Self help
If you don't follow The Walking Dead--as I don't--you should skip all the written part of this HotAir piece, but watch the video explaining how to deal with zombies.
Waco Update: Dallas News Editorial
Just in case you like the bottom line up front, they give it to you in their headline: "In Waco case, biker gangs earning more trust than prosecutors."
Is God a Fact, or an Opinion?
Not too long ago we had a surprisingly intense argument over the proper definition of 'fact' and 'opinion.' It was framed, and not wrongly, as a really central issue in the quest to develop virtuous citizens. The use of language and the meaning of core concepts of language does indeed have much to do with that. This is just why Socrates was always so interested in whether people could define the terms they were using: "justice," "piety," and the like. Could you give an account of the real nature of the concept you were naming? Or could you not?
(An aside: Socrates thus gets the best line in this cartoon.)
Today I mention it because of this 7th grader whose teacher insisted that anyone who said that "God is a fact" or that "God is an opinion" was wrong. The only correct answer was that "God is a myth."
Now, the way I was taught the distinction, "fact" and "opinion" were mutually exclusive categories that covered every possible statement. "Fact" meant "a statement that can be proven true or false." Opinion meant every other kind of statement.
Thus, "God is a myth" (in the sense of 'myth' as 'false tale') is either a fact or an opinion. Since the teacher thinks it can be proven correct, she is classifying this statement as a fact. But then she ought to recognize that she has entailed that "God is a fact" is true, since she thinks that God's existence can be proven false -- and a fact is the kind of statement that can be proven true or false.
On the other hand, if "God is a myth" is an opinion because it cannot be proven either way, then "God is a fact" is also an opinion. "God is an opinion" is thus a fact, while "God is a fact" is an opinion. That's fun.
In any case, it's all bad metaphysics. Those who think that they can prove God don't try to prove his existence, but rather his necessity: God's existence is of such a different nature than ours that no one believes that we can understand how God exists, but if God is necessary, then we must accept it though we don't understand it. See Avicenna's Metaphysics of The Healing. Aquinas summarizes the argument (far too briefly to give you the sense of it):
That's work that the seventh grade teacher is unlikely to have done, which ought to provoke some humility -- except that she is doubtless ignorant enough of the whole set of arguments not to realize that it is work that needs to be done to grapple with the question in front of her. She is still trying to prove or disprove God as if God were to be proven in the same way as your postman.
So is God a fact, or an opinion? Both, of course. How could it be otherwise? All things follow from God, and thus all things must be prefigured in God. God is both provable in Avicenna's sense, and outside what can be thought of as a proof for Kant. And thus it is just as true to say that God is neither, of course: all these concepts of human language are limited, and God is not.
(An aside: Socrates thus gets the best line in this cartoon.)
Today I mention it because of this 7th grader whose teacher insisted that anyone who said that "God is a fact" or that "God is an opinion" was wrong. The only correct answer was that "God is a myth."
Now, the way I was taught the distinction, "fact" and "opinion" were mutually exclusive categories that covered every possible statement. "Fact" meant "a statement that can be proven true or false." Opinion meant every other kind of statement.
Thus, "God is a myth" (in the sense of 'myth' as 'false tale') is either a fact or an opinion. Since the teacher thinks it can be proven correct, she is classifying this statement as a fact. But then she ought to recognize that she has entailed that "God is a fact" is true, since she thinks that God's existence can be proven false -- and a fact is the kind of statement that can be proven true or false.
On the other hand, if "God is a myth" is an opinion because it cannot be proven either way, then "God is a fact" is also an opinion. "God is an opinion" is thus a fact, while "God is a fact" is an opinion. That's fun.
In any case, it's all bad metaphysics. Those who think that they can prove God don't try to prove his existence, but rather his necessity: God's existence is of such a different nature than ours that no one believes that we can understand how God exists, but if God is necessary, then we must accept it though we don't understand it. See Avicenna's Metaphysics of The Healing. Aquinas summarizes the argument (far too briefly to give you the sense of it):
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.Now Aquinas describes that as a proof of God's existence, but goes on to note that by "existence" he means something extremely different from the "existence" that you or I have -- in other words, he isn't proving "existence" in the usual sense at all. This point he gets from Avicenna, I think, although frankly he could have drawn it from the Neoplatonists or Parmenides. All of these are dense arguments that require years of work to grapple with effectively.
That's work that the seventh grade teacher is unlikely to have done, which ought to provoke some humility -- except that she is doubtless ignorant enough of the whole set of arguments not to realize that it is work that needs to be done to grapple with the question in front of her. She is still trying to prove or disprove God as if God were to be proven in the same way as your postman.
So is God a fact, or an opinion? Both, of course. How could it be otherwise? All things follow from God, and thus all things must be prefigured in God. God is both provable in Avicenna's sense, and outside what can be thought of as a proof for Kant. And thus it is just as true to say that God is neither, of course: all these concepts of human language are limited, and God is not.
Paid the Taxman
Today I rode over to the county seat and had a conversation with a man I know only by face, who recognizes my face in return even though he only sees me twice a year. Once I year I ride over there and pay my tag fees for the various vehicles registered in my name. The other time I come to pay the taxes on my property here in the county. He and I have to talk every time I come because it is his job to physically search me before I am allowed into the building.
The conversation turned, ironically I thought, on his desire to lament just how much of our money the government takes in taxes. He is of course paid out of those taxes, and is fully employed as a cog in the wheel of the tax-collection machine. His job is to protect the taxman from me, and to ensure that said taxman only encounters people like me after we have been carefully checked for arms.
It always strikes me as strange. The same government licenses me to carry arms, has my fingerprints on file and has itself investigated my background. They know who I am. The same government pays for its operations out of money that I or people like me provide. In fact, the reason I ever go there is just to provide them with that money. I always show up and pay my bill as soon as it arrives even though I could wait months to pay it.
Of course, the reason I pay it so quickly is that if I should forget, the government will sell my house and land at auction and evict me. Perhaps that's why they are so unwilling to trust me with arms around them, even though I'm coming -- as I always do -- to pay them what they ask at the earliest opportunity. Their own deep-set bad faith undermines our relationship. They cannot trust their citizens not to use force against them, even the ones who have always played by the rules and who have volunteered to be investigated, because they know how quickly they intend to resort to force if I miss a payment.
Seems like there's got to be a better way. The relationship between the citizen and the state should be a kind of friendship, ideally. You watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and you can see how the citizen used to participate in local government, indeed how citizens to really be local government.
Even in this very rural corner of a fairly rural state, we've gotten far away from that ideal.
The conversation turned, ironically I thought, on his desire to lament just how much of our money the government takes in taxes. He is of course paid out of those taxes, and is fully employed as a cog in the wheel of the tax-collection machine. His job is to protect the taxman from me, and to ensure that said taxman only encounters people like me after we have been carefully checked for arms.
It always strikes me as strange. The same government licenses me to carry arms, has my fingerprints on file and has itself investigated my background. They know who I am. The same government pays for its operations out of money that I or people like me provide. In fact, the reason I ever go there is just to provide them with that money. I always show up and pay my bill as soon as it arrives even though I could wait months to pay it.
Of course, the reason I pay it so quickly is that if I should forget, the government will sell my house and land at auction and evict me. Perhaps that's why they are so unwilling to trust me with arms around them, even though I'm coming -- as I always do -- to pay them what they ask at the earliest opportunity. Their own deep-set bad faith undermines our relationship. They cannot trust their citizens not to use force against them, even the ones who have always played by the rules and who have volunteered to be investigated, because they know how quickly they intend to resort to force if I miss a payment.
Seems like there's got to be a better way. The relationship between the citizen and the state should be a kind of friendship, ideally. You watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and you can see how the citizen used to participate in local government, indeed how citizens to really be local government.
Even in this very rural corner of a fairly rural state, we've gotten far away from that ideal.
Popcorn
Via D29, an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
[T]he foundation portrays itself as do-gooder nonprofit organization but a cursory look reveals questionable and incomplete disclosures of its activities and accounts, as well as incredible misspending of donor money, virtually since its inception.OK. That could be interesting.
Naturally, this can’t be stated in polite society. For example, the New York Times just had a story on the Clinton Foundation that found highly questionable conduct but buried it under the bland headline, “Rwanda Aid Shows Reach and Limits of Clinton Foundation.” Other stories have mentioned that the foundation has partnered with assorted dictators and robber barons. Among the latter is Canadian “mining magnate” (read: "penny stock artist") Frank Giustra, who donated millions to the foundation after Bill Clinton helped him land a mining concession for him in Kazakhstan....
However, the problems appear set to catch up with the foundation (now formally known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), which has until November 16 to amend more than ten years’ worth of state, federal and foreign filings. According to Charles Ortel, a financial whistleblower, it will be difficult if not impossible for the foundation to amend its financial returns without acknowledging accounting fraud and admitting that it generated substantial private gain for directors, insiders and Clinton cronies, all of which is against the law under an IRS rule called inurement.
Entropy and Income Inequality
The Mises Institute adjusted individual income to deduct taxes and then add back in what one receives in 'benefits' from one's government. The result:
That's what these societies are striving for -- a more level field of incomes. That doesn't come without a cost.
Since Sweden is held up as a sort of promised land by American socialists, let's compare it first. We find that, if it were to join the US as a state, Sweden would be poorer than all but 12 states, with a median income of $27,167.No surprises here, though: there's significant entropy involved in taxing and spending. If you make $10,000 and I make $110,000, our average income is $60,000. If the government takes $50,000 from me to distribute to you, it's going to have to pay taxmen and bureaucrats to administer the program. You'll probably only get $25,000 of the money, the rest being lost to the systematic entropy. Our average income will now only be $47,500.
Median residents in states like Colorado ($35,830), Massachusetts ($37,626), Virginia ($39,291), Washington ($36,343), and Utah ($36,036) have considerably higher incomes than Sweden.
With the exception of Luxembourg ($38,502), Norway ($35,528), and Switzerland ($35,083), all countries shown would fail to rank as high-income states were they to become part of the United States. In fact, most would fare worse than Mississippi, the poorest state.
For example, Mississippi has a higher median income ($23,017) than 18 countries measured here. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom all have median income levels below $23,000 and are thus below every single US state. Not surprisingly, the poorest OECD members (Chile, Mexico, and Turkey) have median incomes far below Mississippi.
Germany, Europe's economic powerhouse, has a median income ($25,528) level below all but 9 US states. Finland ranks with Germany in this regard ($25,730), and France's median income ($24,233) is lower than both Germany and Finland. Denmark fares better and has a median income ($27,304) below all but 13 US states.
That's what these societies are striving for -- a more level field of incomes. That doesn't come without a cost.
In Praise of James Comey
I certainly hope that the author is right about our top G-man.
The author says "With James Comey leading the investigation, and unlikely to participate in any cover-up, [Republicans] should have faith in the system." It isn't just Republicans who doubt the system here. Democrats are also confident that she will face no charges. After the Justice Department long-investigated and then winked away Lois Lerner's moves at the IRS, nothing could be more plausible than that the law will go unenforced and the friends of the powerful will be protected from legal consequences. It would be eucastrophic if the FBI upheld its due and proper function in this case.
The fiercely independent head of the FBI is directing the investigation into Clinton’s use of a personal email server and attendant issues raised during the Benghazi inquiry, which could lead to indictments of the former Secretary of State or her various aides....All those qualities will be needed if he is to do the right thing here. No one expects it. The rule of law has collapsed so completely where the powerful -- or even the famous -- are concerned that there are pop-culture songs about how much you can get away with if you're a celebrity. Clinton is protected by both personal celebrity and deep ties to the rich and powerful among the ruling party. I doubt you could find three people in a hundred who really believe in their hearts that the government will call her to account for her casual, habitual violation of the laws governing classified information.
Comey has shown a nettlesome tendency to stray off the Obama reservation. Most recently, he challenged White House orthodoxy by linking the rise of homicides around the country to stepped-up scrutiny of the police. In a speech at the University of Chicago Law School last week, Mr. Comey described the “YouTube” effect that has created a “chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year.” Police, he suggested, are so concerned about starring in a video that goes viral that they are attacking their job more tentatively to the detriment of law and order. The New York Times reported that Comey’s remarks “caught officials by surprise at the Justice Department, where his views are not shared at the top levels.”
Comey has also parted ways with Obama on the ‘Black Lives Matter’ controversy. In his speech in Chicago, the FBI director declared that “all lives matter” three times; at the White House, Obama was simultaneously defending the Black Lives Matter mantra while participating in a panel on criminal justice reform....
Comey has a reputation for integrity, a quality lauded by President Obama when he nominated the former Deputy Attorney General for his current post. Obama told how Comey prevented an ill Attorney General Ashcroft from being hoodwinked into reauthorizing a warrantless eavesdropping program, in the process standing up to President George W. Bush and putting his career on the line.
"He was prepared to give up the job he loved, rather than be a part of something that he felt was fundamentally wrong," Obama said.
The author says "With James Comey leading the investigation, and unlikely to participate in any cover-up, [Republicans] should have faith in the system." It isn't just Republicans who doubt the system here. Democrats are also confident that she will face no charges. After the Justice Department long-investigated and then winked away Lois Lerner's moves at the IRS, nothing could be more plausible than that the law will go unenforced and the friends of the powerful will be protected from legal consequences. It would be eucastrophic if the FBI upheld its due and proper function in this case.
Budgetary Maneuvers
Exit question via Dan Foster: Would this budget deal have been this bad if Meadows and the Freedom Caucus hadn’t pushed Boehner out? The reason it’s two years instead of one and concedes so much to the Democrats is chiefly because Boehner no longer has any fear of reprisals from the right. He made a bad long-term deal in order to take this topic off the table for his protege, Ryan, when he replaces him as Speaker.I think I'd like to know what the goals are for the maneuvers. I assume TEA Party advocates don't have a veto-proof majority on this issue either. There are two possible things that you could be after, then:
1) A better compromise on the budgetary concerns,
2) Losing the budget fight while winning a political "optics" fight.
There is little reason to compromise for either side of the fight. The President's minority party in Congress can rely on his veto to back them up. The majority party might be willing to compromise, but the TEA Party element of the right-wing coalition has drawn strength from driving out people who compromise. They're shifting the party rightwards just by winning conflicts like this one.
It sounds like (2) is what is going on, then: let Ryan vote against the deal, but let the deal pass, thus allowing him to assume the Speakership without being tainted by having compromised on the budget. It will, as they say, remove the issue for a couple of years -- an important couple of years, within the context of the 2016 elections. Voters hate government shutdowns, and tend to blame Republicans for them, so that makes some sense.
It does have the advantage of opening room for Paul Ryan to claim to be on the side of the TEA Party wing. For the TEA Party to have claimed the Speakership of the House -- symbolically if not actually -- is a major advance for a party that only got started in 2010, and which is not even officially independent. If Ryan elects to go along with them, it will raise their credibility in the eyes of ordinary voters who may not understand what is and is not symbolic. The budget gets settled ugly, but that is likely to happen anyway.
I'm Sorry I Missed the Irish Breakfast Special
Clicked a link on Instapundit that led to an online war between the White Moose Cafe and the worldwide cabal of vegans. It's a funny way to start your Tuesday.
Also, educational: I found out in the comments that "vegan" is an old Indian word for "bad hunter."
Also, educational: I found out in the comments that "vegan" is an old Indian word for "bad hunter."
Winning Votes
The Clinton campaign has probably locked up the Democratic nomination already. Nevertheless, she continues to do damage to herself for the general. Most recently, it was this:
Leftists are in an outrage, because "Sander's record as a feminist is as good as Clinton's." Ok, if you say so. Frankly, I doubt the statement is true. I expect that Sanders would prove to be a better feminist than Clinton, whose work as a lawyer and a First Lady has undermined that cause. I also doubt it matters. 'Who's the better feminist' is chasing a majority among the 18% of Americans who think they are feminists. That's probably not the margin of victory in a Presidential election.
More to the point, though, Clinton has to win votes to win the election. She's already in something of a bind with working class voters, both black and white, because of the economics. She'll be running as the heir to the current administration, whose health care plans have largely determined that most working class Americans are chasing part-time jobs without benefits -- part time jobs that start off as "seasonal" so you don't even make minimum wage for a year or two -- in an environment where all new jobs statistically have gone to immigrants.
She's got to win a massive percentage of women to make up for the men she's losing with remarks like this. She's got to win a massive percentage of the gun-control advocates to make up for the fact that they're a small minority among American voters. She'll have a huge enthusiasm gap given that black voters can't view her pro-immigration policies as otherwise than depressing their access to jobs and the pay that those jobs offer. She won't have access to anything like the Obama coalition, nor does she deserve to.
Of course, a lot depends on who her opponents in the general turn out to be -- and whether there will be one, or two.
Leftists are in an outrage, because "Sander's record as a feminist is as good as Clinton's." Ok, if you say so. Frankly, I doubt the statement is true. I expect that Sanders would prove to be a better feminist than Clinton, whose work as a lawyer and a First Lady has undermined that cause. I also doubt it matters. 'Who's the better feminist' is chasing a majority among the 18% of Americans who think they are feminists. That's probably not the margin of victory in a Presidential election.
More to the point, though, Clinton has to win votes to win the election. She's already in something of a bind with working class voters, both black and white, because of the economics. She'll be running as the heir to the current administration, whose health care plans have largely determined that most working class Americans are chasing part-time jobs without benefits -- part time jobs that start off as "seasonal" so you don't even make minimum wage for a year or two -- in an environment where all new jobs statistically have gone to immigrants.
She's got to win a massive percentage of women to make up for the men she's losing with remarks like this. She's got to win a massive percentage of the gun-control advocates to make up for the fact that they're a small minority among American voters. She'll have a huge enthusiasm gap given that black voters can't view her pro-immigration policies as otherwise than depressing their access to jobs and the pay that those jobs offer. She won't have access to anything like the Obama coalition, nor does she deserve to.
Of course, a lot depends on who her opponents in the general turn out to be -- and whether there will be one, or two.
"American Martial Culture"
Seth Barrett Tillman wonders if the decline of academic quality has something to do with the declining number of veterans in higher education.
Military service was the exception rather than the rule for most of the 19th century, excepting the Civil War generation. It was again between the two World Wars. It is actually only after the two great wars -- the Civil War and WWII -- that we have had a very high percentage of veterans in American culture. You can see the effect of this by looking at this poll about the percentage of American men who are veterans. All the way to retirement age, the percentage hovers around twenty percent. It shoots up among the eldest among us, so that 80% of those 85-89 and 74% of those over ninety are veterans.
For women, too, we see the lingering effects of the draft because women were not drafted: overall, only 2% of women are veterans, compared with 24% of men, mostly in the older generations. That number is 14.5% currently, so the overarching importance of the WWII/Vietnam drafts is what is driving the percentage of female veterans down into the low single-digits.
Another way you can see the lingering effects of WWII and, to a lesser degree, Vietnam is in the chart on proportions of veterans by region. The numbers are fairly flat: overall 12.7%, with a low of 11.4% in the Middle Atlantic states and a high of 14.6% in the Southeast. That means we're talking about the bulk of these numbers coming from the draft eras: since the introduction of the All Volunteer Force, the military has been 40%+ from the South. The trend has only intensified since Heritage did that study in 2008: recent numbers show that it was 44% in 2013. People move around, of course, but the relatively flat percentage of veterans by region shows the lingering influence of the massive draft of WWII and the smaller but significant draft of Vietnam.
So really, if a culture is a way of life that one generation passes to the next, it doesn't make much sense to talk about an "American martial culture." There are some families, especially but not only in the South, where a culture of military service is passed from one generation to the next in the days of non-compulsory service. American culture overall has not been martial. For all but two generations, the bulk of Americans have not served in any military nor fought in any wars. The institutions have cultures, but American culture overall has been not much affected by them for most of our history.
Pre-World War II, this division between American civil and military society was less (perhaps, much less) of a problem. Then, the largest part of our (white male) population (of a certain age) was enrolled in our various state militias (or, their successors—the U.S. and state National Guards). Conscription, if not universal conscription, naturally flowed from actual congressionally declared wars. Likewise, a large swathe of Americans, across all social classes, could expect to see military service in war, including, unfortunately, Indian wars. (Lincoln and Davis both served in the Black Hawk War.)With all due respect, that's not right. After the Civil War, the United States military shrank to a very tiny size and remained that way until the First World War. The very brief Spanish American War (1898) aside, the main business of the Army was fighting unions, not fighting Indians -- the famous Indian wars were fought by Civil War veterans like Sheridan and Custer (who was one of Sherman's favorites). So it's not a new generation of fighting men, it's the same generation staying on in a much smaller army, fighting battles that were minor echoes of the great battles of their youth.
Military service was the exception rather than the rule for most of the 19th century, excepting the Civil War generation. It was again between the two World Wars. It is actually only after the two great wars -- the Civil War and WWII -- that we have had a very high percentage of veterans in American culture. You can see the effect of this by looking at this poll about the percentage of American men who are veterans. All the way to retirement age, the percentage hovers around twenty percent. It shoots up among the eldest among us, so that 80% of those 85-89 and 74% of those over ninety are veterans.
For women, too, we see the lingering effects of the draft because women were not drafted: overall, only 2% of women are veterans, compared with 24% of men, mostly in the older generations. That number is 14.5% currently, so the overarching importance of the WWII/Vietnam drafts is what is driving the percentage of female veterans down into the low single-digits.
Another way you can see the lingering effects of WWII and, to a lesser degree, Vietnam is in the chart on proportions of veterans by region. The numbers are fairly flat: overall 12.7%, with a low of 11.4% in the Middle Atlantic states and a high of 14.6% in the Southeast. That means we're talking about the bulk of these numbers coming from the draft eras: since the introduction of the All Volunteer Force, the military has been 40%+ from the South. The trend has only intensified since Heritage did that study in 2008: recent numbers show that it was 44% in 2013. People move around, of course, but the relatively flat percentage of veterans by region shows the lingering influence of the massive draft of WWII and the smaller but significant draft of Vietnam.
So really, if a culture is a way of life that one generation passes to the next, it doesn't make much sense to talk about an "American martial culture." There are some families, especially but not only in the South, where a culture of military service is passed from one generation to the next in the days of non-compulsory service. American culture overall has not been martial. For all but two generations, the bulk of Americans have not served in any military nor fought in any wars. The institutions have cultures, but American culture overall has been not much affected by them for most of our history.
The Dangers of Art
Powerline commends to our attention a terrific interview of Paul Cantor by Bill Kristol. Normally I'm not a big fan of 90-minute interview videos and wish someone had just transcribed them, but this one's worth the time. Cantor is a Shakespearean scholar who long ago turned his attention to American popular culture. The whole thing is worth watching if only for the discussion of Hobbesian vs. Lockeian westerns. And who can resist a guy, especially a grizzled old conservative, who liked the instantly forgotten "John of Cincinnati"? At a dream dinner party, you'd be seated next to him.
Has the Elf King Stolen Our Children?
Instapundit sent me off on an interesting journey through an old-school role-playing gamer's blog via a novelist's.
The blogger at Jeffro's Space Gaming Blog spent a year reading the authors recommended by Gary Gygax, creator of D&D, in Appendix N of one of the rule books, and reports. A few of his more interesting conclusions are:
Author John C. Wright, of an older generation, read this and brought up the topic of how elves have changed in the popular mind.
The blogger at Jeffro's Space Gaming Blog spent a year reading the authors recommended by Gary Gygax, creator of D&D, in Appendix N of one of the rule books, and reports. A few of his more interesting conclusions are:
- ... Next to the giants of the thirties, just about everything looks tamed and watered down.
- It used to be normal for science fiction and fantasy fans to read books that were published between 1910 and 1977. There was a sense of canon in the seventies that has since been obliterated.
- Ideological diversity in science fiction and fantasy was a given in the seventies. We are hopelessly homogenistic in comparison to them.
- The program of political correctness of the past several decades has made even writers like Ray Bradbury and C. L. Moore all but unreadable to an entire generation. The conditioning is so strong, some people have almost physical reactions to the older stories now.
- The culture wars of the past forty years have largely consisted [of] an effort to reprogram peoples’ tastes for traditional notions of romance and heroism.
Author John C. Wright, of an older generation, read this and brought up the topic of how elves have changed in the popular mind.
Who Are Your Peers?
Should you be accused of a crime, you are guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers. What does that mean, exactly? We get the rule from Magna Carta, where it meant that a baron accused by the king was entitled to be tried by others of similar independence of rank and station -- and not, say, by several of the king's lackeys. The independence of the jurors is meant to prevent you from being railroaded by a system of closed power.
The American system usually thinks that all citizens are peers, being free men or free women. A judge in Louisville thinks that isn't sufficient:
It'll be interesting to see what the state Supreme Court says. My guess is that they will come down against him, if only because it would open the state to having to re-consider goodness knows how many earlier cases in which black men were convicted by all-white juries. Indeed, presumably every black man convicted previously could file an appeal on those grounds, since we wouldn't have necessarily kept a record of the race of jurors.
The American system usually thinks that all citizens are peers, being free men or free women. A judge in Louisville thinks that isn't sufficient:
Unhappy with the number of potential black jurors called to his court last week, Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Olu Stevens halted a drug trial and dismissed the entire jury panel, asking for a new group to be sent up.I'm of two minds about that. On the one hand, it's a tremendously bad decision insofar as it seeks to further enshrine race as a category of thought (and, even, of law). On the other hand, pragmatically rather than philosophically speaking, the judge is probably right that it makes a huge difference to the defendant's likely outcomes at trial. So while there is a bad legal principle at work, it is conceivable that the defendant would get a fairer trial if race were taken into account. The particular trial is about the particular defendant, who either is or is not guilty of the offenses with which he is charged. The business of the particular trial is to come to a fair and, hopefully, correct decision about that -- not to display grand legal principles, but to set a man free if he is not guilty of the crime with which he is charged. That's why we have trials by jury at all: we could enforce the law without them, as long as we weren't worried about whether the state was accurate in the charges it filed.
“The concern is that the panel is not representative of the community,” said Stevens, who brought in a new group of jurors despite objections from both the defense and prosecutor....
“There is not a single African-American on this jury and (the defendant) is an African-American man,” Stevens said, according to a video of the trial. “I cannot in good conscious go forward with this jury.”
It'll be interesting to see what the state Supreme Court says. My guess is that they will come down against him, if only because it would open the state to having to re-consider goodness knows how many earlier cases in which black men were convicted by all-white juries. Indeed, presumably every black man convicted previously could file an appeal on those grounds, since we wouldn't have necessarily kept a record of the race of jurors.
Mirror Images -- Two CIA Action Flicks
Recently I watched the movies Erased and Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. The movies themselves are good, secret agent / underworld action flicks in the tradition of the Bourne series or Taken, though not quite as suspenseful or compelling.
What I found interesting was the sociopolitical viewpoints of the two movies, which mirror each other. First I have to say that the social and political aspects in these films are minimal. Regardless of what one thinks about the US or its intelligence agencies, they are enjoyable because they are mostly fighting, chasing, and solving mysteries. However, in those few places where background is given, Erased assumes the US is part of the problem, while Jack Ryan assumes the US is one of the good guys.
I think one example from each movie is enough here. In Erased, the hero is a highly trained warrior whose motivation for leaving a US intelligence agency is that he "grew a conscience." In Jack Ryan, the hero is a former USMC officer who was severely wounded in Afghanistan and given a medical discharge. He gets a Ph.D. and joins an American intelligence agency as an analyst because he still wants to serve his country.
These little differences interest me. The stories a culture tells about itself are important. I don't think one movie is very important. But I think the themes that are repeated in movie after movie do have an impact on how that culture sees itself.
What I found interesting was the sociopolitical viewpoints of the two movies, which mirror each other. First I have to say that the social and political aspects in these films are minimal. Regardless of what one thinks about the US or its intelligence agencies, they are enjoyable because they are mostly fighting, chasing, and solving mysteries. However, in those few places where background is given, Erased assumes the US is part of the problem, while Jack Ryan assumes the US is one of the good guys.
I think one example from each movie is enough here. In Erased, the hero is a highly trained warrior whose motivation for leaving a US intelligence agency is that he "grew a conscience." In Jack Ryan, the hero is a former USMC officer who was severely wounded in Afghanistan and given a medical discharge. He gets a Ph.D. and joins an American intelligence agency as an analyst because he still wants to serve his country.
These little differences interest me. The stories a culture tells about itself are important. I don't think one movie is very important. But I think the themes that are repeated in movie after movie do have an impact on how that culture sees itself.
If You Like Your Plan...
Yeah, you know the rest.
As of this week, nine of the law’s 23 state co-ops — nonprofit health-insurance companies set up to help people enroll in Obamacare — have collapsed. Over 600,000 people who enrolled in co-op health plans will lose their insurance at the end of this year. Many of them were forced into the co-ops to begin with when Obamacare canceled their private insurance policies in 2013, meaning they will have lost their health insurance twice because of the law.
Rest in Peace, Maureen O'Hara
She lived to be ninety-five, which is a fine old age to have attained. She is perhaps most famous for playing opposite John Wayne to such powerful effect in John Ford films like Rio Grande and The Quiet Man. She also was in the Christmas classic Miracle on 34th Street. Though born in Ireland, she became an American citizen and will be buried at Arlington, beside her husband US Navy pilot General Charles Blair.
We are as a civilization enriched by her works.
We are as a civilization enriched by her works.
Patriarchy? Paternalism?
The Sage of Knoxville has a column in USA Today that says that 'feminism works in the West because patriarchy is dead -- but it might not stay that way.' His point is that the fact of feminism shows that people care about the opinions of women, and even their more minor discomforts, and that this is a necessary condition of feminism existing at all. But this will all go away, he says, because of the admission of mass immigration from genuinely patriarchal nations, where women are subjugated and treated like dirt (or, rather, like women according to these cultures' lights).
We often speak of a government as acting in a fatherly capacity if it cares for the needs and concerns of its people. This concept is usually given as "Paternalism," rather than "Patriarchy," but actually they mean almost the same thing: both of them mean that fathers should lead, but the former word suggests that they should lead in the manner of fathers. It seems to me that Paternalism is exactly what left-leaning feminist usually want: they want a government that will take care of the needs of women in the way that a father should care for his daughters. He should provide for their medical care, for their birth control expenses, for the protection of their independence, and so forth. It's the Julia concept of what government is for.
One proof of this is the aggressive nature of feminist protesters. They clearly expect to be protected. Code Pink -- and, in Europe, Femen -- operates aggressively in complete faith that policemen or even just passersby will keep them from harm in spite of their provocations. It worked out well most times, except where Vladimir Putin (who had encountered them in 2013) sent a Cossack militia armed with whips to put down a similar protest at the Sochi Olympics in 2014. There's a patriarch for you.
You don't get that here, because we who consider ourselves men in the West are in favor of women leading decent lives. We take them seriously even where our interests strongly diverge, out of love. But we also hold them to certain standards, also out of love, because to violate those standards would be to fall.
So I don't think that feminism works in the West because 'leadership by fathers' is dead. I think it works because the leadership in the West is exercised in love. What Glenn Reynolds is advocating for is men-against-women, rather than men-for-women. What I think I'd like to see more of is women-for-men rather than women-against-men, and that combined with men-for-women. Speaking as a husband and father, that dynamic of friendship and reinforcement has been of tremendous importance to me.
Of course, I don't want a paternalistic government -- no more, and perhaps less, than a patriarchal one. It might be well, though, if our civil society better embodied the idea of love and friendship across the sex divide. We ought to take care of each other, and lift each other up.
We often speak of a government as acting in a fatherly capacity if it cares for the needs and concerns of its people. This concept is usually given as "Paternalism," rather than "Patriarchy," but actually they mean almost the same thing: both of them mean that fathers should lead, but the former word suggests that they should lead in the manner of fathers. It seems to me that Paternalism is exactly what left-leaning feminist usually want: they want a government that will take care of the needs of women in the way that a father should care for his daughters. He should provide for their medical care, for their birth control expenses, for the protection of their independence, and so forth. It's the Julia concept of what government is for.
One proof of this is the aggressive nature of feminist protesters. They clearly expect to be protected. Code Pink -- and, in Europe, Femen -- operates aggressively in complete faith that policemen or even just passersby will keep them from harm in spite of their provocations. It worked out well most times, except where Vladimir Putin (who had encountered them in 2013) sent a Cossack militia armed with whips to put down a similar protest at the Sochi Olympics in 2014. There's a patriarch for you.
You don't get that here, because we who consider ourselves men in the West are in favor of women leading decent lives. We take them seriously even where our interests strongly diverge, out of love. But we also hold them to certain standards, also out of love, because to violate those standards would be to fall.
So I don't think that feminism works in the West because 'leadership by fathers' is dead. I think it works because the leadership in the West is exercised in love. What Glenn Reynolds is advocating for is men-against-women, rather than men-for-women. What I think I'd like to see more of is women-for-men rather than women-against-men, and that combined with men-for-women. Speaking as a husband and father, that dynamic of friendship and reinforcement has been of tremendous importance to me.
Of course, I don't want a paternalistic government -- no more, and perhaps less, than a patriarchal one. It might be well, though, if our civil society better embodied the idea of love and friendship across the sex divide. We ought to take care of each other, and lift each other up.
Oh, Canada.
Canada's newly elected Prime Minister 'issues a challenge' to the United States: “We’re Ending Wars and Legalizing Pot.”
Uh-huh. One can only "end" a war by winning it or surrendering it, unless you've found a way to shake hands with the people calling for a new Holocaust. You can ask the ghost of Joe Stalin how well it worked out when he thought he had a deal with the guy calling for the last Holocaust.
Otherwise, you're just running away. You can have all the pot you like if it makes you feel better, but in the end they'll just follow the smoke trail back to you. And when they do, as they have done before, it will be men like this man who save you:
Even he couldn't "end" your war. He just ended one battle.
But I know: you think they'll leave you alone now. If only you concede enough, you'll be left in peace. Our President seems to believe the same thing.
Uh-huh. One can only "end" a war by winning it or surrendering it, unless you've found a way to shake hands with the people calling for a new Holocaust. You can ask the ghost of Joe Stalin how well it worked out when he thought he had a deal with the guy calling for the last Holocaust.
Otherwise, you're just running away. You can have all the pot you like if it makes you feel better, but in the end they'll just follow the smoke trail back to you. And when they do, as they have done before, it will be men like this man who save you:
Even he couldn't "end" your war. He just ended one battle.
But I know: you think they'll leave you alone now. If only you concede enough, you'll be left in peace. Our President seems to believe the same thing.
Speaking of detachment
Hillary Clinton is some kind of humanoid, chuckling over Chris Stevens' adorable sense of humor as he tried to pick up barricades for his embassy at fire-sales, while everyone else was getting out of Dodge. She admired his entrepreneurial spirit, so that's nice.
Hillary Clinton Had No State Department Computer?
Powerline wonders if she was ever really Secretary of State:
Given her detachment from official means of communication, one wonders whether Hillary was ever really Secretary of State at all. Did she make any decisions? If so, what were they? We know that she plotted politically to make the overthrow of Qaddafi the centerpiece of her tenure at State, but we only know this because of her enraptured, off-the-record correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal and other sycophants.
If she ever had a strategy, if she ever engaged in diplomacy, if she ever made a decision, it seems to have left no trace. Maybe she didn’t need a State Department computer because she was never really Secretary of State at all. Maybe she thought the position was honorary, like being First Lady. Just one more rung on her ladder to the top.
Mammoth hurricane Patricia
A bit out of the blue, the strongest hurricane on record in this part of the world has sprung up just off the coast of Western Mexico, near Puerto Vallarta. Patricia's sustained winds are an astonishing 200 mph, with gusts predicted to 245, and a pressure of 880 mb. I get nervous about anything under about 950. Katrina was approaching 900 mb just before landfall in 2005. Camille, the nightmare storm of my childhood though it struck far to the east of my home, probably reached 900 mb. Rita, the storm that panicked Houston into evacuating a month after Katrina, was at 895 mb before it weakened dramatically near landfall.
Patricia is forecast to come right over our heads here on the Texas Coastal Bend, too, but only after it probably will have been torn to pieces by crossing over the Mexican mountains. Nevertheless, our forecast this weekend jumps right out there with a 100% chance of heavy rain. While this is good news for us, the people in the Mexican state of Jalisco are in for a terrible beating.
An amazing storm:
Patricia is forecast to come right over our heads here on the Texas Coastal Bend, too, but only after it probably will have been torn to pieces by crossing over the Mexican mountains. Nevertheless, our forecast this weekend jumps right out there with a 100% chance of heavy rain. While this is good news for us, the people in the Mexican state of Jalisco are in for a terrible beating.
An amazing storm:
The closest contender, at this point, might be Hurricane Camille when it battered the U.S. Gulf Coast in 1969. Regardless, Patricia looks to be more powerful than Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Katrina in 2005 and many others.
'Dude, That Idea Is Texas!'
Apparently Scandinavians have an interesting use of the name of our Lone-Star state.
An Appropriate Conclusion to the Argument
I think this proposal actually is pretty graceful, and would make a proper conclusion to the fight over Georgia's beautiful Stone Mountain.
An elevated tower — featuring a replica of the Liberty Bell — would celebrate the single line in the civil rights martyr’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech that makes reference to the 825-foot-tall hunk of granite: “Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.”
“It is one of the best-known speeches in U.S. history,” said Bill Stephens, the chief executive officer of the Stone Mountain Memorial Association. “We think it’s a great addition to the historical offerings we have here.”
Gross Negligence
So, just how many state secrets were lost to Russia and China because of Mrs. Clinton's gross negligence? The odds favor "lots."
If you sent emails through foreign telecoms that contained classified material, you can be sure they had a copy. She did. If you set up an email server without a digital certificate, you've ignored the most basic part of internet security. She did. And that doesn't touch the physical security of the servers, which were apparently kept in a bathroom closet at the mom and pop shop (albeit politically well-connected shop) that she hired to do all this.
No one would believe this story if you wrote it into a novel or a movie.
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
"Zero privacy" is at least a good a doctrine as "zero tolerance." In fact, I expect them to be combined for maximum effect.
Today the Air Force, tomorrow the world!
Today the Air Force, tomorrow the world!
But How Can This Be?
Via D29, we have an argument of a sort that the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee doesn't need to allow guns on the campus because the campus is so safe. Nonsense. I have it on good authority that 1 in 5 women on campus is subject to sexual assault. At least, if both the President and Vice President of the United States aren't a good authority, I don't know who is.
This university actually has a pretty even 51/49 sex ratio, unusual these days, so only slightly more than half of these are women. So that's about 12,500 women, which means that 2,500 rapes must occur every 4 years, or about 625 a year.
Well, actually, the article suggests it's not quite that high:
This university actually has a pretty even 51/49 sex ratio, unusual these days, so only slightly more than half of these are women. So that's about 12,500 women, which means that 2,500 rapes must occur every 4 years, or about 625 a year.
Well, actually, the article suggests it's not quite that high:
Sex offenses, forcible: 7 on-campus, 1 non-campus and 1 public propertySo that's, um, twenty-six? Well, that's four percent of the expected number, anyway. Obviously it's an underperforming college -- must be because it has such an unusually high percentage of men enrolled.
Sex offenses, rape: 8 on-campus, 4, non-campus and 0 public property
Sex offenses, non-forcible: None in all categories
Sex offenses, statutory rape: None in all categories
Sex offenses, incest: None in all categories
Sex offenses, fondling: 4 on-campus, 1 non-campus and 0 public property
Good energy-policy news (unexpectedly)
The Obama administration has approved a natural gas export facility in Palm Beach, an action I applaud. From the Daily Caller:
In Japan, for example, natural gas prices are nearly three times higher than in America, so companies are looking to export there. Japan’s appetite for gas is only going to increase, especially since the country scaled back its nuclear power plant fleet after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.
In Europe, American gas exports are the only major alternative to Russian gas. European officials fear Russia’s grip on energy markets could be used to achieve political goals. Russia has used its natural gas to manipulate politics in the past. Indeed, Europe was initially hesitant to rebuke Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula because of its control over natural gas pipelines.
US Already #2 in "Social Welfare" Spending, After France
You probably have heard it suggested that America treats its poor cheaply compared to European nations, but it isn't true.
The problem isn't that we don't spend enough on welfare. The problem is that welfare isn't the answer. As a long-term solution, it's actively harmful to the character of the people and the Republic.
The problem isn't that we don't spend enough on welfare. The problem is that welfare isn't the answer. As a long-term solution, it's actively harmful to the character of the people and the Republic.
Congress: How About "Body Armor Control"?
A Democrat from California has a brilliant idea: let's make sure citizens are easy to kill.
We must be suspicious of a government that is constantly on the hunt for ways to make us easier to subjugate. The fact that one could use body armor to enable criminal behavior is no more telling than that one could use firearms to do so. All the same arguments apply, but in addition there are several others that apply to armor specifically.
The 2nd Amendment speaks of a right to keep and bear "arms" that shall not be infringed. "Arms" as understood in the 18th century plausibly includes armor, though: Blackstone defines a gentleman as one 'one qui arma gerit,' but he means heraldic arms, which are the symbolic representation of a real right to bear armor onto the field. When Blackstone speaks of the natural law right to keep and bear arms, he follows contemporary English practice of limiting the right as "suitable to their condition." Any free Englishman had the right to certain weapons, but not just any weapons: gentlemen were "suitable" for better arms than yeomen.
The American ideal is that the Revolution 'gentled the condition' of all Americans. We are no longer supposed to have separate classes with differential access to rights 'as suitable for their condition.'
In addition, armor is purely defensive in character. Wearing armor by itself does nothing to make you more dangerous to others. Imagine that Schlock Mercenary-style armor were available that could, instantly, make you safe from bullets. Would that not be a plausible answer to school shootings that we'd all want for our children? In principle, then, we ought to agree to defend the right to armor -- and work to improve it, until it is as good as we wish it were.
Is not protection of one's physical integrity a very obvious candidate for a natural right if anything is? Is it not, indeed, the basis for the natural law right of self defense that is so well-established in our tradition and so well-argued in the philosophy that underlies that tradition?
Of course it is. Say "No!" to 'body armor control.'
We must be suspicious of a government that is constantly on the hunt for ways to make us easier to subjugate. The fact that one could use body armor to enable criminal behavior is no more telling than that one could use firearms to do so. All the same arguments apply, but in addition there are several others that apply to armor specifically.
The 2nd Amendment speaks of a right to keep and bear "arms" that shall not be infringed. "Arms" as understood in the 18th century plausibly includes armor, though: Blackstone defines a gentleman as one 'one qui arma gerit,' but he means heraldic arms, which are the symbolic representation of a real right to bear armor onto the field. When Blackstone speaks of the natural law right to keep and bear arms, he follows contemporary English practice of limiting the right as "suitable to their condition." Any free Englishman had the right to certain weapons, but not just any weapons: gentlemen were "suitable" for better arms than yeomen.
The American ideal is that the Revolution 'gentled the condition' of all Americans. We are no longer supposed to have separate classes with differential access to rights 'as suitable for their condition.'
In addition, armor is purely defensive in character. Wearing armor by itself does nothing to make you more dangerous to others. Imagine that Schlock Mercenary-style armor were available that could, instantly, make you safe from bullets. Would that not be a plausible answer to school shootings that we'd all want for our children? In principle, then, we ought to agree to defend the right to armor -- and work to improve it, until it is as good as we wish it were.
Is not protection of one's physical integrity a very obvious candidate for a natural right if anything is? Is it not, indeed, the basis for the natural law right of self defense that is so well-established in our tradition and so well-argued in the philosophy that underlies that tradition?
Of course it is. Say "No!" to 'body armor control.'
A Horse Soldier and Concrete Hell
While wandering around the internet looking for some Corb Lund material, I came across A Horse Soldier's Thoughts, the blog of Lt. Col. (ret.) Louis DiMarco, a career US Army officer who started out in the cavalry and now teaches at the US Army Command and Staff College.
I ran into his blog looking for some historical information on war horses, and he has written a bit about military horses, but it turns out he also literally wrote the book on urban warfare, FM 3-06, Urban Operations (2002). He is also the author of Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare from Stalingrad to Iraq (2012), which looks fascinating. On his blog, he writes that:
For those with an interest in the Civil War, he has also written "Anatomy of a Failed Occupation: The U. S. Army in the Former Confederate States, 1865-1877," published by the Army's Land Warfare Institute.
He hasn't posted anything new to the blog for about two years, but it has some interesting stuff.
UPDATE: I assume the connection between Corb Lund and war horses is obvious to the regulars here, but for everyone else, here's the missing link:
UPDATE 2: OK, since I'm randomly finding stuff on horse soldiers this evening, I discovered that NYT columnist and economist Paul Krugman is a Civil War buff and U. S. Grant fan. Back in 2013 he wrote about the John Wayne movie The Horse Soldiers that was based on Grierson's Raid.
I ran into his blog looking for some historical information on war horses, and he has written a bit about military horses, but it turns out he also literally wrote the book on urban warfare, FM 3-06, Urban Operations (2002). He is also the author of Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare from Stalingrad to Iraq (2012), which looks fascinating. On his blog, he writes that:
Two areas where I think this book breaks new ground is the evaluation of the Israeli Operation Defensive Shield (2002) and the look at US forces in the Battle of Ramadi (2006-7). I think Concrete Hell is the only comprehensive look at these operations currently in print.
Ultimately, what I intended, and what I think Concrete Hell achieves, is a thorough look at the evolution of urban warfare over the last fifty years. By isolating and focusing on this history, and what it tells us in terms of the conduct of warfare, I think Concrete Hell also describes the nature of the most important battlefield of the 21st Century: the urban battlefield. Thus, though a history, Concrete Hell presents not only an accounting of the past but a vision of the future. Recent battles in Lybia and current fighting in Syria seem to validate that vision.
For those with an interest in the Civil War, he has also written "Anatomy of a Failed Occupation: The U. S. Army in the Former Confederate States, 1865-1877," published by the Army's Land Warfare Institute.
He hasn't posted anything new to the blog for about two years, but it has some interesting stuff.
UPDATE: I assume the connection between Corb Lund and war horses is obvious to the regulars here, but for everyone else, here's the missing link:
UPDATE 2: OK, since I'm randomly finding stuff on horse soldiers this evening, I discovered that NYT columnist and economist Paul Krugman is a Civil War buff and U. S. Grant fan. Back in 2013 he wrote about the John Wayne movie The Horse Soldiers that was based on Grierson's Raid.
The Israel Situation
Because of its strategic consequence, I've mostly been thinking and reading about the Middle East in terms of the deployment of Russian forces in support of Iranian ambitions in the Levant. I have not ignored the violence in Israel, but it seems to be something that can be handled by the Israeli Defense Forces combined with the bold citizens of Israel.
While the United States may not have a role in stopping this latest attempt by the Muslim population to terrorize the Jews, we do have an interest in what we associate with. John F. Kerry, that most dishonorable of men, has once again taken point in helping to bring shame on his country.
American honor is not dead, but the American administration is certainly without it. Nothing could make that clearer than the appointment of John Kerry to the high office of Secretary of State. It is a dark period in our history.
While the United States may not have a role in stopping this latest attempt by the Muslim population to terrorize the Jews, we do have an interest in what we associate with. John F. Kerry, that most dishonorable of men, has once again taken point in helping to bring shame on his country.
On Monday, some Democratic members of Congress and a united front of major Jewish organizations expressed outrage over the imminent prospect that the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) would vote to declare Jerusalem’s Western Wall to be a part of the al-Aqsa mosque.... The resolution also included a laundry list of anti-Israel measures including condemnations of Israeli self-defense against terrorist attacks as well as of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem....The article, which declares in its headline "the end of American honor," "declares the Western Wall to be an integral part of the al-Aqsa mosque called the 'al-Buraq Plaza' after the Prophet Muhammad’s winged horse that carried him on a night journey described in the Quran."
[O]n the same day that some Americans were voicing outrage about what the UN agency was doing, the nation’s chief diplomat was at the group’s Paris headquarters to speak to that same executive council with a very different agenda. On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry came to UNESCO hat in hand, praising the group and begging for the U.S. to be re-elected to the group’s executive board while not even mentioning the resolution that it would soon pass.
Kerry’s humiliating speech was not without a strategic purpose. But it also reflected the Obama administration’s ideological commitment to the United Nations.
American honor is not dead, but the American administration is certainly without it. Nothing could make that clearer than the appointment of John Kerry to the high office of Secretary of State. It is a dark period in our history.
Independent, For President
Jim Webb will hold a press conference tomorrow at the National Press Club to talk about the possibility of running as an independent instead of a Democrat.
That makes sense. He's been a Republican during the Reagan era, and a Democrat as a Senator. Although he is perfectly correct that he's running on a Jacksonian platform that stands at the root of the Democratic party, the current party is so far to the left that it can't see him.
This is made clear by the SNL skit about the Democratic debate. It mocks Webb as having demanded time to answer questions, and then when presented with tough questions having "passed."
In fact, both of the questions they asked him were asked during the debate. Far from passing, though, Webb gave nuanced and correct answers -- the sort of answers one would expect from a scholar and statesmen of his impressive background. Progressives often claim that they would like intellectual, nuanced thought in politicians. Clearly, they haven't the ear to hear it.
Unfortunately, the Democratic party has gone so far from its roots that it may not be salvageable. In any event, Webb remains -- in my opinion, of course -- head and shoulders the most qualified candidate running in either party. There simply is no one else in the field who approaches his qualifications. Not as a potential commander in chief, not as a scholar, not as a diplomat -- not even the former Secretary of State, whose diplomatic accomplishments are none so impressive as his leading the effort to normalize relations with Vietnam after the war. With all due respect to former Secretary Clinton, she may have done more, but none of it worked out very well. There's nothing in her record to suggest she knows how to make peace or to make war, to pen scholarship or effective legislation. Sen. Sanders and Webb clearly share a warm friendship in spite of intense philosophical and political differences, which speaks very well of both men. Sanders is nevertheless likewise a man who has not shown that he can make either peace or war. Webb has excelled in both.
Among his Republican competitors, the two young Senators show a lot of promise. Nevertheless, they lack seasoning as yet. Dr. Carson is a very decent man of great accomplishment in his field, but it is absolutely no insult to say that his experience as a statesman pales in comparison to Webb's. Fiorina has a better record in business, and has made some decent initial moves, but it is again no insult to point out that she is a novice in the matters she would have to handle as President. The others I am not seriously considering.
That makes sense. He's been a Republican during the Reagan era, and a Democrat as a Senator. Although he is perfectly correct that he's running on a Jacksonian platform that stands at the root of the Democratic party, the current party is so far to the left that it can't see him.
This is made clear by the SNL skit about the Democratic debate. It mocks Webb as having demanded time to answer questions, and then when presented with tough questions having "passed."
In fact, both of the questions they asked him were asked during the debate. Far from passing, though, Webb gave nuanced and correct answers -- the sort of answers one would expect from a scholar and statesmen of his impressive background. Progressives often claim that they would like intellectual, nuanced thought in politicians. Clearly, they haven't the ear to hear it.
Unfortunately, the Democratic party has gone so far from its roots that it may not be salvageable. In any event, Webb remains -- in my opinion, of course -- head and shoulders the most qualified candidate running in either party. There simply is no one else in the field who approaches his qualifications. Not as a potential commander in chief, not as a scholar, not as a diplomat -- not even the former Secretary of State, whose diplomatic accomplishments are none so impressive as his leading the effort to normalize relations with Vietnam after the war. With all due respect to former Secretary Clinton, she may have done more, but none of it worked out very well. There's nothing in her record to suggest she knows how to make peace or to make war, to pen scholarship or effective legislation. Sen. Sanders and Webb clearly share a warm friendship in spite of intense philosophical and political differences, which speaks very well of both men. Sanders is nevertheless likewise a man who has not shown that he can make either peace or war. Webb has excelled in both.
Among his Republican competitors, the two young Senators show a lot of promise. Nevertheless, they lack seasoning as yet. Dr. Carson is a very decent man of great accomplishment in his field, but it is absolutely no insult to say that his experience as a statesman pales in comparison to Webb's. Fiorina has a better record in business, and has made some decent initial moves, but it is again no insult to point out that she is a novice in the matters she would have to handle as President. The others I am not seriously considering.
See the Cup as Already Broken
A hugely unsurprising headline: popular biker bar destroyed by fire. Wolf and I used to hang out there.
UPDATE: I have a few pictures of this classic establishment.
Porpoise Pub was opened in 1961, according to its website. It was first famous as a beer garden with a large swim tank for a porpoise....
Over the years, according to its website, the pub played host to several rock bands, including Foghat and Quiet Riot. It also frequently hosted fundraisers. An American Heart Association event was scheduled for Sunday afternoon, according to the bar's Facebook page.
UPDATE: I have a few pictures of this classic establishment.
Space Invaders above the bar.
Skeletal ghost with top hat.
One of several hanging devils or skeletons.
Indoor biker-bar firepit, oddly enough not the source of the fire that burned the place down.
The Stone Games
As usual, I will be attending the Stone Mountain Highland Games. There is always a strong Viking current to this Scottish cultural festival. The above map can help you understand why. A number of Scottish Clans derive their names, and more a part of their lineage, from Norse or Danish Vikings.
Schlock Lives!
Maybe, anyway. This story passes the first test of credulity-straining internet news stories: the guy they name really does exist, really is at Penn State, and really does study the shadows on stars in astronomy.
Worth watching. As MikeD says, 'Important, if true.'
Schlock lives!
Worth watching. As MikeD says, 'Important, if true.'
Schlock lives!
It must be nice to be so important
I came across this at Ace's place today and had a good chuckle:
In this long, tedious letter, this "adult" (again, it bothers me immensely that she wants to be taken seriously, but had to get parental supervision to write it) goes on and on about how the work she's being asked to do is more about the bottom line than changing the world. And she's quitting (again) because she's not finding the fulfillment she wants. The problem, child, is that businesses are in business for business. They are all about the bottom line, because that's what lets them hire vapid little idiots like you (or more precisely, ones who will actually work without feeling "fulfilled") in order to improve that bottom line. Something tells me that they're not going to be suffering from an acute lack of you. You may believe they will, and it's truly adorable that you and your mommy feel qualified to give business advice to your former employer, who, chances are, was turning a profit before you ever showed up. I mean this sincerely when I say that I agree. Your former employer did not deserve you.
This post was cowritten with Elizabeth McLeod, a millennial and cum laude graduate of Boston University, and daughter of Lisa Earle McLeod.The first alarm bell in this "resignation letter" (which astonishingly goes unremarked upon in the well deserved fisking) is that this child needed her mommy's help to write it. Ok, if you're asserting yourself as an important and competent adult, relying upon your parent to help write it is a terrible way to start.
In this long, tedious letter, this "adult" (again, it bothers me immensely that she wants to be taken seriously, but had to get parental supervision to write it) goes on and on about how the work she's being asked to do is more about the bottom line than changing the world. And she's quitting (again) because she's not finding the fulfillment she wants. The problem, child, is that businesses are in business for business. They are all about the bottom line, because that's what lets them hire vapid little idiots like you (or more precisely, ones who will actually work without feeling "fulfilled") in order to improve that bottom line. Something tells me that they're not going to be suffering from an acute lack of you. You may believe they will, and it's truly adorable that you and your mommy feel qualified to give business advice to your former employer, who, chances are, was turning a profit before you ever showed up. I mean this sincerely when I say that I agree. Your former employer did not deserve you.
The Battle of Hastings
On 14 October, 1066, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England died in battle.
(If you don't get the joke, it's because you haven't played Skyrim.)
Many people don't know that the Anglo-Saxon army that the Normans defeated had very recently fought and beaten a Viking army led by "the Thunderbolt of the North," King Harald Hadrada of Norway. Harald was a king with a storied career, having fought in the Vaering guards for the Byzantine emperors before returning to Norway to claim his throne. There's a whole book about him contained within the Heimskringla, the story of the Norse kings. He died fighting Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in the north of England. That battle was on 25 September. Barely had they defeated the Viking army when word came of the Norman invasion in the south. The Anglo-Saxons had to force-march their way across the country in order to catch William's Normans.
Nevertheless it is not thought to be exhaustion but communication that lost the battle for the Anglo-Saxons. They fought dismounted in a shield wall, as also did the Vikings. The Norman cavalry could not pierce the wall, but it could withdraw, plan, and re-engage. Once committed to the fight, Harold's forces had difficulty seeing the battle as a whole and reorganizing accordingly. The Normans could change plans as the battle progressed. In a demonstration of the concept that Colonel Boyd would later formalize as the "OODA loop," this increased capacity to communicate and respond to changes on the field is thought to have been the decisive factor at Hastings.
Few battles have changed history as completely as the Battle of Hastings. The Normans' rise to the leadership of England lasted for hundreds of years, and committed England as a nation to defending Norman possessions in France during the Hundred Years War. The expansionist Normans went on to conquer Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, only one of them with finality but setting the stage for the rise of Great Britain. It's hard to imagine what the world would look like today if the English had remained an Anglo-Saxon power content with England alone.
(If you don't get the joke, it's because you haven't played Skyrim.)
Many people don't know that the Anglo-Saxon army that the Normans defeated had very recently fought and beaten a Viking army led by "the Thunderbolt of the North," King Harald Hadrada of Norway. Harald was a king with a storied career, having fought in the Vaering guards for the Byzantine emperors before returning to Norway to claim his throne. There's a whole book about him contained within the Heimskringla, the story of the Norse kings. He died fighting Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in the north of England. That battle was on 25 September. Barely had they defeated the Viking army when word came of the Norman invasion in the south. The Anglo-Saxons had to force-march their way across the country in order to catch William's Normans.
Nevertheless it is not thought to be exhaustion but communication that lost the battle for the Anglo-Saxons. They fought dismounted in a shield wall, as also did the Vikings. The Norman cavalry could not pierce the wall, but it could withdraw, plan, and re-engage. Once committed to the fight, Harold's forces had difficulty seeing the battle as a whole and reorganizing accordingly. The Normans could change plans as the battle progressed. In a demonstration of the concept that Colonel Boyd would later formalize as the "OODA loop," this increased capacity to communicate and respond to changes on the field is thought to have been the decisive factor at Hastings.
Few battles have changed history as completely as the Battle of Hastings. The Normans' rise to the leadership of England lasted for hundreds of years, and committed England as a nation to defending Norman possessions in France during the Hundred Years War. The expansionist Normans went on to conquer Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, only one of them with finality but setting the stage for the rise of Great Britain. It's hard to imagine what the world would look like today if the English had remained an Anglo-Saxon power content with England alone.
Reflections on the Debate
It seems clear to me, after sleeping on it, that the Democratic Party is going to nominate Hillary Clinton. Everyone on the stage who spoke about her emails did so to come to her defense. They clearly adopted her line on the email server, which is that it's old news and we should move on. Even while discussing Snowden, they let her get away with a line about how he broke the laws regarding classified information that was so brazen that anyone but a Clinton would have trouble getting it out of their mouth. None of her opponents on the left are serious about stopping her.
Sanders' candidacy has nevertheless driven the primary far to the left. The only candidate on stage who sounded at all like an American was Jim Webb. He defended traditional values and gun rights, stood up for the oppressed regardless of color, and advocated for a careful foreign policy that was nevertheless centered on American strength. He's a candidate that blue collar Democrats and Republicans alike could vote to elect. Jim Geraghty said this morning, "Webb has a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 1948," meaning that he sounded a lot like Harry S Truman. He is, sadly, what the party has left behind. Harry Truman was a good President. We could do with another like him.
What we're going to get instead is an untrustworthy, unindicted felon as the Democratic candidate. I hope the Republicans manage to field someone who can beat her, or that the G-men at the FBI finally decide in their hearts that they have to do their duty no matter what it costs them in terms of punishment from on high.
UPDATE: Noah Rothman has a happier take.
UPDATE: Matthew Continetti:
UPDATE: Max Boot has a solid breakdown of the foreign policy aspects of the debate.
Sanders' candidacy has nevertheless driven the primary far to the left. The only candidate on stage who sounded at all like an American was Jim Webb. He defended traditional values and gun rights, stood up for the oppressed regardless of color, and advocated for a careful foreign policy that was nevertheless centered on American strength. He's a candidate that blue collar Democrats and Republicans alike could vote to elect. Jim Geraghty said this morning, "Webb has a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 1948," meaning that he sounded a lot like Harry S Truman. He is, sadly, what the party has left behind. Harry Truman was a good President. We could do with another like him.
What we're going to get instead is an untrustworthy, unindicted felon as the Democratic candidate. I hope the Republicans manage to field someone who can beat her, or that the G-men at the FBI finally decide in their hearts that they have to do their duty no matter what it costs them in terms of punishment from on high.
UPDATE: Noah Rothman has a happier take.
The first and only time in which the Democratic field will gather to debate in prime time on a weekday before the first votes are cast in Iowa and New Hampshire featured a cavalcade of liberal politicians all (with the notable exception of Jim Webb) pandering to the Democratic Party’s fringe elements. The candidates spent a fair bit of energy attempting to rehabilitate European-style socialism, competed over who would embrace the most restrictive gun rights policy, promised a bevy of “free” services that none of them will ever be able to deliver, rejected the perfectly noncontroversial notion that “all lives matter,” and assured their wide-eyed viewers that the greatest national security threat facing the nation was the weather and that the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs should be essentially mothballed. This is the stuff of GOP ad-makers’ dreams.
The biggest gift that Democrats bestowed upon Republicans on Tuesday night, however, was their unwillingness to challenge a narrative repeatedly indefatigably advanced by Clinton, which holds her scandalous conduct as Barack Obama’s secretary of state is a partisan issue utterly without substance.
UPDATE: Matthew Continetti:
Jim Webb is a great American and has many provocative thoughts on foreign policy and domestic policy. But there’s no way he can win the nomination of a Democratic Party that is debating socialism over capitalism, whether black lives matter or all lives matter, whether climate change is the most pressing strategic threat facing the country, and whether to open Obamacare and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.
UPDATE: Max Boot has a solid breakdown of the foreign policy aspects of the debate.
Democratic Debate
Did I just hear Hillary Clinton leap forward to defend capitalism? Fascinating.
UPDATE: Jim Webb stakes out a pro-gun position -- not just for 'hunting,' but for defense of self and family. The rest of the candidates on the stage don't seem to have any idea what he's talking about.
UPDATE: Clinton sounded pretty good on Syria. Webb is hitting the Iran deal, which is good.
UPDATE: Did Clinton just say that Libya represents "smart power at its best"? Oh, that statement is going to hurt for a long time.
UPDATE: Webb refuses to slam Sanders for being a conscientious objector in Vietnam, though he asserts he is the most qualified candidate to be Commander in Chief. He is, of course, quite right about that. Sanders responds very graciously.
UPDATE: Email question. "What I did was allowed by the State Department." Um, I'm pretty sure it was a massive collection of felonies, which the State Department can't approve. Also, the Secretary of State was you, so 'approved by the State Department' means 'approved by me.'
UPDATE: Question: "Do Black Lives Matter, or do All Lives Matter?" Everyone else: "Black Lives Matter." Jim Webb: "All Lives Matter. But by the way, I've done more than the rest of these jokers to deal with criminal justice reform and justice for African Americans."
UPDATE: Clinton just made a major advance by drawing a line between all the Democrats and the Republicans on immigration.
UPDATE: Clinton just said something that sounded like deference to states rights. There must be some tactical reason she favors this position, because she's not said anything ever that suggests she cares about that.
UPDATE: Asked if Snowded was a 'hero or a traitor,' Clinton said, "He broke the laws of the United States." SO DID YOU!!!!
UPDATE: How would your administration differ from Obama's? Jim Webb's answer was phrased very, very gently, but what he meant was: "I would respect the Constitutional separation of powers."
UPDATE: "Which enemy are you most proud of?" That's an outstanding question. The answers were predictable, except for Webb's: "The enemy soldier who threw the grenade that wounded me. But he's not around any more." Conan, what is best in life?
UPDATE: Jim Webb stakes out a pro-gun position -- not just for 'hunting,' but for defense of self and family. The rest of the candidates on the stage don't seem to have any idea what he's talking about.
UPDATE: Clinton sounded pretty good on Syria. Webb is hitting the Iran deal, which is good.
UPDATE: Did Clinton just say that Libya represents "smart power at its best"? Oh, that statement is going to hurt for a long time.
UPDATE: Webb refuses to slam Sanders for being a conscientious objector in Vietnam, though he asserts he is the most qualified candidate to be Commander in Chief. He is, of course, quite right about that. Sanders responds very graciously.
UPDATE: Email question. "What I did was allowed by the State Department." Um, I'm pretty sure it was a massive collection of felonies, which the State Department can't approve. Also, the Secretary of State was you, so 'approved by the State Department' means 'approved by me.'
UPDATE: Question: "Do Black Lives Matter, or do All Lives Matter?" Everyone else: "Black Lives Matter." Jim Webb: "All Lives Matter. But by the way, I've done more than the rest of these jokers to deal with criminal justice reform and justice for African Americans."
UPDATE: Clinton just made a major advance by drawing a line between all the Democrats and the Republicans on immigration.
UPDATE: Clinton just said something that sounded like deference to states rights. There must be some tactical reason she favors this position, because she's not said anything ever that suggests she cares about that.
UPDATE: Asked if Snowded was a 'hero or a traitor,' Clinton said, "He broke the laws of the United States." SO DID YOU!!!!
UPDATE: How would your administration differ from Obama's? Jim Webb's answer was phrased very, very gently, but what he meant was: "I would respect the Constitutional separation of powers."
UPDATE: "Which enemy are you most proud of?" That's an outstanding question. The answers were predictable, except for Webb's: "The enemy soldier who threw the grenade that wounded me. But he's not around any more." Conan, what is best in life?
Heroes and Rebels
A different sort than we usually celebrate, says Reason magazine, but worthy in ways we don't like to consider:
Chinn was a black man in Canton, Mississippi, who in the 1960s owned a farm, a rhythm and blues nightclub, a bootlegging operation, and a large collection of pistols, rifles, and shotguns with which he threatened local Klansmen and police when they attempted to encroach on his businesses or intimidate civil rights activists working to desegregate Canton and register black residents to vote. After one confrontation, in which a pistol-packing Chinn forced the notoriously racist and brutal local sheriff to stand down inside the county courthouse during a hearing for a civil rights worker, the lawman admitted, "There are only two bad sons of bitches in this county..."The sheriff thought himself one, and Chinn the other. It's a good story.
Terrorism Indictments Against Confederate Flag Group
I think the DA will have a lot of trouble making these charges stick, as the law they were indicted under requires you to show that the group engages in criminal street gang activity. What actually happened was a political protest that turned into an altercation. The police, at the end of that video, are indeed explaining that some of what is being shouted constitute threats under state law. However, the target of that explanation is not among the protest group -- it's the family that took issue with them that is being warned to stop making threats.
To me it sounds like a bunch of rednecks engaging in protected free political speech, combined with emotional overreactions on both sides when the conflict started. Bad behavior was clearly rampant on more than one side of the conflict. Apparently the government has decided to take sides rather than impartially referee the dispute. They put charges of terrorism and gang activity before the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury bought it. I'll be very surprised if the trial jury does.
To me it sounds like a bunch of rednecks engaging in protected free political speech, combined with emotional overreactions on both sides when the conflict started. Bad behavior was clearly rampant on more than one side of the conflict. Apparently the government has decided to take sides rather than impartially referee the dispute. They put charges of terrorism and gang activity before the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury bought it. I'll be very surprised if the trial jury does.
Arthur in Scotland
The MacArthurs claim descent from him, so perhaps it is no surprise that a "round table" has been discovered in Scotland.
The King's Knot, a geometrical earthwork in the former royal gardens below Stirling Castle, has been shrouded in mystery for hundreds of years. Though the Knot as it appears today dates from the 1620s, its flat-topped central mound is thought to be much older. Writers going back more than six centuries have linked the landmark to the legend of King Arthur. Archaeologists from Glasgow University, working with the Stirling Local History Society and Stirling Field and Archaeological Society, conducted the first ever non-invasive survey of the site in May and June in a bid to uncover some of its secrets. Their findings were show there was indeed a round feature on the site that pre-dates the visible earthworks.... It has also been suggested the site is partly Iron Age or medieval, or was used as a Roman fort.
Educating Free Men
Have you ever thought that academia would be improved by more conservatives holding professorships? Good news! Better gun laws are making some states undesirable for left-leaning professors looking for work.
This would be good for the health of the academy, as well as the health of society. Though I am not a professor or teacher, I did recently cover a class for an Orthodox Jewish friend who needed to observe one of the very many Jewish holidays this time of year. I was teaching book three of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, which is the book that treats the virtue of courage. It's a text that is completely relevant to the questions of carrying arms in defense of a common society, which is the reason you might be lawfully carrying arms on campus: because you've thought through the threat of active shooters on campus, and have decided to be one of the ones who is prepared to do something about it. This book will help them in their thinking.
First Aristotle prepares you for the discussion of the particular virtues by laying out a general issue about what the ends of action are.
That seems surprising, does it not? After all, if one avoids death in war, one can pursue all of one's true ends -- and all of one's apparent goods -- in a way that dying at war will foreclose. Why, then, is courage in the face of death such a great virtue that Aristotle mentions it first of all, thereby making it the standard by which all other virtues will be measured?
It is because doing nobly in war in the face of death is an absolute necessity for a free life, not only for you but for your fellow citizens. All the goods that can only be realized in a free society will be lost if that society lacks defenders. The good you are pursuing by being brave in the face of terrible death is the true good for yourself and for all your fellow citizens, because it is the only way by which you can realize freedom and a civilization that protects it. The life of virtuous activity, the life of contemplation, these things are unavailable to slaves. This is the first virtue for everyone who would be free, and it must be practiced if any of the other goods are to be realized at all.
This is the education that befits a free man. It is just the education these students should receive. Ninety-four percent of professors are apparently blind to it. They don't see, somehow, that the soft virtues must coexist with the hard ones -- not only in the same society, but in the very same heart.
Roughly 94 percent of faculty members did not favor anyone carrying concealed handguns on college campuses, according to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Community Health that questioned nearly 800 faculty members in a random sample of 15 state universities. The majority of these faculty members (98 percent) felt that handguns created more risk for students and staff.Competition for academic jobs is at an all-time high, as the academy has produced far more Ph.D.s than it is prepared to consume as new professors. Liberal faculties are disinclined to hire conservatives. As concealed and open carry on campus flourishes, however, it may be that more conservative states will see their academy's faculty shifting to the right. I would not have any problems teaching legally armed students.
In fact, at UT Austin, more than 400 faculty members have signed a petition to “refuse guns in their classrooms.”
“If people feel there might be a gun in the classroom, students have said that it makes them feel like they would be much more hesitant to raise controversial issues,” UT history professor and petition organizer Joan Neuberger told Daily Kos. “The classroom is a very special place, and it needs to be a safe place, and that means safe from guns.”
Dr. Chad Kautzer, assistant professor in the philosophy department at University of Colorado at Denver, knows this feeling all too well.
Kautzer, along with other faculty members, led the petition against the university in 2012 to ban concealed weapons from being allowed on state campuses. Despite having support from “a vast majority of faculty” and being unanimously endorsed by the university’s School of Medicine, the petition was unsuccessful in the state House.
This would be good for the health of the academy, as well as the health of society. Though I am not a professor or teacher, I did recently cover a class for an Orthodox Jewish friend who needed to observe one of the very many Jewish holidays this time of year. I was teaching book three of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, which is the book that treats the virtue of courage. It's a text that is completely relevant to the questions of carrying arms in defense of a common society, which is the reason you might be lawfully carrying arms on campus: because you've thought through the threat of active shooters on campus, and have decided to be one of the ones who is prepared to do something about it. This book will help them in their thinking.
First Aristotle prepares you for the discussion of the particular virtues by laying out a general issue about what the ends of action are.
That wish is for the end has already been stated; some think it is for the good, others for the apparent good. Now those who say that the good is the object of wish must admit in consequence that that which the man who does not choose aright wishes for is not an object of wish (for if it is to be so, it must also be good; but it was, if it so happened, bad); while those who say the apparent good is the object of wish must admit that there is no natural object of wish, but only what seems good to each man. Now different things appear good to different people, and, if it so happens, even contrary things.With that setup, how surprising that the first virtue to be considered is courage, which Aristotle formally associates with the fear of death in war.
If these consequences are unpleasing, are we to say that absolutely and in truth the good is the object of wish, but for each person the apparent good; that that which is in truth an object of wish is an object of wish to the good man, while any chance thing may be so the bad man, as in the case of bodies also the things that are in truth wholesome are wholesome for bodies which are in good condition, while for those that are diseased other things are wholesome- or bitter or sweet or hot or heavy, and so on; since the good man judges each class of things rightly, and in each the truth appears to him? For each state of character has its own ideas of the noble and the pleasant, and perhaps the good man differs from others most by seeing the truth in each class of things, being as it were the norm and measure of them. In most things the error seems to be due to pleasure; for it appears a good when it is not. We therefore choose the pleasant as a good, and avoid pain as an evil.
With what sort of terrible things, then, is the brave man concerned? Surely with the greatest; for no one is more likely than he to stand his ground against what is awe-inspiring. Now death is the most terrible of all things; for it is the end, and nothing is thought to be any longer either good or bad for the dead. But the brave man would not seem to be concerned even with death in all circumstances, e.g. at sea or in disease. In what circumstances, then? Surely in the noblest. Now such deaths are those in battle; for these take place in the greatest and noblest danger. And these are correspondingly honoured in city-states and at the courts of monarchs. Properly, then, he will be called brave who is fearless in face of a noble death, and of all emergencies that involve death; and the emergencies of war are in the highest degree of this kind....So the good man pursues the true end, not just the apparent end, and it is characteristic of the good man that he gets it right. This end will be the truth of pleasure and avoiding pain. And what the good man will choose, in the face of the terrors of war, is to do nobly in the face of death.
What is terrible is not the same for all men; but we say there are things terrible even beyond human strength. These, then, are terrible to every one- at least to every sensible man; but the terrible things that are not beyond human strength differ in magnitude and degree, and so too do the things that inspire confidence. Now the brave man is as dauntless as man may be. Therefore, while he will fear even the things that are not beyond human strength, he will face them as he ought and as the rule directs, for honour's sake; for this is the end of virtue.
That seems surprising, does it not? After all, if one avoids death in war, one can pursue all of one's true ends -- and all of one's apparent goods -- in a way that dying at war will foreclose. Why, then, is courage in the face of death such a great virtue that Aristotle mentions it first of all, thereby making it the standard by which all other virtues will be measured?
It is because doing nobly in war in the face of death is an absolute necessity for a free life, not only for you but for your fellow citizens. All the goods that can only be realized in a free society will be lost if that society lacks defenders. The good you are pursuing by being brave in the face of terrible death is the true good for yourself and for all your fellow citizens, because it is the only way by which you can realize freedom and a civilization that protects it. The life of virtuous activity, the life of contemplation, these things are unavailable to slaves. This is the first virtue for everyone who would be free, and it must be practiced if any of the other goods are to be realized at all.
This is the education that befits a free man. It is just the education these students should receive. Ninety-four percent of professors are apparently blind to it. They don't see, somehow, that the soft virtues must coexist with the hard ones -- not only in the same society, but in the very same heart.
Morning, Morons
Turns out there's a great reason that people on the right don't see eye to eye with the President. They're just not smart enough to understand him.
The article is actually pretty painful to read. He cites Obamacare and the minimum wage as two policies that are really good in the long run. Somehow he doesn't see the conflict between those two policies:
All of these problems have been caused by the government going outside its Constitutional charter. They're all mutually reinforcing problems: meddle with the health insurance industry, screw up wages and hours for workers. Raise the minimum wage to try to return us to a situation in which people can earn a living without government assistance, and you put people out of work (you really do) and make it more attractive to ship jobs overseas. Good news, though: shipping American jobs overseas is easier than ever, thanks to our negotiated-in-secret trade packet that cedes sovereign national authority to un-elected committees made up of non-Americans whose rulings unsurprisingly favor non-American interests.
Allow me to suggest a modification of the thesis. It's not that President Obama is as smart as you think he is. It's that he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
The article is actually pretty painful to read. He cites Obamacare and the minimum wage as two policies that are really good in the long run. Somehow he doesn't see the conflict between those two policies:
Republicans constantly paint it as a “job killer” (it’s not) while also rallying against the millions of people who are on government assistance. Funny thing though, a good portion of the Americans who are on government assistance have jobs. If we made sure that no American working full-time had to rely on government programs just to survive, instantly we would save our country hundreds of billions of dollars over the years.You know why so many people now have jobs but can't pay their bills? Because Obamacare 'fundamentally transformed' the American economy into one in which poorer workers are only able to obtain part-time work -- and not even thirty hours a week of it, so that the company won't be on the hook for their newly-expensive health care costs. That means you need two jobs to make ends meet, and jobs remain hard to come by -- at least for native born Americans, as government immigration policies and refusal to enforce the law have flooded the markets with cheap foreign labor, and trade packages like the Obama-backed TPP have lowered the cost of shipping jobs overseas.
All of these problems have been caused by the government going outside its Constitutional charter. They're all mutually reinforcing problems: meddle with the health insurance industry, screw up wages and hours for workers. Raise the minimum wage to try to return us to a situation in which people can earn a living without government assistance, and you put people out of work (you really do) and make it more attractive to ship jobs overseas. Good news, though: shipping American jobs overseas is easier than ever, thanks to our negotiated-in-secret trade packet that cedes sovereign national authority to un-elected committees made up of non-Americans whose rulings unsurprisingly favor non-American interests.
Allow me to suggest a modification of the thesis. It's not that President Obama is as smart as you think he is. It's that he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
What does this say about your side?
What does it say about your positions when you argue that a mass murdering, child killing, honest to God villain would probably support them. And this pleases you?
Now That You Mention It, This Does Sound Like An Odd Decision
Taranto mocks Governor Jerry Brown of California for approving state-assisted suicide, but not experimental drugs that might save your life. In other news, the Governor also opposes improving handgun laws so that more people can readily defend themselves... because he thinks guns lead to too many suicides.
The NRA Comes Out Swinging
The National Rifle Association was a little slow to respond to the President's call for 'Australian'-style gun confiscation. I checked their website the day of the speech and even after. The President really threw them the kind of ball they know how to hit. I figured they'd come out swinging:
So I was a bit surprised that they took a few days to get a sense of the field, and perhaps to give their opponents some rope with which to hang themselves. If so, it worked. Not only did they end up getting to hit the hanging curve, they waited long enough for Mrs. Clinton to take a position that they can beat like a drum all the way through 2016 -- assuming she manages to stay in the race. Or out of prison.
So I was a bit surprised that they took a few days to get a sense of the field, and perhaps to give their opponents some rope with which to hang themselves. If so, it worked. Not only did they end up getting to hit the hanging curve, they waited long enough for Mrs. Clinton to take a position that they can beat like a drum all the way through 2016 -- assuming she manages to stay in the race. Or out of prison.
Genocide and Personal Self-Defense
A meditation on an individual right that used to be treasured by the political left at least as much as the political right.
Of course, the Second Amendment doesn't only protect an individual right: it also protects the right to organize as militia. That may be the part we're missing in this discussion, both as applies to resisting armed tyrannical units -- the Waffen SS were a paramilitary, not a military force -- and as applies to a more coherent defense against active shooters. The citizen as officer of the state should be armed, trained, but also integrated as a potential actor into the official planning for responses. Much can be done by teaching citizens not only how to use a firearm to defend themselves and their immediate space, but how to link up and work together in the face of a common threat.
Of course, the Second Amendment doesn't only protect an individual right: it also protects the right to organize as militia. That may be the part we're missing in this discussion, both as applies to resisting armed tyrannical units -- the Waffen SS were a paramilitary, not a military force -- and as applies to a more coherent defense against active shooters. The citizen as officer of the state should be armed, trained, but also integrated as a potential actor into the official planning for responses. Much can be done by teaching citizens not only how to use a firearm to defend themselves and their immediate space, but how to link up and work together in the face of a common threat.
Gaza Declares a Curfew in Israel
A Palestinian cleric, brandishing a knife, commands his brothers to stab Jews. 'Now we know why the Jews built walls around Jerusalem: to keep their throats from being cut.'
Well, the walls you see around the Old City today were built by the Turks. But the purpose was the same. He is, in this limited way, correct: that is what walls are for. They are to protect the goods of civilization from the barbarians outside.
Israel has become incredibly isolated in the last few weeks. Even a month ago, it was possible to believe that Israel could unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear program if it decided it had no other choice. Such action would have required them to become open about their possession of nuclear weapons, most likely: even our ground-penetrating conventional weapons might not accomplish the task. If we were going to take military action against Iran, it would be better to go in on the ground and use sappers, reserving the air forces to pin down and destroy the IRGC units that tried to stop us.
With the Russians deploying air forces and advanced anti-aircraft weapons in Syria, however, the odds that Israel even could stop Iran have lengthened considerably. Indeed, at this point it will be difficult for us to maintain our limited deployment in Iraq. Those forces are cut off in every direction, a danger that I wonder if the Obama administration has begun to ponder. They would probably be allowed to withdraw, if they go now. Alternatively we could send up a force through Kuwait to provide them a salient through which they could withdraw even in the face of Iranian opposition. But they are completely exposed to the whims of our enemies as it stands. They are even sharing basing with Iranian militias.
In time the logic of that will play out one way or the other. Either we will go, or our forces will serve as hostages for our good behavior, or they will be killed in a deniable act of war ordered by Iran but carried out by proxies they need not acknowledge.
Israel is very much alone at the moment. It would take very bold action for America to protect them, action that would need to be both bold and wise if it was not to set off a war with Russia. We do not currently have the leadership for such action. Our civilian leaders are neither bold nor wise, not in their carrying out of foreign policy in the Middle East, and Central Command is dogged by a scandal that reaches to its highest levels. It will be some time before that could possibly change for the better, and at this point it must be doubtful that it ever does.
Well, the walls you see around the Old City today were built by the Turks. But the purpose was the same. He is, in this limited way, correct: that is what walls are for. They are to protect the goods of civilization from the barbarians outside.
Israel has become incredibly isolated in the last few weeks. Even a month ago, it was possible to believe that Israel could unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear program if it decided it had no other choice. Such action would have required them to become open about their possession of nuclear weapons, most likely: even our ground-penetrating conventional weapons might not accomplish the task. If we were going to take military action against Iran, it would be better to go in on the ground and use sappers, reserving the air forces to pin down and destroy the IRGC units that tried to stop us.
With the Russians deploying air forces and advanced anti-aircraft weapons in Syria, however, the odds that Israel even could stop Iran have lengthened considerably. Indeed, at this point it will be difficult for us to maintain our limited deployment in Iraq. Those forces are cut off in every direction, a danger that I wonder if the Obama administration has begun to ponder. They would probably be allowed to withdraw, if they go now. Alternatively we could send up a force through Kuwait to provide them a salient through which they could withdraw even in the face of Iranian opposition. But they are completely exposed to the whims of our enemies as it stands. They are even sharing basing with Iranian militias.
In time the logic of that will play out one way or the other. Either we will go, or our forces will serve as hostages for our good behavior, or they will be killed in a deniable act of war ordered by Iran but carried out by proxies they need not acknowledge.
Israel is very much alone at the moment. It would take very bold action for America to protect them, action that would need to be both bold and wise if it was not to set off a war with Russia. We do not currently have the leadership for such action. Our civilian leaders are neither bold nor wise, not in their carrying out of foreign policy in the Middle East, and Central Command is dogged by a scandal that reaches to its highest levels. It will be some time before that could possibly change for the better, and at this point it must be doubtful that it ever does.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)