Killing women
This Hot Air OpEd gets it right about yesterday's execution of Kelly Gissendaner for the murder of her husband almost 20 years ago. Gissendaner was not the trigger man; she got her boyfriend to do it for her. He cut a deal, turned state's witness against her, and will be eligible for parole in seven more years.
Should this seem like a miscarriage of justice? It's much like the way we get an ironclad case against Mafia boss in exchange for a lighter sentence against the underling who did the wet work. It just seems weird because we're not used to seeing a woman in the role of mastermind. We also don't like the idea of the boyfriend testifying against her to save himself: wasn't he supposed to be acting as her white knight in knocking off the husband?
Should this seem like a miscarriage of justice? It's much like the way we get an ironclad case against Mafia boss in exchange for a lighter sentence against the underling who did the wet work. It just seems weird because we're not used to seeing a woman in the role of mastermind. We also don't like the idea of the boyfriend testifying against her to save himself: wasn't he supposed to be acting as her white knight in knocking off the husband?
Double Standards Are Fun For Everyone!
Unfair! "The Huffington Post is also pushing the 'Chaffetz was mean to Richards!' narrative, especially after New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney accused Chaffetz of "beating up on a woman.'" So disrespectful!
Fair! "Planned Parenthood paid protestors who threw condoms at Carly Fiorina." That'll teach her!
Fair! "Planned Parenthood paid protestors who threw condoms at Carly Fiorina." That'll teach her!
"Hate Crimes" Require Crimes, Don't They?
A famous basketball star -- who happens to have converted to Islam, and is thus perhaps especially sensitive to criticism of that faith -- paints himself into a corner.
Beyond that, though, there's no crime here to consider a hate crime. Political speech by candidates for office is a protected first amendment activity if anything is.
The Justice Department is perhaps largely at fault. Their definition, which he partially cites, ought to be highly controversial:
The shift that DOJ is trying to make is the shift from "a criminal offense" to "verbal threats of violence" or even speech by government or "other groups" that leaves people believing that they are less safe. That makes it into the article. Carson's statement that he wouldn't support a Muslim candidate for President -- none are running -- is read by our basketball player cum pundit as: "Because of him, Muslims are now a little less safe as they walk home."
Really? Because a black Republican from the South declined to support a Muslim candidate for president who doesn't exist? Well, it doesn't matter. It's enough that they believe that they are.
The U.S. Department of Justice describes a hate crime as “the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated the number of hate-crime victims in the U.S. to be over 250,000. And, though we cherish our right to free speech in this country, we also acknowledge that we are not entitled to say anything we want when it can cause others to be harmed. When those who have governmental authority, such as police, or who command wide attention from the public, such as candidates and pundits, express contempt for any group, it emboldens the bigots to crawl out from beneath their tree stumps to openly express their prejudices because they believe they have tacit approval from those in authority. Princeton economist Alan Krueger suggests one significant cause of hate crimes is the “official sanctioning and encouragement of civil disobedience.”Why is he in a corner? He is also in the class of those "who command wide attention from the public, such as candidates and pundits." And he has also endorsed civil disobedience. Quite recently, in fact.
Beyond that, though, there's no crime here to consider a hate crime. Political speech by candidates for office is a protected first amendment activity if anything is.
The Justice Department is perhaps largely at fault. Their definition, which he partially cites, ought to be highly controversial:
Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations.First of all, the Department of Justice doesn't get to "define" hate crimes. Congress does that. Does Congress have a definition? Indeed it does. Congress defines a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict, civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at-risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery may be hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance rates.
The shift that DOJ is trying to make is the shift from "a criminal offense" to "verbal threats of violence" or even speech by government or "other groups" that leaves people believing that they are less safe. That makes it into the article. Carson's statement that he wouldn't support a Muslim candidate for President -- none are running -- is read by our basketball player cum pundit as: "Because of him, Muslims are now a little less safe as they walk home."
Really? Because a black Republican from the South declined to support a Muslim candidate for president who doesn't exist? Well, it doesn't matter. It's enough that they believe that they are.
Why Do Men Get Off Easy In The Abortion Debate?
A rhetorically clever piece by one Emily Hauser. The sleight of hand that makes it work is this:
1) She elides all opposition to elective abortion with the particular objection raised by the Catholic Church.
2) She then points out that most of the people she'd folded into the Church's argument don't share the Church's position on non-martial sex. Hypocrites!
Of course, the one group of people who actually do hold the argument she attributes to the whole class -- that birth control is almost as sinful as abortion, and that sex outside of marriage is dangerously sinful -- also hold the position on non-marital sex she denies to members of that class. The Church could not be clearer about its position on sex outside of the institution of marriage. It's against it, if you haven't heard. I assure you that they go to some trouble to convey that message on a regular basis to their membership, men as well as women.
The position they do in fact advocate is not advocated by others because the others don't share the assumptions. Most Americans who oppose elective abortion do so not because they also believe that birth control is sinful. Actually, even most Catholics believe that birth control is OK. The figures are 82% of American Catholics and 89% of Americans generally. So if you asked most Americans why they don't come down hard on men for having non-marital sex if they oppose abortion, they'll answer: "Birth control is readily available and cheap."
By the same token, most Americans are totally OK with the idea of pre-marital sex. The numbers here are not quite as one-sided: 60% of Americans think pre-marital sex is OK. That's still a strong majority.
So the answer to the question about why you don't blame men for having sex outside of marriage is, for many Americans with concerns about elective abortion, that they don't blame anyone for having pre-marital sex. They just think they should use birth control.
It's a strange argument to field in any case. The reason the moral weight of abortion is on women more than men is a product of the fact that the decision to have an abortion has been placed, by our courts, wholly in the woman's hands. One has moral responsibility for one's voluntary actions. No man may take the voluntary action of demanding an abortion. They might still be held to responsibility if they voluntarily advise or assist in the commission of an abortion -- and the Catholic church, by the way, considers such men to have excommunicated themselves from the Church. They are not held to a lighter standard: indeed, they are said to be in some peril of Hell.
No, just because people on Ms. Hauser's side of the argument have largely gotten their way before the courts, the moral responsibility has shifted to those who have the actual choice under the law. Moral responsibility lies on female shoulders because the law places the choice exclusively in female hands.
Should we undertake to blame men for having pre-marital sex "equally" with women in the way Ms. Hauser suggests, by the way, her side of the argument would be up in arms. This practice -- when directed at women -- is called "slut shaming" and is said to be a violation of the human right of self-determination of women. It would be odd indeed to advocate, as a solution to any problem of any sort, an increased effort to violate what you believe to be human rights.
I have no problem saying that men should certainly marry before sex -- or, at least, be in such a relationship that should a baby come along, marriage is an easily imaginable transition that was probably going to happen sooner or later anyway. I think that is wise and appropriate advice. But it is very clear to me that it is a minority opinion, even among many fellow Americans who have good strong reasons to be opposed to elective abortion.
1) She elides all opposition to elective abortion with the particular objection raised by the Catholic Church.
2) She then points out that most of the people she'd folded into the Church's argument don't share the Church's position on non-martial sex. Hypocrites!
Of course, the one group of people who actually do hold the argument she attributes to the whole class -- that birth control is almost as sinful as abortion, and that sex outside of marriage is dangerously sinful -- also hold the position on non-marital sex she denies to members of that class. The Church could not be clearer about its position on sex outside of the institution of marriage. It's against it, if you haven't heard. I assure you that they go to some trouble to convey that message on a regular basis to their membership, men as well as women.
The position they do in fact advocate is not advocated by others because the others don't share the assumptions. Most Americans who oppose elective abortion do so not because they also believe that birth control is sinful. Actually, even most Catholics believe that birth control is OK. The figures are 82% of American Catholics and 89% of Americans generally. So if you asked most Americans why they don't come down hard on men for having non-marital sex if they oppose abortion, they'll answer: "Birth control is readily available and cheap."
By the same token, most Americans are totally OK with the idea of pre-marital sex. The numbers here are not quite as one-sided: 60% of Americans think pre-marital sex is OK. That's still a strong majority.
So the answer to the question about why you don't blame men for having sex outside of marriage is, for many Americans with concerns about elective abortion, that they don't blame anyone for having pre-marital sex. They just think they should use birth control.
It's a strange argument to field in any case. The reason the moral weight of abortion is on women more than men is a product of the fact that the decision to have an abortion has been placed, by our courts, wholly in the woman's hands. One has moral responsibility for one's voluntary actions. No man may take the voluntary action of demanding an abortion. They might still be held to responsibility if they voluntarily advise or assist in the commission of an abortion -- and the Catholic church, by the way, considers such men to have excommunicated themselves from the Church. They are not held to a lighter standard: indeed, they are said to be in some peril of Hell.
No, just because people on Ms. Hauser's side of the argument have largely gotten their way before the courts, the moral responsibility has shifted to those who have the actual choice under the law. Moral responsibility lies on female shoulders because the law places the choice exclusively in female hands.
Should we undertake to blame men for having pre-marital sex "equally" with women in the way Ms. Hauser suggests, by the way, her side of the argument would be up in arms. This practice -- when directed at women -- is called "slut shaming" and is said to be a violation of the human right of self-determination of women. It would be odd indeed to advocate, as a solution to any problem of any sort, an increased effort to violate what you believe to be human rights.
I have no problem saying that men should certainly marry before sex -- or, at least, be in such a relationship that should a baby come along, marriage is an easily imaginable transition that was probably going to happen sooner or later anyway. I think that is wise and appropriate advice. But it is very clear to me that it is a minority opinion, even among many fellow Americans who have good strong reasons to be opposed to elective abortion.
Good Sense, Unheeded
Garry Kasparov warns that the speeches at the UN were devoid of meaning. It's one of the most sensible things I've read recently, as one might expect from a master chess player turned political activist.
There's a house cleaning ongoing at the Pentagon, too, pushing out those who continue to argue that we need a stronger response to Russian moves.
2017 is still a long way away, and until then we are in freefall.
Mr. Obama has already decided to continue his policy of disengagement from the Middle East, and his platitudes about cooperation and the rule of law rang hollow.... [E]very listener was aware that Mr. Obama had no intention of backing his words with action.On the subject that occasioned our President's incredibly offensive and disgraceful comments on the Iraq war, Kasparov said this:
Mr. Putin, speaking about an hour later in the same room, included his usual NATO-bashing and obvious lies.... He spoke of national sovereignty—which is very important to Mr. Putin, unless it’s the sovereignty of Georgia, Ukraine or another place where he wishes to meddle.
In other words, Mr. Obama’s speech was routine because he knows he will not act. Mr. Putin’s speech was routine because he knows he will act anyway.
A look at a map of Iraq and Syria shows that the rise of ISIS was a logical response to American abandonment of the region’s Sunnis. A group like ISIS cannot thrive without support from locals, in this case Sunnis who see no other way to defend against the Shiite forces of Iran and Syria that are slaughtering them by the hundreds of thousands.That is not limited to Syria's Assad, but is true of Russia's allies in Iran as well. In Tikrit, Iranian backed militias destroyed the city after "saving" it from ISIS. Having taken control of it, they demolished it and abducted hundreds of Sunni citizens. Near the UN building today where these meaningless speeches were being given, thousands of Iranian Americans gathered to protest the murder of thousands of dissidents by the Iranian government. In Iran it's done not with "barrel bombs" but under color of law. Somehow, mysteriously, all of the regime's opponents are found to be guilty of drug trafficking, which in Iran is a capital crime.
In world affairs, as in chess, you have to play the position that’s on the board when you sit down. Criticizing George W. Bush for starting the Iraq war in 2003 does not change the fact that in 2008 there was no mass refugee crisis or massive ISIS army on the march. Support for al Qaeda had been undercut by negotiations with Sunni groups in Anbar province, a game-changing policy that was as responsible for reduced violence as the surge of new American forces.
The American exit and Mr. Obama’s refusal to deter Mr. Assad ended any possibility of security. The people had to fight, flee or die, and they are doing all three in horrific numbers. It’s important to remember that the waves of refugees reaching Europe are not running from ISIS. They are fleeing Mr. Assad—who counts on active support from Iran and now Russia.
There's a house cleaning ongoing at the Pentagon, too, pushing out those who continue to argue that we need a stronger response to Russian moves.
The Pentagon's top official overseeing military relations with Russia and Ukraine is resigning amid the ongoing debate within the Obama administration over how respond to Russian moves in Ukraine and Syria.... Farkas is a veteran defense policy hand, having served as a senior adviser to the U.S. European Command, executive director of a congressionally mandated commission on proliferation and a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As assistant secretary of defense, she traveled widely as part of the ongoing international standoff with Russia over Ukraine. All along, however, Russia has been a deep point of contention between the White House and the Pentagon.The President's dead set on all this. Nor can the anger of voters control him during the meantime: as we saw in the Iran deal as in the Obamacare vote, he's quite willing to suffer at the polls in order to get his way.
Obama pushed out his previous defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, after he urged a stronger American response to Russia's aggression. Hagel also questioned the president's strategy for arming so-called moderate Syrian fighters against the Islamic State, a program that has since all but imploded in an embarrassment for the administration.
2017 is still a long way away, and until then we are in freefall.
Unprintable Responses are the Only Ones Appropriate
President Obama actually had the audacity to say this:Yeah, that's not how that happened, champ.No matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand the United States cannot solve the world’s problems alone. In Iraq, the United States learned the hard lesson that even hundreds of thousands of brave, effective troops, trillions of dollars from our Treasury, cannot by itself impose stability on a foreign land. Unless we work with other nations under the mantle of international norms and principles and law that offer legitimacy to our efforts, we will not succeed. And unless we work together to defeat the ideas that drive different communities in a country like Iraq into conflict, any order that our militaries can impose will be temporary.
Solutions
About the Trump candidacy, Jim Gerraghty observes in his newsletter this morning, "There will always be an appetite for someone who comes along and insists the solutions are easy." Fair enough, but it's also true that this argument works particularly well when the powers that be have accomplished astonishingly little in recent years, always with the explanation that it's all very difficult, and we wouldn't understand the complexities. Leaders like the unlamented soon-to-be-departed Boehner radiate the impression that they don't accomplish much, not because it's difficult or complicated, but because they can't see the point. Trump looks like a hero by seeming to get down to brass tacks: the brass businessman, focused on effectiveness and the bottom line.
I'd feel so much better about it if I thought he really agreed with me on the bottom line. In that way, he may be much like Boehner, but slightly more likely to achieve whatever his goals turn out to be.
I'd feel so much better about it if I thought he really agreed with me on the bottom line. In that way, he may be much like Boehner, but slightly more likely to achieve whatever his goals turn out to be.
Jeanne La Flamme
Medievalists.net has a piece up today about a figure from the early Hundred Years war, who did "the boldest and most remarkable feat ever performed by a woman" according to a chronicler of that age. Her husband, a candidate for the rulership of Brittany, was captured by French perfidy. While he was the prisoner of the French King, that king invaded Brittany to try to put his own favored candidate on the throne there. Jeanne organized a defense of a city, Hennebont, against the French army.
While the siege was ongoing, she dressed in armor and rode about the town on a big warhorse, encouraging the defenders. But when she saw an opportunity, she took it:
In any case, Jeanne and her party escaped the French. She returned after five days with reinforcements, and was able to re-enter her city. She continued the defense until the arrival of English aid, which routed the French. Eventually her son would become the ruler of Brittany.
Jeanne went on to fight in a sea battle on her way to England to obtain further aid for her people. Escaping from the French fleet to the harbor of a nearby town, her forces stormed and captured that city and used it as a base for further war against the French and their preferred candidate. She was an important leader of her husband's faction during his imprisonments, of which there were two, and after his death. Her son eventually won the throne, although it is not clear if Jeanne knew it. Later in her life, for reasons we do not know, we are told that she went mad. The English put her up in a castle under the guardianship of one Sir William Frank, a knight of Edward III's.
While the siege was ongoing, she dressed in armor and rode about the town on a big warhorse, encouraging the defenders. But when she saw an opportunity, she took it:
And now you shall hear of the boldest and the most remarkable feat ever performed by a woman. Know this: the valiant countess, who kept climbing the towers to see how the defence was progressing, saw that all the besiegers had left their quarters and gone forward to watch the assault. She conceived a fine plan. She remounted her charger, fully armed as she was, and called upon some three hundred men-at-arms who were guarding a gate that wasn’t under attack to mount with her; then she rode out with this company and charged boldly into the enemy camp, which was devoid of anyone but a few boys and servants. They killed them all and set fire to everything: soon the whole encampment was ablaze.It's hard for us today to celebrate the killing of boys and servants by professional soldiers, but it occurs regularly in the Hundred Years War if they are present as a part of the army's logistical train -- doubtless you remember such a scene from Shakespeare's Henry V. They were performing an important part of the war effort, and as such they end up taking a soldier's chances.
When the French lords saw their camp on fire and heard the shouting and commotion, the assault was abandoned as they rushed back in alarm, crying: “Treachery! Treachery!” The valiant countess, seeing them alerted and the besiegers streaming back from all sides, rallied her men and, realising there was no way back to the town without grave loss, rode off in another direction, straight to the castle of Brayt, some four leagues away.
In any case, Jeanne and her party escaped the French. She returned after five days with reinforcements, and was able to re-enter her city. She continued the defense until the arrival of English aid, which routed the French. Eventually her son would become the ruler of Brittany.
Jeanne went on to fight in a sea battle on her way to England to obtain further aid for her people. Escaping from the French fleet to the harbor of a nearby town, her forces stormed and captured that city and used it as a base for further war against the French and their preferred candidate. She was an important leader of her husband's faction during his imprisonments, of which there were two, and after his death. Her son eventually won the throne, although it is not clear if Jeanne knew it. Later in her life, for reasons we do not know, we are told that she went mad. The English put her up in a castle under the guardianship of one Sir William Frank, a knight of Edward III's.
Why do women join the USMC?
In this post's comments Grim links to this article, in which the author makes his point about why women join the Marine Corps. In short:
"Why do you think women join the Marines? Because they like the food? No, they’re in it for the same basic reason that men are – the lure of proving themselves, of being elite. That’s why those enlisted Marines have signed up for infantry training. It’s also why nearly 400 Army women have signed up for the Ranger training, a number far beyond what the Army was prepared for. And these are just the women already in the Army and the Marines, the ones who had the Combat Exclusion Law staring them in the face and joined anyway."
Well, if you're looking for me to disagree, you're wrong.
"Why do you think women join the Marines? Because they like the food? No, they’re in it for the same basic reason that men are – the lure of proving themselves, of being elite. That’s why those enlisted Marines have signed up for infantry training. It’s also why nearly 400 Army women have signed up for the Ranger training, a number far beyond what the Army was prepared for. And these are just the women already in the Army and the Marines, the ones who had the Combat Exclusion Law staring them in the face and joined anyway."
Well, if you're looking for me to disagree, you're wrong.
Secretary Mabus Ignores the Marine Corps
Despite considerable backlash from within the service, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said again Monday that the Marine Corps infantry and Navy SEALs will open up to women, no matter what.
Keep an Eye on This Story
Normally if a journalist were to call out a serving military officer as a liar, I would instinctively take the side of the officer. For one thing, it's an inappropriate use of the language of honor targeting a man who is forbidden by regulations from responding in kind. A military officer may not be speaking the truth -- goodness knows I've seen a few PAOs and general officers tell whoppers -- but they are saying what has been approved for them to say. They really aren't free to speak otherwise, not without resigning their commission. Unless the offense is so grave as to justify resigning your commission over it, such an untruth is not a matter of their personal honor but the honor of their organization.
The US military is an organization that has a vast treasury of honor from the sacrifices of its members in pursuit of human liberty and against totalitarianism. Unfortunately, of late, the leadership has been expending rather than adding to that treasury. The winking at child sex slavery by Afghan allies, going so far as to punish American servicemembers who stood up to it, is a moral disaster.
The distortion of intelligence to please their civilian bosses in the White House is less severe as a moral matter, but nevertheless represents a departure from the strict standards of honor that underlie victory at war. If you do not rigorously represent the truth to higher command in a military model, command decisions will depart more and more from the reality on the ground. Even in the best of cases, as explored by von Clausewitz, the fog of war distorts the ability of higher command to understand and act correctly to win victories on the ground. If you have not been faithful to your duty, but have allowed pleasing distortions into the intelligence, this will worsen. Honor is very much concerned in this story, and the honor of some ranking figures at US Central Command.
Still, the reserve is vast, even if lately the influence of the civilian commander has led many officers astray from the path of honor. Normally, as I said, if a military officer is challenged by a journalist, I'd assume the officer was in the right.
There are three factors at work in this story that make it hard to be sure one way or the other.
1) I don't know who all of her sources are, but I do know people who have at least plausible access to parts of the truth. What she's hearing isn't too different from what I've heard. There have been so many false rumors about this story that it's hard to know what to take seriously, of course, and even well-sourced reports have proven not to hold water. Still, there's a lot of smoke -- it's not implausible to think that there could be some fire. At the least a formal investigation would clear the air.
2) I know this is a matter that has been under the close and personal supervision of that civilian leadership, which has provided the distorting effect in the other cases where military honor has lately fallen down. The idea that there is pressure from above to make this happen distorting military decision making is sadly not at all implausible in this environment. On the other hand, the particular officer most concerned is MG Miller, who is a serious guy. When he says -- and he has said this directly -- that there was no pressure from above him, I tend to think that's probably true. He's probably not an easy guy to press in any case. So was the pressure from below him? Or was it only in the minds of the instructors, who were imagining pressures from above that did not actually exist?
3) Finally, some of the responses against her -- not so much the PAO's response, which was staffed, but the swarming responses on social media -- have the feel of "community organizing." If there is a coordinated effort to suppress the story, there's a reason why people feel that it is important to suppress the story. If she were dead wrong, the thing to do as her opponent would be to get all the facts out and show how wrong she was. Of course, these reactions could be being made in ignorance of whether she is right or wrong. In that case, they might just be a white-cell response to try to shut up someone who is being critical of "progress."
I don't claim to know for certain what is going on here. I do think an investigation is not a bad idea. Journalists are supposed to press for the truth and not simply accept the claims of authority. It's good even for the military if they succeed, as a rule: the journalists who broke the story about ignoring Afghan child slavery are doing a service to all the men and women who were being pressured to accept the practice.
So we'll see how this shakes out. For the moment, I'm withholding judgment even on the probabilities of the truth pending further information.
The US military is an organization that has a vast treasury of honor from the sacrifices of its members in pursuit of human liberty and against totalitarianism. Unfortunately, of late, the leadership has been expending rather than adding to that treasury. The winking at child sex slavery by Afghan allies, going so far as to punish American servicemembers who stood up to it, is a moral disaster.
The distortion of intelligence to please their civilian bosses in the White House is less severe as a moral matter, but nevertheless represents a departure from the strict standards of honor that underlie victory at war. If you do not rigorously represent the truth to higher command in a military model, command decisions will depart more and more from the reality on the ground. Even in the best of cases, as explored by von Clausewitz, the fog of war distorts the ability of higher command to understand and act correctly to win victories on the ground. If you have not been faithful to your duty, but have allowed pleasing distortions into the intelligence, this will worsen. Honor is very much concerned in this story, and the honor of some ranking figures at US Central Command.
Still, the reserve is vast, even if lately the influence of the civilian commander has led many officers astray from the path of honor. Normally, as I said, if a military officer is challenged by a journalist, I'd assume the officer was in the right.
There are three factors at work in this story that make it hard to be sure one way or the other.
1) I don't know who all of her sources are, but I do know people who have at least plausible access to parts of the truth. What she's hearing isn't too different from what I've heard. There have been so many false rumors about this story that it's hard to know what to take seriously, of course, and even well-sourced reports have proven not to hold water. Still, there's a lot of smoke -- it's not implausible to think that there could be some fire. At the least a formal investigation would clear the air.
2) I know this is a matter that has been under the close and personal supervision of that civilian leadership, which has provided the distorting effect in the other cases where military honor has lately fallen down. The idea that there is pressure from above to make this happen distorting military decision making is sadly not at all implausible in this environment. On the other hand, the particular officer most concerned is MG Miller, who is a serious guy. When he says -- and he has said this directly -- that there was no pressure from above him, I tend to think that's probably true. He's probably not an easy guy to press in any case. So was the pressure from below him? Or was it only in the minds of the instructors, who were imagining pressures from above that did not actually exist?
3) Finally, some of the responses against her -- not so much the PAO's response, which was staffed, but the swarming responses on social media -- have the feel of "community organizing." If there is a coordinated effort to suppress the story, there's a reason why people feel that it is important to suppress the story. If she were dead wrong, the thing to do as her opponent would be to get all the facts out and show how wrong she was. Of course, these reactions could be being made in ignorance of whether she is right or wrong. In that case, they might just be a white-cell response to try to shut up someone who is being critical of "progress."
I don't claim to know for certain what is going on here. I do think an investigation is not a bad idea. Journalists are supposed to press for the truth and not simply accept the claims of authority. It's good even for the military if they succeed, as a rule: the journalists who broke the story about ignoring Afghan child slavery are doing a service to all the men and women who were being pressured to accept the practice.
So we'll see how this shakes out. For the moment, I'm withholding judgment even on the probabilities of the truth pending further information.
Important, if true...
That phrase has resonated with me since I first read it (on Cass' blog, if I recall correctly), because it prepares the field for an important point about the internet. We are bombarded with facts and factoids daily, some of which are accurate others... well, let's just say that they may be true, from a certain point of view (ala Obi Wan Kenobi). I.e. it's a lie. But if something we read ends up being true, then it can be very important. If it is untrue, then at best it's an object lesson about believing everything you read.
Systemic Change
Slate Star Codex warns against it, without committing to opposing it. The "system" in question is global capitalism.
It's an interesting and thoughtful post, as usual from this source. Less usual is that it is constructed in the form of a dialogue for large parts of the argument.
It's an interesting and thoughtful post, as usual from this source. Less usual is that it is constructed in the form of a dialogue for large parts of the argument.
Bob: I really do sympathize with you here, of course. It’s hard not to. But I also look back at history and am deeply troubled by what I see. In the 1920s, nearly all the educated, intelligent, evidence-based, pro-science, future-oriented people agreed: the USSR was amazing. Shaw, Wells, Webb. They all thought Stalin was great and we needed a global communist revolution so we could be more like him. If you and I had been alive back then, we’d be having this same conversation, but it would end with both of us agreeing to donate everything we had to the Bolsheviks.
Alice: Okay, so the smart people were wrong once. That doesn’t mean…
Bob: And eugenics.
Alice: Actually…
Bob: ಠ_à²
Alice: Fine then. For the sake of argument, the smart people were wrong twice. That still doesn’t…
Then They Shall Know That My Name Is...
An article wonders why we engage in punishment.
I think that the opposite is true. It is the beast who is most likely to forgo retribution. They will act not to revenge past harms, but to avoid fresh ones. They might kill you if they think you are still dangerous and sense a momentary advantage. They might just as readily avoid you to keep from presenting you with a chance to hurt them again. They will not feel any duty of honor to avenge themselves, or their families, nor to repay you for the wrongs you have done.
Retribution is a higher, not a lower quality. This is orthodox, is it not? Vengeance is the divine quality, not a bestial one. Human beings are urged to mercy and kindness toward their enemies not because it is irrational or animal to punish past wrongs, but because they are not high enough to do it well and justly. Be patient, return kindness for cruelty, and you will heap hot coals on their heads.
How fitting, then, that it was a Vicar who provided the author cited at the top of this post with his reasons. But this is not a purely Judeo-Christian view. The Ancient Greeks thought this too, those of them who were poets instead of philosophers. They also thought that vengeance and retribution were divine. Hesiod even tells you her name.
Traditionally, what reasons justify punishing wrongdoing, such as criminal behaviour?I quote this section in order to point out that this has not been the opinion of the enlightened only recently. Socrates is brought up against it by Protagoras:
(1) Retribution;
(2) Specific deterrence or incapacitation (i.e., deterring the wrongdoer);
(3) General deterrence (i.e., deterring third-parties);
(4) Rehabilitation; and,
(5) Restitution.
Modern intellectual discourse favours the latter 4 justifications. Retribution is seen by many criminologists as primitive, if not irrational. But may a society -- i.e., a society aiming to be a just or good society -- impose punishment absent some strong conception of retribution? I am not so sure. Here is why....
If you will think, Socrates, of the nature of punishment, you will see at once that in the opinion of mankind virtue may be acquired; no one punishes the evil-doer under the notion, or for the reason, that he has done wrong, only the unreasonable fury of a beast acts in that manner. But he who desires to inflict rational punishment does not retaliate for a past wrong which cannot be undone; he has regard to the future, and is desirous that the man who is punished, and he who sees him punished, may be deterred from doing wrong again. He punishes for the sake of prevention, thereby clearly implying that virtue is capable of being taught. This is the notion of all who retaliate upon others either privately or publicly.Rational punishment does not look to the past but to the future, Protagoras says. Indeed, since we cannot change the past, the only reason -- that is, the only kind of purpose to which rationality even might apply itself -- for punishment must be an eye toward the future. Deterrence is rational. Rehabilitation is rational. Mere retribution is bestial, so he argues.
I think that the opposite is true. It is the beast who is most likely to forgo retribution. They will act not to revenge past harms, but to avoid fresh ones. They might kill you if they think you are still dangerous and sense a momentary advantage. They might just as readily avoid you to keep from presenting you with a chance to hurt them again. They will not feel any duty of honor to avenge themselves, or their families, nor to repay you for the wrongs you have done.
Retribution is a higher, not a lower quality. This is orthodox, is it not? Vengeance is the divine quality, not a bestial one. Human beings are urged to mercy and kindness toward their enemies not because it is irrational or animal to punish past wrongs, but because they are not high enough to do it well and justly. Be patient, return kindness for cruelty, and you will heap hot coals on their heads.
How fitting, then, that it was a Vicar who provided the author cited at the top of this post with his reasons. But this is not a purely Judeo-Christian view. The Ancient Greeks thought this too, those of them who were poets instead of philosophers. They also thought that vengeance and retribution were divine. Hesiod even tells you her name.
Always With The Euphemisms
If a group calls itself the "Military Religious Freedom Foundation," what do you suppose their cause is?
Right. Their cause is making sure no one in the military is free to express religion, outside of a designated chapel.
John Derbyshire noticed this trend in deceptive names for radical policy organizations way back in 2003.
Right. Their cause is making sure no one in the military is free to express religion, outside of a designated chapel.
John Derbyshire noticed this trend in deceptive names for radical policy organizations way back in 2003.
The Santorum business brought to the fore an outfit called "The Human Rights Campaign." You would never know from its name that this is a homosexualist lobbying organization. I have no problem with HRC's existence — homosexuals have as much right to organize and lobby as the rest of us — but I do have a problem with that name — viz., it's dishonest. The name of an organization ought to give some clue as to what the organization is for. Why don't they call themselves "The Homosexual Rights Campaign," or "The Campaign for Tolerance of Alternative Sexuality," or something like that? If they want to be a little more in-your-face, they could go for something with a defiant or humorous twist: "The Sodomite Sodality," perhaps. Don't they understand that this straining at bland respectability just makes them look shifty?Of course, in the ensuing twelve years, the Human Rights Campaign went on to win everything their hearts desired -- while John Derbyshire was exiled to the outer darkness, precisely for being direct and honest about his more radical views.
Readers, I have decided to launch a movement for the legalization of dog meat as a marketable foodstuff. My movement will be named: "The Campaign for Truth, Justice, Harmony and Peace." Everyone OK with that?
Cheeky nandos
I stumbled today on a word-junky blog some of you might enjoy. The author's primary interest is difference in usage between Great Britain and the U.S., explored in two ways made possible by the Internet: comments from geographically distributed English speakers, and the Google tool that allows us to make charts of the usage of a word or phrase over time, contrasting the ".us" with the ".gb" style.
The Ghost Army
Sun Tzu tells us that all warfare is based on deception. During WWII, the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops were a unit of artists, set designers, and regular guys who used inflatable tanks, vehicles, and artillery; recordings played over loudspeakers; and other means to simulate US units and deceive the German army during operations from Normandy to the Rhine. While it was serious business, they seem to have had some fun doing it, too.
The Ghost Army is an hour-long documentary that tells their story. It uses film footage, interviews with some of the veterans of the unit, and a number of sketches and paintings done by the artists during their service. It's pretty good, if you're into WWII documentaries.
The Ghost Army is an hour-long documentary that tells their story. It uses film footage, interviews with some of the veterans of the unit, and a number of sketches and paintings done by the artists during their service. It's pretty good, if you're into WWII documentaries.
I'll Take You To the Wars, Love
AVI has produced a remarkable resource. The site collects traditional folk songs and ballads from Gloucestershire. It's just the sort of thing to warm the heart. Here is one -- you can listen by clicking on the player on the right side of the screen -- based around a man who wants to bring his pregnant wife along to the wars he's going to fight in "High Germany." It's 18th century, and the notes indicate that nobody's really sure just which of the several wars near the period were meant to be indicated by the song.
Well, we may see such a time ourselves, and not in the too distant future. Fortify yourselves with song.
Well, we may see such a time ourselves, and not in the too distant future. Fortify yourselves with song.
Tomorrow's Headlines Today
Top Army leaders have ordered its elite Special Forces unit to change its motto from the Latin “De Opresso Liber” (To liberate the oppressed) to something that would be more culturally sensitive, after a large number Afghans holding child sex slaves have complained.By now, you know the source.
“We want to make sure we are not offending our coalition partners and not judging them based on our own biases,” said Col. Dwight S. Barry, a Pentagon spokesperson.
Cosmopolitan Was Once a Literary Magazine
Apparently! And suddenly, I have a new appreciation for the popularity of Hemingway.
The real story is about the dangers to a man of loving two women at the same time. It is, and perhaps it really must be, a tragic story. F. Scott Fitzgerald proves to be the wise man of the tale. He understood what was going on right at once, and tried to guide his friend in the right way. He was up against an at-least equal and opposite power, though, in one of the women who loved Hemingway.
It was on the morning of January 25, 1954, that word flashed around the world that Ernest and Mary had been killed in a plane crash in dense jungle near Murchison Falls in Uganda, setting off universal mourning and obituaries. But news of the tragedy was soon superseded by a report that Ernest had suddenly, miraculously, emerged from the jungle at Butiaba carrying a bunch of bananas and a bottle of Gordon’s gin.All right, that makes sense to me. I've read a lot of his work over the years, most recently The Old Man and the Sea, and I've always liked it as far as it goes. What I hadn't understood before was his rock star image. But that -- and what follows -- makes sense of it.
The real story is about the dangers to a man of loving two women at the same time. It is, and perhaps it really must be, a tragic story. F. Scott Fitzgerald proves to be the wise man of the tale. He understood what was going on right at once, and tried to guide his friend in the right way. He was up against an at-least equal and opposite power, though, in one of the women who loved Hemingway.
The Pope's Visit
I've always liked Pope Francis. What I like about him, above all, is that he gets out of his security and walks among the people. He's ready to die every day. That's what I look for in a man of God: if he really is what he is supposed to be, he ought to be ready to die at any moment. I don't doubt that God loves Pope Francis for this reason alone, without regard to anything he believes. That is living faith.
For that reason, I don't care especially about the particulars of his statements. Gosh, a lot of people obviously do. I think they're missing the point. Human knowledge is always limited. There are a few points of theology Francis can state that are obviously firmly binding on Catholics. The teaching on abortion is one of these. But they aren't binding because he believes it, or because he says it. They're binding because standing behind him is a massive weight of authority. No one man, Pope or otherwise, can alter it in more than the slightest degree.
Why is that? The Church is the largest religious organization on Earth, with just about 1.2 billion members. That is not binding. To appeal to that would be an ad populum fallacy, an appeal to the popular. What is going on with the Church's authority is something more. The Church does not think it represents 1.2 billion people. The Church thinks it represents all of the members gone before those 1.2 billion into the grave. It takes seriously the proposition that it must remain in fellowship with the dead, because it expects to meet them again -- perhaps tomorrow afternoon.
There is a huge power in that, even apart from the authority it draws from community with the divine. To hold the human family together not just across space or culture but across time, that requires speaking and thinking with the greatest care. When the Church speaks as a whole, it speaks with some thought to the Pope (2015), to St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), St. Augustine (354-430), with Jesus who defines the calendar, with the prophets of old who came before. It considers the writings of fairly ordinary men, even, such as Tobias of one of the books taken as apocryphal and in any case written by a fairly ordinary person of his age.
Nothing like it exists. Certainly no greater human organization than it exists. We can imagine a similar organization that somehow embraced the whole of the human traditions of wisdom, from Hinduism and Judaism to Buddhism and Christianity. But there is no such organization, nor could one be constructed now. The Church is as powerful an organization of humanity as has ever been built, whatever you think of its claims of connection to the divine.
Of course it doesn't agree in all its specifics with anyone. It pursues a greater agreement with everyone.
It is good to see the Congress pause and consider. It will do whatever it wants, of course. So does everyone else. But the wise pause. The wise consider.
For that reason, I don't care especially about the particulars of his statements. Gosh, a lot of people obviously do. I think they're missing the point. Human knowledge is always limited. There are a few points of theology Francis can state that are obviously firmly binding on Catholics. The teaching on abortion is one of these. But they aren't binding because he believes it, or because he says it. They're binding because standing behind him is a massive weight of authority. No one man, Pope or otherwise, can alter it in more than the slightest degree.
Why is that? The Church is the largest religious organization on Earth, with just about 1.2 billion members. That is not binding. To appeal to that would be an ad populum fallacy, an appeal to the popular. What is going on with the Church's authority is something more. The Church does not think it represents 1.2 billion people. The Church thinks it represents all of the members gone before those 1.2 billion into the grave. It takes seriously the proposition that it must remain in fellowship with the dead, because it expects to meet them again -- perhaps tomorrow afternoon.
There is a huge power in that, even apart from the authority it draws from community with the divine. To hold the human family together not just across space or culture but across time, that requires speaking and thinking with the greatest care. When the Church speaks as a whole, it speaks with some thought to the Pope (2015), to St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), St. Augustine (354-430), with Jesus who defines the calendar, with the prophets of old who came before. It considers the writings of fairly ordinary men, even, such as Tobias of one of the books taken as apocryphal and in any case written by a fairly ordinary person of his age.
Nothing like it exists. Certainly no greater human organization than it exists. We can imagine a similar organization that somehow embraced the whole of the human traditions of wisdom, from Hinduism and Judaism to Buddhism and Christianity. But there is no such organization, nor could one be constructed now. The Church is as powerful an organization of humanity as has ever been built, whatever you think of its claims of connection to the divine.
Of course it doesn't agree in all its specifics with anyone. It pursues a greater agreement with everyone.
It is good to see the Congress pause and consider. It will do whatever it wants, of course. So does everyone else. But the wise pause. The wise consider.
Kenny Rogers
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)