagining it, and might substitute the appliance for an actual person who would otherwise be exploited and harmed. The strong argument is that this mode of sexuality is itself necessarily harmful even to the user. It cannot be practiced without harm, even if in fact it reduces the actual incidence of harm to innocent third parties.
Kant makes an argument in the quoted passage that we can know this in part because the act is shameful. You're happy to present your spouse to the community, but would presumably hide the fact that you own a blow-up doll (or sexbot). I think he's right that it ought to be shameful, and that a decent society would be ashamed of such things and keep them private. What I wonder, though, is if a society is necessarily ashamed of it. Ours has come to think of free expression of sexuality as a kind of positive good, and might well treat parading your sexbot around as an act of courage. Can't you imagine hearing how "brave" someone was for "being open about his sexuality" in this way?
If that's right, then shame and reason have come apart: we aren't ashamed of what we ought to be, and have begun to praise vices as if they were virtues.
UPDATE: By the way, I've been doing some further reading on this subject, and the concept of "objectification" in sexuality seems to be rooted in feminist readings of Kant. Kant's talking about objectification in his sense, which is importantly different from the way these readings take him, here: the wrongdoer here is turning himself into an object by throwing away his rational capacities in favor of being acted-upon from outside. He gives up rational thought about what is right and wrong, and allows the impact of sensation to provoke desire, and desire to provoke action, as if he were a thoughtless object instead of a thinking subject.
Of course, part of what I think Kant gets wrong is the idea that even animals are "objects" in this way. The analysis may break quite early if, as seems likely to me, at least some animals are engaging in rational evaluation of desires or rationally adapting to ways of life compatible with other beings. There's probably also a basic error in assuming that rationality is divorced from sensuality, as both are emergent qualities from the world: to whatever degree we are actually rational, our ancestors had a potential for rationality that came to be realized in us. It is probably an error to think of reason as standing separate and alone, ordering reality rather than being ordered by it in the way that the Kant Song describes the First Critique. Reason itself is a product of the world, revealed by evolution, and its own function is therefore to be expected to be aligned with the world rather than divorced from it. We should expect to overcome Hume's objections not by Kant's apperception, but by a better understanding of the reality that we encounter with both reason and sensation.
Dr Kathleen Richardson, a robotics expert at De Montfort University in Leicester, England, warns that sex robots could contribute to the systemic dehumanization of women and children....There is no reason to believe that users of sex robots will lose the distinction between the object they are objectifying and actual women (or children). If anything, this might provide an outlet for people of very strong but antisocial desires to express themselves without hurting real human beings.
“Technology is not neutral. It’s informed by class, race and gender. Political power informs the development of technology,” she told the Washington Post. “That’s why we can do something about it. These robots will contribute to more sexual exploitation.”
The real argument against this is not what it will do to the robots, but what it will do to the users. The problem isn't that they're using an appliance for its designed purpose, but that they're treating their own sexuality as a toy. This isn't a new problem: it applies to all such uses. Here's Kant on the subject, from The Metaphysics of Morals.
Kant can be a little opaque, and there's a lot more that has to be read to appreciate his full argument, but in sketch he is arguing this:
1) All things that happen have a cause.
2) For most things, that cause is something else acting on the thing being changed, e.g., sunlight hits ice, melting it.
3) These actions are not free, because they are caused by something else acting upon you.
4) Human beings, and other rational beings, have a possibility to act freely.
5) This only occurs when we are our own cause.
6) When we act as animals, we are not behaving freely: we are giving in to being acted upon by an outside stimulation.
7) Rather, we are free only when we reason to the right thing to do, and do that.
8) We can reason that the obvious good of sexuality is the preservation of the species.
9) Other uses are mere animal ends, and lack dignity because they lack freedom: we are throwing away our rational freedom and allowing ourselves to be driven like an animal.
10) Thus, dignity is only compatible with rationally electing to use sex for its proper purpose.
This is not a new argument even to Kant, although he frames it in what he would call 'pure practical reason.' You can find the same basic argument in Aquinas or Aristotle. It's an argument that has always struck me as incomplete: it's missing something, though after years of considering it I'm less sure than ever that I can say just what it is missing. Aquinas' version is better -- he distinguishes not one but three goods associated with sex -- but it doesn't avoid the conclusion that only this one mode of sexuality is fully good and worthy of a free and dignified human being.
Whether or not it's quite right, though, it's surely a good part right. Thus, the strong argument against sex robots isn't that they will lead to people imagining exploiting women or children: what is more likely is that those people are already imagining it, and might substitute the appliance for an actual person who would otherwise be exploited and harmed. The strong argument is that this mode of sexuality is itself necessarily harmful even to the user. It cannot be practiced without harm, even if in fact it reduces the actual incidence of harm to innocent third parties.
Kant makes an argument in the quoted passage that we can know this in part because the act is shameful. You're happy to present your spouse to the community, but would presumably hide the fact that you own a blow-up doll (or sexbot). I think he's right that it ought to be shameful, and that a decent society would be ashamed of such things and keep them private. What I wonder, though, is if a society is necessarily ashamed of it. Ours has come to think of free expression of sexuality as a kind of positive good, and might well treat parading your sexbot around as an act of courage. Can't you imagine hearing how "brave" someone was for "being open about his sexuality" in this way?
If that's right, then shame and reason have come apart: we aren't ashamed of what we ought to be, and have begun to praise vices as if they were virtues.
UPDATE: By the way, I've been doing some further reading on this subject, and the concept of "objectification" in sexuality seems to be rooted in feminist readings of Kant. Kant's talking about objectification in his sense, which is importantly different from the way these readings take him, here: the wrongdoer here is turning himself into an object by throwing away his rational capacities in favor of being acted-upon from outside. He gives up rational thought about what is right and wrong, and allows the impact of sensation to provoke desire, and desire to provoke action, as if he were a thoughtless object instead of a thinking subject.
Of course, part of what I think Kant gets wrong is the idea that even animals are "objects" in this way. The analysis may break quite early if, as seems likely to me, at least some animals are engaging in rational evaluation of desires or rationally adapting to ways of life compatible with other beings. There's probably also a basic error in assuming that rationality is divorced from sensuality, as both are emergent qualities from the world: to whatever degree we are actually rational, our ancestors had a potential for rationality that came to be realized in us. It is probably an error to think of reason as standing separate and alone, ordering reality rather than being ordered by it in the way that the Kant Song describes the First Critique. Reason itself is a product of the world, revealed by evolution, and its own function is therefore to be expected to be aligned with the world rather than divorced from it. We should expect to overcome Hume's objections not by Kant's apperception, but by a better understanding of the reality that we encounter with both reason and sensation.
"Things Were A Lot Worse in the Mid-70s" Is Not a Ringing Defense
In which Fortune magazine discovers that Donald Trump is right about something:
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is not predicated on the candidate’s mastery of or allegiance to facts.The real issue is that things are worse than they have been since Ronald Reagan was turning things around during his first term -- and unlike Reagan's time, the rate of improvement is not sharply inclined. Government policies have been depressing hiring and investment in new business here in America, especially the Obamacare law and its effects but also the general increase in regulation of business.
His views on things like immigration or international trade are just not supported by any relevant statistics. So when The Donald called into CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday and claimed that Americans are living in a “false economy,” where the unemployment rate is actually 40% rather than the 5.1% as reported by the Labor Department, you’d be forgiven for believing this was just another Trumpian whopper.
But actually, this view can be supported by actual statistics.
Guns in Counties
City-Data has a list that purports to be the 101 most well-armed counties in the United States. I'm not at all sure it's accurate, since many gun owners wouldn't report owning a gun out of reasonable concern about government watchlists and attempts at establishing a pre-confiscation registry. Still, it's probably as good a list as can be put together. How many crime-ridden hellholes can you find on it?
Idiocracy
I've been reading up on Athenian democracy, and came across this tidbit on Wikipedia:
A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot', which finds its origins in the ancient Greek word ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs, meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt, and the word eventually acquired its modern meaning. According to Thucydides, Pericles may have declared in a funeral oration:
We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.
A Small Detail
I think this is mostly good advice, except for one thing: Israel has no use for the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. That weapon can only be deployed from a B-2 stealth bomber. Israel does not have any B-2 stealth bombers. We do not plan to sell them any B-2 stealth bombers, and for a pretty good reason: as much as we all love Israel, and I certainly do, it has a history of reverse engineering American military technology and occasionally selling that technology abroad. It's perfectly understandable that they do this, given their position and the threats that they face, but we can't afford to pass them the B-2.
It's not as easy as just handing them a great big bomb, in other words. We'd have to hand them the delivery system as well, and teach them how it works, and doing that once basically means giving up our exclusive understanding of the technology involved. If Israel wants to develop and deploy its own bomber that can handle the MOP, that's fine: there's no real problem with giving them this bomb, which is based around conventional explosives. They could, for that matter, probably develop their own version currently. Still, for now, the best thing is to try to ensure a serious-minded President is in office in 2017: then we can handle the bombing ourselves, if we need to do so. I suspect that an air campaign isn't the right answer in any case. Exactly what I do think is the right solution I won't publish in the clear, but there's a better way to approach this than trying to bomb the sites with gigantic explosives.
It's not as easy as just handing them a great big bomb, in other words. We'd have to hand them the delivery system as well, and teach them how it works, and doing that once basically means giving up our exclusive understanding of the technology involved. If Israel wants to develop and deploy its own bomber that can handle the MOP, that's fine: there's no real problem with giving them this bomb, which is based around conventional explosives. They could, for that matter, probably develop their own version currently. Still, for now, the best thing is to try to ensure a serious-minded President is in office in 2017: then we can handle the bombing ourselves, if we need to do so. I suspect that an air campaign isn't the right answer in any case. Exactly what I do think is the right solution I won't publish in the clear, but there's a better way to approach this than trying to bomb the sites with gigantic explosives.
Waco Update: Small Town Justice
This sounds pretty familiar to me, having grown up in rural Georgia. Waco, Texas, is a bigger town -- but it's got a small-town justice system.
At the time we contrasted it with shootings in Ferguson and elsewhere, saying, hey: look how we trust that all this massive force was used appropriately, and don't get out in the street and march. The other side of that trust is that we expect some accountability, eventually, for how the force of law was used. Eventually, an accounting must be made to us. Right now, it's not looking good for the Waco justice system.
It's a city where a district judge and district attorney are former law partners, the mayor is the son of a former mayor, the sheriff comes from a long line of lawmen and Waco pioneers and the sheriff's brother was the district attorney's chief investigator....So, the grand jury is headed by a member of the Waco police department. The District Attorney is a former law partner of the District Judge, who apparently trusts his former partner enough that he issues arrest affidavits and gag orders written by his friend the DA. The gag orders prevent anyone arrested -- two thirds of whom had no previous convictions of any kind, though they were described as "criminals" by the government and held on $1 million bond each -- from giving their version of events. No formal charges have been filed against anyone at all.
No formal charges have been made, and it remains unclear whose bullets, including police bullets, struck the dead and injured, or when cases will be presented to a grand jury, which is currently led by a Waco police detective....
Defense attorneys have been critical of how the cases have been processed, accusing District Attorney Abel Reyna of writing 'fill-in-the-blank' arrest affidavits. A police officer testified a justice of the peace approved the affidavits without making any individual determination of probable cause.
In the criminal case of one of the defendants, Reyna's former law partner, District Judge Matt Johnson, issued a gag order as written by Reyna....
Although police and the district attorney described last spring everyone who was taken into custody as criminals, an Associated Press review of a Texas Department of Public Safety database found no convictions listed under the names and birthdates of more than two-thirds of those arrested.
At the time we contrasted it with shootings in Ferguson and elsewhere, saying, hey: look how we trust that all this massive force was used appropriately, and don't get out in the street and march. The other side of that trust is that we expect some accountability, eventually, for how the force of law was used. Eventually, an accounting must be made to us. Right now, it's not looking good for the Waco justice system.
Trying on a Different Juxtaposition with Microaggressions, Just for Size
Back to George Sachs "10 Ways White Liberals Perpetuate Racism," with a different juxtaposition this time. Let's see how this fits.
Sachs drew his list from The Racism Root Kit: Understanding the Insidiousness of White Privilege, written by "Paul Pendler, Psy.D., of the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Medical School and Phillip Beverly, Ph.D., Department of History, Philosophy, and Political Science at Chicago State University".
Sachs
1984
Sachs drew his list from The Racism Root Kit: Understanding the Insidiousness of White Privilege, written by "Paul Pendler, Psy.D., of the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Medical School and Phillip Beverly, Ph.D., Department of History, Philosophy, and Political Science at Chicago State University".
Sachs
We [White liberals] are one of the millions of white people willing to make a change for the betterment of our country. We actually live by the words of our Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal."
At times, though, we feel a distance from our black and Latino friends; a noticeable energetic gulf that separates us from a deeper connection with them. We want to be closer to people of color. Yet somehow, some way, we sense a wall between us. We wonder: Is it me or them?
Maybe years of racism have made it hard for people of color to trust White folks--even Atlantic magazine liberals like you and me.
Or maybe we're saying or doing something racially insensitive--perpetuating racism and white privilege. And we don't even know it.
1984
'What are you in for?' said Winston.
'Thoughtcrime!' said Parsons, almost blubbering. The tone of his voice implied at once a complete admission of his guilt and a sort of incredulous horror that such a word could be applied to himself. He paused opposite Winston and began eagerly appealing to him: 'You don't think they'll shoot me, do you, old chap? They don't shoot you if you haven't actually done anything -- only thoughts, which you can't help? I know they give you a fair hearing. Oh, I trust them for that! They'll know my record, won't they? You know what kind of chap I was. Not a bad chap in my way. Not brainy, of course, but keen. I tried to do my best for the Party, didn't I? I'll get off with five years, don't you think? Or even ten years? A chap like me could make himself pretty useful in a labour-camp. They wouldn't shoot me for going off the rails just once?'
Music for Saturday
Seasick Steve is another cigar box guitar discovery. John Paul Jones, bassist for Led Zeppelin, joins him for a concert in the UK.
No, we won't
Rehearsal dinner announcement: "We will be using this time to fellowship with one another as well as rehearsing the flow of the wedding day ceremony."
Private space
As exciting as huge public science projects can be, they can also dry up private initiative. After the great age of royally funded exploration should come the merchants, eager to dream up and build new kinds of ships. A Texas company, which is plugged into the only commercial space application that yet exists--satellites--has developed a promising "firefly" drive that may prove cheaper and more efficient for today's increasingly miniature satellites.
September 11th
By custom and tradition, there will be only this post today.
Enid & Geraint
Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
Enid cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
Enid & Geraint
Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
Enid cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
Dives & Lazarus
We watched the first episode of Ken Burns's Civil war this evening. Hard to believe it first came out 25 years ago. I paid more attention to the music this time, especially to a tune that didn't get picked up on the soundtrack album or on any of the many websites devoted to the documentary. I finally placed the old tune, which is sometimes called "Kingsfold," often now played as arranged by Ralph Vaughan Williams and adapted to various hymn lyrics, a common one being "I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say":
The tune is also associated with Child Ballad #56, "Dives and Lazarus," as well as with "The Star of the County Down." Perhaps more to the point re the Civil War connection, it's also known as "The Fighting 69th," a/k/a the Irish Brigade.
The tune is also associated with Child Ballad #56, "Dives and Lazarus," as well as with "The Star of the County Down." Perhaps more to the point re the Civil War connection, it's also known as "The Fighting 69th," a/k/a the Irish Brigade.
Good Lord
From a piece entitled "Expel People Who Demand Trigger Warnings," which sounds like it should be promising enough:
Well, I wasn't there. Maybe it was as it was painted for him later.
You see, my father had severe PTSD from his time as a Green Beret during the Vietnam War. It is probably at least partially because he refused to seek treatment for it that I ended up suffering the same thing to a lesser degree.That's good, because none is forthcoming from this station. That charge is a pretty vicious one to lay down at his father's feet, based on things he could only barely remember: engagements between the ages of five and seven, as subsequently explained to him by the other adult who decided she wanted rid of his father and whatever his challenges might have been.
My father’s PTSD transformed him into an erratic, explosive, psychologically abusive man who instilled paranoid fantasies in me about everyone, including my own mother, starting when I was at the tender age of five. To make sure I never questioned these ideas, he punished any signs of critical thinking with almost Maoist tactics of repression. He also sweetened his psychological poison pill by alternating his rages and interrogations with grandiose flattery designed to make me even more dependent on his fantasies. Thankfully, my mother kicked him out when I was seven, but to this day I find it difficult to fully trust many people because of the pure paranoia I was forced to experience and embrace at an early age.
I don’t bring this up for pity.
Well, I wasn't there. Maybe it was as it was painted for him later.
Good Point
Protestants used to protest in just this way, NR reminds. That's why Milady was able to turn one, though, in The Three Musketeers.
It's Not a Joke, It's a Dowry
Althouse ponders a concept by parents to save money for a daughter -- but not sons -- to 'compensate for the wage gap.'
Conservatives tend to argue that the wage gap doesn't exist. At least for the elite of the youngest generation coming of age, it seems to be reversed. In fact, women tend to be better paid than men. But mostly these arguments turn on 'if you look at equal time in grade, experience, etc...' -- in other words, just the things that child-birth and child-rearing tend to disrupt -- 'then things are equal.'
But what if women often want to bear children, and drop time in grade?
The concept of the dowry was to pass wealth on with a daughter that would remain hers in the marriage. Traditionally, it was held in trust and must be returned to her undiminished if the marriage should end for some reason. That strikes me as substantially similar to the concept here. She'll bring the money to the marriage. If the marriage fails -- as marriages do much more often now -- the courts are likely to defend her claim to what she brought in as wealth. It will go with her and the children. And insofar as her time out of the workforce does diminish her 'time in grade' claim to wages, she'll have some wealth to offset that.
I don't think it's foolish at all. Irish, but not foolish.
Conservatives tend to argue that the wage gap doesn't exist. At least for the elite of the youngest generation coming of age, it seems to be reversed. In fact, women tend to be better paid than men. But mostly these arguments turn on 'if you look at equal time in grade, experience, etc...' -- in other words, just the things that child-birth and child-rearing tend to disrupt -- 'then things are equal.'
But what if women often want to bear children, and drop time in grade?
The concept of the dowry was to pass wealth on with a daughter that would remain hers in the marriage. Traditionally, it was held in trust and must be returned to her undiminished if the marriage should end for some reason. That strikes me as substantially similar to the concept here. She'll bring the money to the marriage. If the marriage fails -- as marriages do much more often now -- the courts are likely to defend her claim to what she brought in as wealth. It will go with her and the children. And insofar as her time out of the workforce does diminish her 'time in grade' claim to wages, she'll have some wealth to offset that.
I don't think it's foolish at all. Irish, but not foolish.
A Religious Resurgence
Unexpectedly.
Whether this is good or bad depends chiefly on the effects of the particular religion on society. What we seem to see in the big picture is that religion addresses a key human need. We are coming back to it because we can't do without it. The human soul longs to know the highest things, as Aristotle wrote thousands of years ago. We investigate through science, but also through intuition. We investigate through direct experience, and through engagement with the traditions of those who came before us and investigated for themselves while they lived. Religion is at the core of what a human being is.
The key is to do it well.
In the mid-1990s, when Peter L. Berger declared that a religious resurgence was underway, scholars took notice. Since the 1960s, Berger was renowned as one of the leading proponents of the secularisation thesis. Briefly, secularisation describes three interrelated social processes: first, the differentiation of secular institutions (the state and the free market, for example) from religious institutions (such as the church); second, the decline of religious beliefs; and third, the privatisation of religious belief and practice. In short, secularisation describes a process of social change. It is a hypothesis that attempts to explain what is unique about modernity. For this reason, secularisation is ‘twinned’, as it were, to the process of modernisation. With respect to traditional religion (and traditional ways of life, for that matter), modernisation acts like a solvent. As a society modernises, religion loses its distinctive features—for instance, the public prominence and influence of religious institutions and leaders, the social utility of religion (as, say, a source of moral value), and epistemic claims to revelatory authority. Religion recedes from public life into the private. Its universal claims to truth are transmuted as deeply felt personal convictions.Turns out, secularization looks like a phase receding in the rear-view mirror. China, aggressively secularized by the Communists, is flourishing with Christianity. Israel, founded by secular Jews who intended to run a modern, secularized state, is growing increasingly religious and Orthodox. The Islamic world is returning to its religious roots as well.
Whether this is good or bad depends chiefly on the effects of the particular religion on society. What we seem to see in the big picture is that religion addresses a key human need. We are coming back to it because we can't do without it. The human soul longs to know the highest things, as Aristotle wrote thousands of years ago. We investigate through science, but also through intuition. We investigate through direct experience, and through engagement with the traditions of those who came before us and investigated for themselves while they lived. Religion is at the core of what a human being is.
The key is to do it well.
The Duffel Blog Strikes Again
Newly confirmed U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley outlined his vision for the Army’s way forward in a press conference today, his first and last as Chief of Staff.
“We’ve focused a lot on the SHARP program in the last few years, and I’m ready to switch gears back to focusing on fighting and winning America’s wars,” said Milley, 15 minutes before his resignation was announced.
In Fairness, It's Just the New York Times
...which, as havens of disreputable journalism go, is infamous.
A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said."It was allowed," I heard someone say today. Well, in a sense of the words.
Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails, which are being released to the public, had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.
Georgian Solidarity
Way back in 2008, as you may remember, the Republic of Georgia was invaded by Russian forces. I was fairly incensed at the time, as the Third Georgian Brigade was deployed with us in Iraq and we did not do anything obvious to stop the Russians from cutting off as much of our friends' territory as they pleased. I wrote:
I met some fine soldiers from the Republic of Georgia in Iraq, where they have heretofore kept a brigade of their fighting men to help the Iraqi people free themselves from the tyrant Saddam, and the petty tyrants who sought in so many places to replace him. The emergence from long tyranny into constitutional liberty is a difficult one, often a painful one, but the Georgian people understand that too well.There is an article in Breitbart right now that suggests that much more was done by then-President "George-ia" W. Bush than was obvious.
As we watch Russia invading their sovereign territory, we should remember that the Georgians have been our friends and allies. They are a good and noble people, though bitterly poor in many places: and we have ties of culture to them as well as our current alliance. The Cross of St. George flies over Georgia as it did over England; one of my friends from Georgia in Iraq was named for the Greek hero Hercules. They are a part of the West, and should enjoy Western liberty and self-determination.
For too long the Soviet Union sought to force Georgia and so many others under the shadow. We should stand by the Georgians at this time and ensure Russia understands that Georgia is not prey to be gobbled up. They have been our friends and our reliable allies, and we have much in common with them.
I suggest that you write to tell your Senators and Representatives today that a strong endorsement of Georgian independence is needed. A wider and more dangerous war may be avoided if Russia is shown that it cannot have an easy victory over a weaker neighbor. They have often stood by us. We should be strong in our support for them now, when they need us.
[Former Georgian Defense Minister Dmitri] Shashkin reveals:It's true: I, at least, did not know any of that. It was well done.
Many do not know that our peacekeeping brigade returned from Iraq to Tbilisi on American military planes which under the circumstances of war was direct military support by the US.
“Many do not know that Russia could not bomb the Tbilisi airport because American Hercules planes were on the tarmac,” Shishkin continues.”Many do not know that the flagship of the US Fifth Fleet which entered the Black Sea monitored on its radars the airspace in the Tbilisi-Moscow-Volgograd triangle.”
And “many do not know that the August 14 Hercules flights from Jordan were accompanied by (American) fighters. Many do not know that the statement of the commander of these fights that ‘any activity of Russian planes in the Georgian sky will be considered an attack on the United States of America,’ thus effectively closing the Georgian sky to Russian planes.”
Misbehavior Before the Enemy
It may be rarely used, but it sounds pretty apt.
1) It recognizes the existence of actual enemies.
2) It reinforces that ordinary screwing around isn't acceptable in life-or-death situations.
3) It carries an appropriately stern sentence given the loss of life of people who were sent looking for him.
1) It recognizes the existence of actual enemies.
2) It reinforces that ordinary screwing around isn't acceptable in life-or-death situations.
3) It carries an appropriately stern sentence given the loss of life of people who were sent looking for him.
Now That's Really Weird
A major breakthrough in science is often heralded by these words. This time too? Perhaps.
What's the Standard for "Substance"?
Newsweek, which sounds deep enough in the tank that I'm sure I hear an echo:
All of this is criminal. Indeed, these are all felonies. Some of it we have clear records of her having done, such as the Blumenthal emails that she personally wrote and sent, as well as the TS//SI/TK//NOFORN emails. Some of it we have her admission of having done.
Is it only 'substantial' when the government files charges? When they obtain convictions? When the convictions fail to be overturned on appeal?
"Reputable" journalists are supposed to hold the government to standards. They're not supposed to go along with the willful blindness of the powerful to lawbreaking by important members of their own political party. Shame on Newsweek, and anyone else who defines "reputable" in this way.
UPDATE: Viewed in light of Clinton's statement today, I have to regard this as a coordinated campaign in which Newsweek is only pretending to be an independent journalistic agency. This is the strategy, then: flat denial of any wrongdoing, in the fervent hope that nobody actually prosecutes clear violations of law provable with evidence already in the public sphere. It's astonishing, even for a Clinton.
Despite the fact that no reputable journalist, including our own Kurt Eichenwald, nor any official government investigator has yet found any substance to the “criminality” charge Republicans level daily, in the hall of mirrors of American politics, she is now a perceived liar.What would it take for a 'reputable journalist' or 'government investigator' to be taken to have found something of substance? They found Top Secret, SCI, keyword information sent in the clear. She has by her own admission destroyed emails that are, by law, official government records. She sent emails in the clear containing foreign government information, which official standards state clearly must be presumed classified, to a man named Sidney Blumenthal who has no security clearance whatsoever.
All of this is criminal. Indeed, these are all felonies. Some of it we have clear records of her having done, such as the Blumenthal emails that she personally wrote and sent, as well as the TS//SI/TK//NOFORN emails. Some of it we have her admission of having done.
Is it only 'substantial' when the government files charges? When they obtain convictions? When the convictions fail to be overturned on appeal?
"Reputable" journalists are supposed to hold the government to standards. They're not supposed to go along with the willful blindness of the powerful to lawbreaking by important members of their own political party. Shame on Newsweek, and anyone else who defines "reputable" in this way.
UPDATE: Viewed in light of Clinton's statement today, I have to regard this as a coordinated campaign in which Newsweek is only pretending to be an independent journalistic agency. This is the strategy, then: flat denial of any wrongdoing, in the fervent hope that nobody actually prosecutes clear violations of law provable with evidence already in the public sphere. It's astonishing, even for a Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)