[T]ry naming another language where you have to slip do into sentences to negate or question something. Do you find that difficult? ...Not the only really cool insight that was new to me, who has occasionally read into these matters for decades now.
[T]o the untrained eye, Beowulf might as well be in Turkish.
The first thing that got us from there to here was the fact that, when the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (and also Frisians) brought their language to England, the island was already inhabited by people who spoke very different tongues. Their languages were Celtic ones, today represented by Welsh, Irish and Breton across the Channel in France. The Celts were subjugated but survived, and since there were only about 250,000 Germanic invaders – roughly the population of a modest burg such as Jersey City – very quickly most of the people speaking Old English were Celts.
Crucially, their languages were quite unlike English. For one thing, the verb came first (came first the verb). But also, they had an odd construction with the verb do: they used it to form a question, to make a sentence negative, and even just as a kind of seasoning before any verb. Do you walk? I do not walk. I do walk. That looks familiar now because the Celts started doing it in their rendition of English. But before that, such sentences would have seemed bizarre to an English speaker – as they would today in just about any language other than our own and the surviving Celtic ones. Notice how even to dwell upon this queer usage of do is to realise something odd in oneself, like being made aware that there is always a tongue in your mouth.
The Celtic Underbelly of the English Tongue
A missing piece from your philology, perhaps. Everybody knows about the Normans and their importation of a kind of French to impose itself upon the Old English. But how much do you appreciate about the Celts?
Same Mouths, Different Day
The same people who are today saying, "The Syrian refugee crisis is just like the Jews in WWII, only racists could not let them in"* are the people who spend most days saying, "The state established by the Jewish refugees from WWII is a racist apartheid hell run by religious fanatics."
And the same people, who are today saying that only racism or Islamophobia could account for not wanting to admit vast numbers of Syrians to America are the ones who -- for years now -- have been loudly celebrating how impending demographic changes from mass immigration are going to destroy American conservatives and win the culture wars for liberals forever.
Also, that it's impossible to undo mass immigration, and we need to hurry up and give them citizenship. So they can destroy your values. Racists.
The effect of all this has been that we now have a leading American candidate for President openly talking about "deportation squads" going house to house to search for illegal immigrants. How sure are you that this fire needs a little more gasoline?
Let's help the Syrian refugees. Let's give them food, clothes, supplies, and a military mission that will ensure they have a home to return to. Let's help them rebuild that home once they're free to return to it. I'll be happy to go myself and be a direct part of the effort.
It's disingenuous, though, to plan on the one hand to use immigration to overrun your domestic political opponents -- and then claim that the only reason to oppose yet more immigration is some kind of racism. You're the ones who made this an all-important political issue that touches every aspect of American culture and values. If you insist on throwing more gasoline onto the fire you yourselves built, it's likely as not that you're going get burned worse than anyone. Imagine how much you'll enjoy an America with deportation squads led by President Donald Trump.
Then, when you're done reflecting on that image, stop throwing gas cans around. Let's address this problem in a way that doesn't further damage the peace of the American republic.
And the same people, who are today saying that only racism or Islamophobia could account for not wanting to admit vast numbers of Syrians to America are the ones who -- for years now -- have been loudly celebrating how impending demographic changes from mass immigration are going to destroy American conservatives and win the culture wars for liberals forever.
Also, that it's impossible to undo mass immigration, and we need to hurry up and give them citizenship. So they can destroy your values. Racists.
The effect of all this has been that we now have a leading American candidate for President openly talking about "deportation squads" going house to house to search for illegal immigrants. How sure are you that this fire needs a little more gasoline?
Let's help the Syrian refugees. Let's give them food, clothes, supplies, and a military mission that will ensure they have a home to return to. Let's help them rebuild that home once they're free to return to it. I'll be happy to go myself and be a direct part of the effort.
It's disingenuous, though, to plan on the one hand to use immigration to overrun your domestic political opponents -- and then claim that the only reason to oppose yet more immigration is some kind of racism. You're the ones who made this an all-important political issue that touches every aspect of American culture and values. If you insist on throwing more gasoline onto the fire you yourselves built, it's likely as not that you're going get burned worse than anyone. Imagine how much you'll enjoy an America with deportation squads led by President Donald Trump.
Then, when you're done reflecting on that image, stop throwing gas cans around. Let's address this problem in a way that doesn't further damage the peace of the American republic.
How Curious
Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 until 2013. How strange that her private foundation suddenly had to amend its tax returns... to account for large donations by foreign nationals... during exactly that time frame.
UPDATE:
Well, I'm sure she can be trusted to be President.
The foundation refiled its Form 990 tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, while the Clinton Health Access Initiative refiled its returns for 2012 and 2013 after Reuters discovered errors in the forms earlier this year."Errors," yes.
UPDATE:
Her critics, especially political rivals in the Republican Party, have said the charities' reliance on millions of dollars from foreign governments creates conflicts of interests for a would-be U.S. president. They have also criticized the charities' admitted failure to comply with an ethics agreement Clinton signed with Barack Obama's incoming presidential administration in 2008 in order for her to become secretary of state.That's funny. It's like her signature on legally binding documents -- such as a nondisclosure agreement governing access to classified information -- just doesn't mean anything.
Well, I'm sure she can be trusted to be President.
La Marseillaise
Grim's post the other night got me to doing a little research. I think the translated lyrics of La Marseillaise would go well here. Some of them seem quite appropriate.
La Marseillaise
Arise, children of the Fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised,
Bloody banner is raised,
Do you hear, in the countryside,
The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
They're coming right into your arms
To cut the throats of your sons, your women!
To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
Let's march, let's march!
Let an impure blood
Water our furrows! (Repeat)
La Marseillaise
Arise, children of the Fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised,
Bloody banner is raised,
Do you hear, in the countryside,
The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
They're coming right into your arms
To cut the throats of your sons, your women!
To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
Let's march, let's march!
Let an impure blood
Water our furrows! (Repeat)
Non-Constitutional Crisis
As far as I know, the President has the Constitutional authority to admit anyone to the United States he wants to admit. Nevertheless, 25 Republican governors plus one Democrat means that more than half of the top elected officials of the states have said that they want nothing to do with this program.
Now, even if the governors lack final authority to bar Syrian refugees from their states -- as they well may -- they can suspend cooperation with the Federal government in the resettlement efforts. Of course, the Federal government has lots of money (as much as cares to spend, in the opinion of the current administration).
It's not a constitutional crisis, but when the Federal government sets out to override the will of a majority of the states, it's a crisis of some sort. Given that our enemy has specifically and repeatedly announced its intention to use this refugee flood as a vector for infiltration and recruitment, it's not exactly insane to think that this is a questionable idea. Perhaps permanent resettlement in the United States is not the right option. Perhaps victory in Syria, so they can return home, is the better way.
Now, even if the governors lack final authority to bar Syrian refugees from their states -- as they well may -- they can suspend cooperation with the Federal government in the resettlement efforts. Of course, the Federal government has lots of money (as much as cares to spend, in the opinion of the current administration).
It's not a constitutional crisis, but when the Federal government sets out to override the will of a majority of the states, it's a crisis of some sort. Given that our enemy has specifically and repeatedly announced its intention to use this refugee flood as a vector for infiltration and recruitment, it's not exactly insane to think that this is a questionable idea. Perhaps permanent resettlement in the United States is not the right option. Perhaps victory in Syria, so they can return home, is the better way.
Bankroll
The President's campaign to bankroll college protests. Literally, his former campaign, "Obama for America." That's what they do now.
The senseless protests we’re seeing break out on the campuses of the University of Missouri, Yale and other colleges, as well as on bridges and highway overpasses and outside police stations, are precisely the kind of thing Obama was trained to organize while attending leftist agitation schools founded by Chicago communist Saul Alinsky.... Now Obama is returning the favor of his Alinsky masters, training and cloning an army of social justice bullies to carry on his revolution to “fundamentally transform America.” He’s doing it mainly through a little-known but well-funded group called Organizing for Action, or OFA, which will outlast his administration.
OFA, formerly Obama for America, has trained more than 10,000 leftist organizers, who, in turn, are training more than 2 million youths in Alinsky street tactics. The leftist group, which recently registered as a 501c4 nonprofit eligible for unlimited contributions, holds regular “organizing summits” on college campuses.
Just What You Want In A Commander-in-Chief
A complete lack of confidence from the people who would be serving under her:
One of the things pollsters sometimes do is subtract the "very" categories to determine something about the strength of the mood for or against someone or something is in their sample. So if a President has a 55% approval rating, but 45% of that is less than "very strong" support and 30% of his opposition is "very strong," you end up saying that there's a 20% intensity of opinion against him even though he is above water overall.
That gives us an intensity index in this case of two-thirds strongly against.
A new RallyPoint/Rasmussen Reports national survey of active and retired military personnel finds that only 15% have a favorable opinion of Clinton, with just three percent (3%) who view the former secretary of State Very Favorably. Clinton is seen unfavorably by 81%, including 69% who share a Very Unfavorable impression of her.Emphasis added.
One of the things pollsters sometimes do is subtract the "very" categories to determine something about the strength of the mood for or against someone or something is in their sample. So if a President has a 55% approval rating, but 45% of that is less than "very strong" support and 30% of his opposition is "very strong," you end up saying that there's a 20% intensity of opinion against him even though he is above water overall.
That gives us an intensity index in this case of two-thirds strongly against.
So Who Do You Think We Are? Morons?
Mr. Obama grew especially animated in rebuffing suggestions by some Republican presidential candidates, governors and lawmakers that the United States should block entry of Syrian refugees to prevent terrorists from slipping into the country.That's funny, because as I understood it your State Department specifically rejected visas for Christian refugees. That's been true both in specific cases and as a general policy.
“The people who are fleeing Syria are the most harmed by terrorism; they are the most vulnerable as a consequence of civil war and strife,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “We do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.”
Without naming him, Mr. Obama singled out a comment by former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, one of the Republicans seeking to succeed him, for suggesting the United States focus special attention on Christian refugees. “That’s shameful,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not American. It’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”
At a time when they are facing specific threats just for being Christians -- and at such a scale that Catholic charities warn that Christianity itself will be wiped out of the Middle East within a decade -- one might think that a religious test would at least not be applied against them. Maybe it even makes some sense to favor Christians, given that they are the ones under threat of extinction, and given that they would fit in pretty well in an America that remains ~75% Christian (and which is culturally informed by Christian values even among those who are not themselves Christians). It would make sense for them, and it would make sense for us.
Over at Hot Air, they're scratching their heads about the politics of this move.
Skip to 2:15 to watch Rhodes, responding to the news that one of the Paris bombers washed up onshore in Greece just six weeks ago, claim that it’s full speed ahead on the U.S. accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees of its own. The Democratic nominee-in-waiting said on Saturday night that she wants 65,000(!) refugees here, albeit “only if we have as careful a screening and vetting process as we can imagine.” That’s a mighty bold move by Democrats given that a majority of Americans already opposed admitting refugees back in September, with that number sure to rise now in the wake of the attack. And it goes without saying that if someone makes it over here via Obama’s refugee policy and promptly blows themselves up in Times Square, it’ll be night-night for Democrats in next year’s election. That’s a gigantic risk for O and Hillary to take. So why are they doing it?It's not the President's only risky move on this score lately. What's less clear is why Clinton is doubling down on it. Given the polling you'd expect her to make a much vaguer statement of support for the President for the duration of the primary, and then come out hard against him on this in the general. Instead, she really has to hope that there are no Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States this coming year -- especially any that can be tracked to refugees, but really any serious such attacks at all.
A Devil's Dictionary for Wall Street
They're in the news lately due to Mrs. Clinton's love affair with them, which is probably why this came across my desk this morning. It's pretty funny, where "funny" is an adjective that means "accurate."
Thrift (n.)
The obsolete practice of spending less money than you earn; once believed to be a virtue, now regarded as a disturbing form of deviant behavior.
Central bank (n.)
A group of economists who believe that their current forecasts will turn out to be accurate even though their past forecasts have been unreliable, that their present policies will succeed even though their past policies have failed, that they can prevent inflation from occurring next time even though they didn't prevent it last time, that they can foster lower unemployment in the future even though their practices worsened it in the past, and so forth.
You should be able to answer this riddle: What's the difference between a central banker and a weather vane? They both turn in the wind, but only the central banker thinks he or she determines which way the wind blows.
Tolkien's Beowulf: Not A Good Translation?
A scholar named Andy Orchard says that Tolkien's Beowulf was probably never meant to be published:
Orchard is the Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at the University of Oxford, the same position held by Tolkien from from 1925 to 1945....Orchard's interested, of course, in that he has his own translation he'd like you to buy. There's an excerpt at the link.
Orchard calls the published version of Beowulf by Tolkien “a horrible, horrible, horrible translation” one that the English scholar never imagined would be published. The translation was made by Tolkien in the 1920s and intended it to be “crib notes” that was to be used by students he was teaching at Oxford.... Still, this edition of Beowulf, which was posthumously published over forty years after Tolkien’s death, is very valuable to scholars according to Orchard. He calls the end notes offered with the text “brilliant” and something that can be very useful to those who are studying the poem.
In Which I Almost Agree With Frank Bruni
Even a near agreement is closer than I can recall us having been before.
Still, in the wake of the Paris attacks, I have seen almost instantly:
* Hillary Clinton leading American gun-control advocates electing to mourn this as an incident of "gun violence," implying that we should defer to them in stripping us of our rights even though Paris has exactly the gun laws they would like us to have.
* Gun-rights advocates suggesting that France needs to adopt the 2nd Amendment -- Bruni cites Coulter among others.
* Bernie Sanders suggesting it just shows that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, like that despicable woman Clinton agreed to do in accord with George W. Bush.
* Libertarian isolationists suggesting that this proves that Western arrogance in the Middle East bears evil fruit that we more or less deserve.
* Climate change warriors suggesting this was all about climate change (Bruni deserves credit for seeing this one on his own side).
One person who didn't do this was retired Democrat Jim Webb.
Still, in the wake of the Paris attacks, I have seen almost instantly:
* Hillary Clinton leading American gun-control advocates electing to mourn this as an incident of "gun violence," implying that we should defer to them in stripping us of our rights even though Paris has exactly the gun laws they would like us to have.
* Gun-rights advocates suggesting that France needs to adopt the 2nd Amendment -- Bruni cites Coulter among others.
* Bernie Sanders suggesting it just shows that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, like that despicable woman Clinton agreed to do in accord with George W. Bush.
* Libertarian isolationists suggesting that this proves that Western arrogance in the Middle East bears evil fruit that we more or less deserve.
* Climate change warriors suggesting this was all about climate change (Bruni deserves credit for seeing this one on his own side).
One person who didn't do this was retired Democrat Jim Webb.
Those in France and elsewhere should be able to feel safe and free from the forces of terrorism. This has been our policy for more than thirty years and it will continue to be. But this is not a time for emotional outbursts or empty threats. In key moments such as now it is vitally important for us to assemble a complete picture of what happened and why before recommending what specific actions need to follow. I would urge the President and other national leaders to work carefully with our national security leaders and to apply this approach in the coming days.That's pretty good advice.
Bait & Switch
I wonder if she even noticed herself the flaw in her logic.
And, indeed, that's just what it does mean. It means that using language or displaying behavior objected to by the class owed 'deferentially considerate treatment' deserves severe punishment. Fair enough, right? We should object to political correctness as a less-severe incarnation of the same bad idea that undergirded lynchings. I wouldn't have put it that way, but I can see the point: just as not adhering to extreme deference in avoiding offending white women was once grounds for excessively severe punishment, so today...
Of course, she concludes the exact opposite of what logically follows from her setup.
Political correctness is thus bad, not good, for the same reason (but to a vastly lesser degree) that lynching was bad. It is a system of punishing members of disfavored classes for failing to adhere to standards of excessive deference in avoiding giving offense to members of favored classes. The good thing would be not doing that.
The term “political correctness” may be new but its foundations are not. For centuries, people of color have been expected to not offend white people—and were jailed, whipped, or murdered if they did. From the mid-19th century through the mid-20th century, African Americans were lynched by white mobs for all sorts of “reasons”...The obvious conclusion is that "political correctness" is the name applied to the idea that "some people [are] owed deferentially considerate treatment[.]"
“Political correctness” only acquired a name when, relatively recently in American history, the idea of treating others respectfully was finally extended to include how white people treat black people, how men treat women, and so on. Prior to that, the idea that some people were owed deferentially considerate treatment—even in its most extreme, vicious incarnations—didn’t need a special term. It was just the way things were.
And, indeed, that's just what it does mean. It means that using language or displaying behavior objected to by the class owed 'deferentially considerate treatment' deserves severe punishment. Fair enough, right? We should object to political correctness as a less-severe incarnation of the same bad idea that undergirded lynchings. I wouldn't have put it that way, but I can see the point: just as not adhering to extreme deference in avoiding offending white women was once grounds for excessively severe punishment, so today...
Of course, she concludes the exact opposite of what logically follows from her setup.
Political correctness is a good thing—the idea that we should treat our fellow human beings with equal respect, despite their race or gender or sexual orientation, and the idea that we might all learn and get better at doing so because of feedback and changing norms.No, the frame you set up was one in which "political correctness" is the heir to not treating people 'with equal respect,' but asserting that some deserve especial deference -- and that severe punishment should fall on members of the disfavored class(es) who violate that deference.
Political correctness is thus bad, not good, for the same reason (but to a vastly lesser degree) that lynching was bad. It is a system of punishing members of disfavored classes for failing to adhere to standards of excessive deference in avoiding giving offense to members of favored classes. The good thing would be not doing that.
Secure Communications
I suspect Eric Blair is right that important communications are no longer conducted electronically, but Belgium thinks that it has identified at least one such route still in operation: PlayStation 4.
Clever engineering
A group at MIT has figured out a way to get salt and other crud out of water using what I guess amounts to distillation that works on an electrical gradient rather than a gravitational one. It's just an early idea, which would have to be refined before it could scale up and compete with the current RO desalination technology, but it's interesting.
Paris
Coordinated attacks across the city tonight with the obvious purpose of terror, but so far no claim of responsibility. There is work to be done.
Lafayette, at least some of us still remember you.
UPDATE: Wretchard writes --
Lafayette, at least some of us still remember you.
UPDATE: Wretchard writes --
It looks like the wave of attacks is over, been some time now no new incidents. Period of damage assessment, counting up casualties, finger pointing and political posturing to follow as usual.Not only them.
The significant thing is the attacks happened in the teeth of a heightened alert associated with big soccer matches. In fact Hollande himself was watching a game. So the French security forces and intelligence people were completely blindsided on this.
That means there are networks they don't know about, which are capable of Beirut-size operations. I think Scotland Yard and MI5 will be burning the midnight oil tonight.
An Addendum on Star Wars from AVI
And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potentCommenting on Mike's recent post about Star Wars, AVI says: "At one level, I can't believe this needs explaining. The Rebels are the good guys. The Jedi are the good guys. The music and the costumes didn't give that away?"
instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way
into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten,
imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated
graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because
he who has received this true education of the inner being will most
shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with
a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into
his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame
and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is
able to know the reason why; and when reason comes he will recognise
and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar.
-Plato, Republic III
He has a fuller examination of what's going on with the imperfections in the morality of Star Wars that is worth your time.
It occurs to me that his first take is the right one, though: it's the music of Star Wars that really carries the morality of the plot. You could dispose of perhaps every single line of dialogue, and still understand the movie perfectly just by hearing John Williams' soundtrack. The flaws come out of what was said in the screenplay. The real moral structure is musical, and perfect. It's only when someone -- Lucas, I suppose -- began to try to think and put it into words that the errors began to creep in.
Somehow we grasp the moral truth better through music. Plato's trust in the capacity of musicians to convey moral truths, provided that they were devoted to doing so, is perhaps if anything only understated. Trying to say the truth is very hard, as everyone who knew Socrates came to find out when he put them to the test when asked to define goodness or justice or piety. You can hear it expressed in music, though, and somehow understand exactly what is meant. For most people and most purposes, including to guide the soldiers of his model state in their moral decisions, Plato seems to have thought that this would do.
Republicans for Hillary
The apprehension among some party elites goes beyond electability, according to one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about the worries.If you’re a grassroots conservative who suspects that establishment Republicans would rather see Hillary win than an outsider from their own party whom they might not be able to control, that last line should show you that … yep, you’re right to believe that.
“We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?”
Contrarian tools
A good career strategy: find something to do that most people don't want to do. If you enjoy it and are particularly good at it, even better.
A study at the University of California, Irvine, found that when it came to workplace distractions, most employees were actually happiest when performing rote tasks. Highly successful people, though, aren't most employees; they make it a habit to do work that others don’t want to do.If the only things that make you happy are things that everyone else is willing to do for free, you're in trouble. If you're good at something that almost no one else can or will do well, the world is your oyster.
Nanodegrees
From Maggie's Farm, an article about increasing employer recognition of online degrees. As MF comments, looks like homeschooling is bad only when conservatives do it. On either end of the political spectrum, any school can prosper if people are highly motivated to study there, whether for intangible personal fulfillment or to increase earning power in an attractive job. A company like Udacity doesn't need federal subsidies or student loans to keep its faculty in Priuses.
Education Is Too Expensive
At least, I am totally convinced that this particular young woman has been badly overcharged for her education.
Why Not Both?
For some, the distinction between craftsmanship and deep thinking represents a false dichotomy (as a logician might say).
Matthew B. Crawford earned his Ph.D. in political philosophy from the University of Chicago but failed to find a job as an academic and ultimately landed a position at a think tank. Unhappy with the work, he quit and became a mechanic in Virginia, using online tutorials to learn how to weld and make motorcycle parts.
He has also continued to write and has published books about his career transition. One of his books, “Shop Class as Soulcraft,” is devoted to debunking the notion that manual trades are mindless. “The division between knowledge work and manual work is kind of dubious, because there is so much thinking that goes on in skilled trades,” Mr. Crawford said.
As for the payoff, Mr. Crawford rejects the idea that philosophers cannot figure out how to earn a living.
“It’s obviously kind of a reductive approach to think of your course of study in college as merely a means to a paycheck,” Mr. Crawford said, suggesting the study of things like happiness can be enriching in ways that are hard to measure. “And nobody goes into philosophy because they think it’s going to make them rich.”
More on Equality
Colorado Springs police are being sued to drop their physical fitness test.
Last Friday the Colorado Springs Police Department agreed to the demands of 12 female officers who filed a civil suit claiming the fitness tests are discriminatory. All the officers were over the age of 40.
The suit will now move to a federal court. Police Chief Pete Carey says he’s disappointed, but will abide by the judge’s decision.
‘I very firmly stand behind physical fitness tests for our officers. I think what I’m asking them to do is fair and my hope is a federal judge also agrees with this,’ Carey said.
The police test consists of two running exams. Officers also have to do 52 push-ups in 2 minutes, and 45 sit-ups, also in 2 minutes.
ACLU: This 'Hurtful Speech' Policing Is A Bit Much
In fairness, you guys helped to call down the thunder. Still, it's good to see you getting it right now.
The ACLU of Missouri is disappointed with the recent request by the University of Missouri Police to report ‘hurtful speech,’ which simultaneously does too much and too little.
Racial epithets addressed to a specific person in a threatening or intimidating manner can be illegal, and may require action by police and/or university administrators. But, no governmental entity has the authority to broadly prohibit ‘hurtful’ speech — or even undefined ‘hateful’ speech, or to discipline against it.
Conversely, institutional racism and a history of turning a blind-eye to systemic inequities does require action. But mistakenly addressing symptoms — instead of causes — and doing it in a way that runs counter to the First Amendment is not the wise or appropriate response.
Harvard on Yale: It's Fascism
Usually, we at Harvard are more than happy to see Yale students make fools of themselves on camera....Not this time.
It's Important To Know Where To Draw The Line
Ahead of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s landmark European trip kicking off this weekend, French officials reportedly nixed plans for a formal meal in Paris with President François Hollande following a dispute over the menu. The Iranians, according to France’s RTL Radio, insisted on a wine-free meal with halal meat — a request based on Islamic codes that amounted to culinary sacrilege in France, a nation that puts the secular ideals of the Republic above all else.I mean, there's nothing wrong with halal meat. It tastes fine. Ate a lot of it in Iraq when we'd go outside the wire, and I enjoyed every bite of it. No wine, though...
Slate Magazine: Any Way You Slice It, Rubio is Wrong About Welders
Apparently a lot of people emailed them, especially philosophers. They've looked at the data a lot more deeply now, and concluded that no matter how you look at it, the data don't support Rubio.
A Pox on Both Your Houses
I see a lot of banter back and forth across the internet about "who were the good guys in Star Wars", and some make decent cases for the less obvious choice of "the Empire, naturally". But I think this is the first article I've read that I agree with wholeheartedly:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/10/star-wars-has-no-good-guys/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/10/star-wars-has-no-good-guys/
Some Humble Thoughts About America
A gentleman called Captain Clay Higgins, a peace officer from Louisiana, invites you to consider a few of his humble thoughts on Veteran's Day.
Not While The Second Lives
David Harsanyi: "The First Amendment Is Dying."
As noted two posts below, they're still only thinking about each other. They haven't begun to consider our perspectives, which will be quite shocking to them. Or they will be, if they can wrap their heads around them well enough to be shocked.
How do you explain that concept to someone who came from a background of looking for 'safe spaces'? The idea that we mean to defend their freedom as well as our own -- but only on the same terms -- will be as difficult to imagine as the complete rejection of safety as an ideal. I don't need to feel safe from you. I don't require your approval. I don't, in fact, even care about it.
Perhaps we should give some thought to trying to explain it, as in any conflict there are a certain number of conversions and we ought to be prepared to go fishing for men. Somehow their very fine educations have not given them the history or the philosophy they would need. What would you have to tell them, if you found a heart that was good soil for this mustard seed?
As noted two posts below, they're still only thinking about each other. They haven't begun to consider our perspectives, which will be quite shocking to them. Or they will be, if they can wrap their heads around them well enough to be shocked.
How do you explain that concept to someone who came from a background of looking for 'safe spaces'? The idea that we mean to defend their freedom as well as our own -- but only on the same terms -- will be as difficult to imagine as the complete rejection of safety as an ideal. I don't need to feel safe from you. I don't require your approval. I don't, in fact, even care about it.
Perhaps we should give some thought to trying to explain it, as in any conflict there are a certain number of conversions and we ought to be prepared to go fishing for men. Somehow their very fine educations have not given them the history or the philosophy they would need. What would you have to tell them, if you found a heart that was good soil for this mustard seed?
Waco Update
According to Breitbart news, the Waco DA charged 106 of the bikers under identical indictments all alleging the same facts in each 106 cases. All the charges are for life sentences, or between 15 to 99 years if a life sentence is not issued. Naturally, the grand jury accepted all 106 indictments, which will now go to trial.
Only 9 people died, so 106 people can't be guilty of the actual killings. In fact, the charges don't appear to charge any of the 106 with any particular killing. The charge is for a kind of collective responsibility for the deaths due to participating in 'organized criminal activity' that resulted in the 9 deaths.
As of yet we haven't seen any evidence showing who was responsible for any of the killings, so it's interesting to me that -- after months and months of investigation and interrogation -- no one has been charged with any particular act of violence. In fact, I'm not sure how you could hope to prove a collective responsibility if you can't first establish a personal responsibility. In order to say that every member of the Cossacks MC was collectively responsible for a death, shouldn't you have to show that some member of the Cossacks MC was responsible for it?
There are still 80 bikers who haven't been charged at all. Perhaps 'the real killers' are among them, and Waco just wanted to get the easy cases out of the way first.
Only 9 people died, so 106 people can't be guilty of the actual killings. In fact, the charges don't appear to charge any of the 106 with any particular killing. The charge is for a kind of collective responsibility for the deaths due to participating in 'organized criminal activity' that resulted in the 9 deaths.
As of yet we haven't seen any evidence showing who was responsible for any of the killings, so it's interesting to me that -- after months and months of investigation and interrogation -- no one has been charged with any particular act of violence. In fact, I'm not sure how you could hope to prove a collective responsibility if you can't first establish a personal responsibility. In order to say that every member of the Cossacks MC was collectively responsible for a death, shouldn't you have to show that some member of the Cossacks MC was responsible for it?
There are still 80 bikers who haven't been charged at all. Perhaps 'the real killers' are among them, and Waco just wanted to get the easy cases out of the way first.
Two Solid Pieces on Campus Free Speech
These are coming from quite different perspectives, too, which makes them even more valuable if you read them together.
One of the two -- which came recommended by Armed Liberal of Winds of Change fame, for those of you who have been around the blogosphere long enough to remember him -- is from the perspective of a serious scholar who has a nuanced view. The other is by a trans* activist who wants to yell and curse at feminists who won't support what trans* activists are doing, preferring to take their feminism, ah, "straight."
This activist, whose first piece is angry in places, went on to write a follow-up piece responding thoughtfully to critics. The original piece actually does have some interesting insights, though, so it's worth reading as well.
To distill the basic structure of the debate you get by reading the arguments together:
1) Serious Scholar and Trans* Activist both think they're talking to the left. They aren't really considering our perspectives at all. They aren't fighting against us, in other words, but for domination of what good leftists think.
2) Serious Scholar and Trans* Activist agree that this isn't really about free speech v. political correctness. There are some kinds of conduct they think should be beyond the pale -- blackface frat parties are one example, allowing a serious debate about stoning gays to death is another. This is a point on which I suspect we would disgree: blackface frat parties are the epitome of bad taste, but probably so obviously so that banning them would do less good than letting people suffer the humiliation of having proven to have associated with such a thing; whereas a debate between feminists and Islamists on the merits of radical Islam is something the colleges could very usefully be having right now.
3) Serious Scholar is interested in a much broader set of problems than the Trans* Activist. Serious Scholar points out that there is an important conversation to be had about 'cultural appropriation,' because it's a trap that its advocates are falling into: studies in British colonialism show how encouraging just such mechanisms was used as a method of control over unruly minorities.
4) Trans* Activist points out that many of the feminists fighting against trans* people used the same tactics in their own day, some thirty or so years ago. The tactics were not popular then, nor ten or twenty years before that when it was the most radical black activists using the tactics (and there were some quite radical ones, though today the Civil Rights Movement is almost always painted in glossy hues and the memory of Dr. King). This was true even on the left: Edward Abbey once wrote that the only two kinds of people he couldn't stand were racists and organized minorities. Trans* Activist takes this to be proof of a moral arc uniting the civil rights movement, third wave feminists, and trans* activism. It may instead be an illustration that these tactics are despicable no matter what cause they advance, a point lost only on those who immediately stand to benefit from them (and only until they are on the other side).
5) Serious Scholar points out in his second and third arguments that this is really not about creating 'safe spaces,' but establishing just who will rule and building the mechanisms to ensure their cultural domination. Trans* Activist is totally on board with that, committing to being on the forefront of 'pushing the line in the sand.'
As we see it in the press, this looks like a silly fight over what may be chiefly invented offenses. On reflective analysis, though, it proves to be a highly consequential struggle -- one that will ultimately have consequences for us, given these left-leaning thinkers' control over the elite universities from which our leadership is so often, and so unfortunately, drawn.
One of the two -- which came recommended by Armed Liberal of Winds of Change fame, for those of you who have been around the blogosphere long enough to remember him -- is from the perspective of a serious scholar who has a nuanced view. The other is by a trans* activist who wants to yell and curse at feminists who won't support what trans* activists are doing, preferring to take their feminism, ah, "straight."
This activist, whose first piece is angry in places, went on to write a follow-up piece responding thoughtfully to critics. The original piece actually does have some interesting insights, though, so it's worth reading as well.
To distill the basic structure of the debate you get by reading the arguments together:
1) Serious Scholar and Trans* Activist both think they're talking to the left. They aren't really considering our perspectives at all. They aren't fighting against us, in other words, but for domination of what good leftists think.
2) Serious Scholar and Trans* Activist agree that this isn't really about free speech v. political correctness. There are some kinds of conduct they think should be beyond the pale -- blackface frat parties are one example, allowing a serious debate about stoning gays to death is another. This is a point on which I suspect we would disgree: blackface frat parties are the epitome of bad taste, but probably so obviously so that banning them would do less good than letting people suffer the humiliation of having proven to have associated with such a thing; whereas a debate between feminists and Islamists on the merits of radical Islam is something the colleges could very usefully be having right now.
3) Serious Scholar is interested in a much broader set of problems than the Trans* Activist. Serious Scholar points out that there is an important conversation to be had about 'cultural appropriation,' because it's a trap that its advocates are falling into: studies in British colonialism show how encouraging just such mechanisms was used as a method of control over unruly minorities.
4) Trans* Activist points out that many of the feminists fighting against trans* people used the same tactics in their own day, some thirty or so years ago. The tactics were not popular then, nor ten or twenty years before that when it was the most radical black activists using the tactics (and there were some quite radical ones, though today the Civil Rights Movement is almost always painted in glossy hues and the memory of Dr. King). This was true even on the left: Edward Abbey once wrote that the only two kinds of people he couldn't stand were racists and organized minorities. Trans* Activist takes this to be proof of a moral arc uniting the civil rights movement, third wave feminists, and trans* activism. It may instead be an illustration that these tactics are despicable no matter what cause they advance, a point lost only on those who immediately stand to benefit from them (and only until they are on the other side).
5) Serious Scholar points out in his second and third arguments that this is really not about creating 'safe spaces,' but establishing just who will rule and building the mechanisms to ensure their cultural domination. Trans* Activist is totally on board with that, committing to being on the forefront of 'pushing the line in the sand.'
As we see it in the press, this looks like a silly fight over what may be chiefly invented offenses. On reflective analysis, though, it proves to be a highly consequential struggle -- one that will ultimately have consequences for us, given these left-leaning thinkers' control over the elite universities from which our leadership is so often, and so unfortunately, drawn.
Veteran's Day: The Untold Story of the Iraq that is Flourishing
Michael Rubin writes from his travels in southern and Kurdish Iraq.
U.S. veterans should be proud about what they accomplished in Iraq. They planted the seeds but did not stick around to witness fully what they sowed. If they could visit Basra, Karbala, Najaf, Amarah, and Nasiriyah, they would be proud of what they would see — a society getting off the ground. Corniches, parks, and playgrounds; commerce; solar power to supplement the still-poor electric grid; and even electronic billboards advertising the latest wares. They would see Iraqis embrace religion, but still value independence from their neighbors (and, indeed, complain bitterly about Iranian arrogance and the corrosive effect of Tehran’s dumping of cheap goods). They would see children playing without fear, and learning without indoctrination. Iraq still faces massive problems (more on that in the coming days) but, most importantly, they would hear people express gratitude. It is well deserved.
Happy Veteran's Day, Warriors
All the best of the Hall to all of you who served in America's noble causes.
Have the Faith You Claim To In The Free Market, Rubio
Rubio, who really does not approve of people studying philosophy as he also ran it down repeatedly at the Red State Gathering, said during tonight's debate that 'welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and fewer philosophers.' Rubio is an Aristotelian without knowing it, because unlike the Platonists he divorces practical wisdom from theoretical contemplation. The problem with not studying philosophy is that you can't escape it. If you aren't trained, you simply are driven by ideas that come from you know not where, and which bear consequences you have not considered.
For example, consider his claims about the market. If the first assumption is true -- that welders make more money than philosophers -- isn't the second principle analytic? Not only is the market aware of the need, it's adjusted compensation accordingly. Won't, then, the market make sure we get the welders we need without us having to do anything at all?
Why are we even talking about this? Because he wants to meddle with the market, of course, by pushing vocational programs. He thinks government meddling is the answer to a market problem: we value welders more, and even pay them more, yet for some reason our schools keep producing philosophers instead of welders.
I'm not sure that the first assumption is true, actually: welders make very wide ranges in salary depending on their specialty. Philosophers also vary widely depending on their institution's prestige and funding. Although right now the move to make faculty into adjunct rather than tenure-track has really depressed compensation, those who do succeed at gaining a tenure track position do quite well. Some welders make great money, and some don't. I'm the grandson of a welder. He didn't get rich. He did survive the great depression, though I gather for a long time the only welding people would pay for was the crafting of whiskey stills. But people would pay for that.
On the other hand, the reason to study philosophy isn't so you'll become rich. It's because, as Aristotle says at the beginning of the Metaphysics, "All men by nature desire to know." It's nice if that turns into a paying gig, but it's a universal claim: all desire to know, so it's a study that is proper to any sort of person at all. Not everyone has an equal capacity for it, but everyone has some capacity, and some natural drive and desire for it. We want to know, we want to understand, and we want to pursue this knowledge as well as we can. Philosophy is not the only road these days, but it is the ground of all of the roads, and it is their meeting place.
UPDATE: You know who has a degree in philosophy (and Medieval studies)? Carly Fiorina.
For example, consider his claims about the market. If the first assumption is true -- that welders make more money than philosophers -- isn't the second principle analytic? Not only is the market aware of the need, it's adjusted compensation accordingly. Won't, then, the market make sure we get the welders we need without us having to do anything at all?
Why are we even talking about this? Because he wants to meddle with the market, of course, by pushing vocational programs. He thinks government meddling is the answer to a market problem: we value welders more, and even pay them more, yet for some reason our schools keep producing philosophers instead of welders.
I'm not sure that the first assumption is true, actually: welders make very wide ranges in salary depending on their specialty. Philosophers also vary widely depending on their institution's prestige and funding. Although right now the move to make faculty into adjunct rather than tenure-track has really depressed compensation, those who do succeed at gaining a tenure track position do quite well. Some welders make great money, and some don't. I'm the grandson of a welder. He didn't get rich. He did survive the great depression, though I gather for a long time the only welding people would pay for was the crafting of whiskey stills. But people would pay for that.
On the other hand, the reason to study philosophy isn't so you'll become rich. It's because, as Aristotle says at the beginning of the Metaphysics, "All men by nature desire to know." It's nice if that turns into a paying gig, but it's a universal claim: all desire to know, so it's a study that is proper to any sort of person at all. Not everyone has an equal capacity for it, but everyone has some capacity, and some natural drive and desire for it. We want to know, we want to understand, and we want to pursue this knowledge as well as we can. Philosophy is not the only road these days, but it is the ground of all of the roads, and it is their meeting place.
UPDATE: You know who has a degree in philosophy (and Medieval studies)? Carly Fiorina.
Governor-Elect of Kentucky Cites the 10th Amendment
Asked about the President's war on the coal industry, Matt Bevin says he'll tell the Feds to back off claims to powers that aren't specifically cited in the Constitution. "We will tell the EPA... to pound sand."
That's What We Do
After nearly 75 years in the U.S., I still am stirred by the thought of American freedom—so precious and thrilling that I cannot imagine life without it.It's Ten November. Happy Birthday, Marines. Tomorrow is Veteran's Day.
Shoot something. Knife something. Don't forget how we became free, and how we have stayed free.
Who Goes Nazi?
Mr. Foster reminds me of a piece I greatly admire, one that bears re-reading from time to time. Which one is you?
H is an historian and biographer. He is American of Dutch ancestry born and reared in the Middle West. He has been in love with America all his life. He can recite whole chapters of Thoreau and volumes of American poetry, from Emerson to Steve Benet. He knows Jefferson’s letters, Hamilton’s papers, Lincoln’s speeches. He is a collector of early American furniture, lives in New England, runs a farm for a hobby and doesn’t lose much money on it, and loathes parties like this one. He has a ribald and manly sense of humor, is unconventional and lost a college professorship because of a love affair. Afterward he married the lady and has lived happily ever afterward as the wages of sin.
H has never doubted his own authentic Americanism for one instant. This is his country, and he knows it from Acadia to Zenith. His ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and in all the wars since. He is certainly an intellectual, but an intellectual smelling slightly of cow barns and damp tweeds. He is the most good-natured and genial man alive, but if anyone ever tries to make this country over into an imitation of Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, or Petain’s systems H will grab a gun and fight. Though H’s liberalism will not permit him to say it, it is his secret conviction that nobody whose ancestors have not been in this country since before the Civil War really understands America or would really fight for it against Nazism or any other foreign ism in a showdown.
But H is wrong. There is one other person in the room who would fight alongside H and he is not even an American citizen. He is a young German emigre, whom I brought along to the party.... The people in the room think he is not an American, but he is more American than almost any of them. He has discovered America and his spirit is the spirit of the pioneers. He is furious with America because it does not realize its strength and beauty and power.
A Coward Thanks You
He really appreciates how you let him mock you without consequences.
Zuckerman argues that society would not fall apart but rather thrive if religion were taken out of the equation. He points to religion as a societal ill and strongly implies society would be better off without God....It's all right, chief. I can afford to be tolerant. My God's too big for you to hurt with words.
He added a statement of thanks that he was able to speak and write negatively about these religions without worrying for his life or that of his three children.
"I would never write the same kind of stuff that I do about certain religions—Judaism, Christianity, LDS—that I would about Islam because of just straight up fear," Zuckerman said.
Sit, Boy... er...
“We took to each other pretty quickly,” said Spc. Jeffrey Grassley, a military policeman and dog handler partnered with Tracker. “I mean, it’s a little weird that they tell me to call him a ‘him,’ since he’s obviously a female dog, and there was that time last month when he was laid up for a few days after he gave birth to a litter of puppies, but we’ve really forged a close working friendship.”
...
Some of the more traditional, conservative elements within the Army might not be so ready to embrace such a radical change, however.
The all-male caisson horses of the 3rd Infantry Regiment, or “The Old Guard,” long entrusted with the solemn honor of bearing the caskets of fallen warriors and deceased U.S. presidents, have drawn fire for refusing to allow female or openly LGBT horses within its ranks, and the regiment’s command team is unapologetic about that fact.
Jimbo: 13 Hours Is Going To Be Awesome
Jim has been following the Benghazi thing much closer than I have been. He has a piece on it today in Town Hall.
Politics & Science
They mix, but not well.
Isaac Newton had argued that there was a universal force of gravity, the incessant tugging of one body on another. But Einstein argued that there was no “force” of gravity at all. Space and time were as wobbly as a trampoline; they could warp, bend or distend in the presence of massive objects like the sun....As we approach Veteran's Day, which was originally Armistice Day, it's worth noting some of the other pitfalls for Einstein that the story mentioned. Some of his earliest adopters might have done more, and more quickly, were they not held in POW camps by the other side -- or had they not died in the war.
Just months after Eddington’s announcement, right-wing political opportunists in war-ravaged Germany began to organize raucous anti-Einstein rallies. Only an effete Jew, they argued, could remove “force” from modern physics; those of true Aryan spirit, they went on, shared an intuitive sense of “force” from generations of working the land.
A Banner Day for Truth
Our would-be cultural overlords are having a field day.
One: "Politico Admits Fabricating A Hit Piece On Ben Carson."
One: "Politico Admits Fabricating A Hit Piece On Ben Carson."
There were at least five major problems with the story:Two: "Student admits creating racist post that sparked Berkeley walkout."
* The headline was completely false
* The subhed was also completely false
* The opening paragraph was false false false
* The substance of the piece was missing key exonerating information
* The article demonstrated confusion about service academy admissions and benefits
A racist message posted to a computer at Berkeley High School set off a 2,000-student walkout and protest Thursday. A student at the school admitted to posting the message, which referred to the Ku Klux Klan, used derogatory language related to African Americans and threatened a “public lynching” on Dec. 9, officials said.Three: "In reversal, Obama says he lived with uncle."
President Obama acknowledged Thursday that he lived with his Kenyan uncle for a brief period in the 1980s while preparing to attend Harvard Law School, contradicting a statement more than two years ago that the White House had no record of the two ever meeting.
Their relationship came into question Tuesday at the deportation hearing of the president’s uncle, Onyango Obama, in Boston immigration court. His uncle had lived in the United States illegally since the 1970s and revealed for the first time in testimony that his famous nephew had stayed at his Cambridge apartment for about three weeks. At the time, Onyango Obama was here illegally and fighting deportation.
And more
Another birthday video someone sent me on Facebook--this is the only reasonable purpose of Facebook, by the way:
Happy Birthday to Me
These things have been on the market for at least two years. How is it possible that I have never heard of them before?
This may be the "COOLEST" Birthday Candle I've ever seen! I found them here on Amazon too: http://amzn.to/1LM0Mbr
Posted by ISave "A 2 Z" on Sunday, September 14, 2014
"Partners for Peace"
So apparently the Pentagon's new concept for the Taliban is still pretty new...
Two days before a devastating U.S. strike on a hospital in Afghanistan, a top aide to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked Doctors Without Borders if Taliban militants were “holed up” there or at the charity’s other facilities.
Carter Malkasian, a special advisor to Gen. Joseph Dunford, the highest ranking U.S. military officer, sent the query in an email that also inquired about the safety of the group’s personnel, according to Capt. Greg Hicks, a spokesman for Dunford.
Doctors Without Borders replied that the hospital staffers were “working at full capacity” and that the facility was “full of patients, including wounded Taliban combatants,” the medical aid group said in a report Thursday.
"Our officers make a living trying to stop violence, but surprise is not out of the question."
I mean, he did clarify that the harm they intend to cause is "economic," but that's quite a statement to come out of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Fairness
According to an email I just got, as I seem to be on absolutely everyone's mailing lists these days:
Sen. Warren just announced a plan to fix that and expand Social Security. She's proposing the Seniors And Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act, which would give 70 million Americans an emergency benefit increase of about $580 -- that's 3.9% for 2016, the same raise that the big CEOs got last year.What on earth makes anyone think that we can afford to give 70 million people "the same raise" that "big CEOs" get?
Hillary for Prison 2016
The NDA she signed is now public. As of course it does, it specified her responsibility to include avoiding "negligent handling" and her personal responsibility to know whether or not the information she was handling was classified.
The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.
“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NDA.
According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such.
“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.”
Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008.
Uh, Guys....
The US Department of Defence has said that it’s no longer conducting counter-terrorism operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan because it views the group as an important partner in its efforts for restoring peace in the war-ravaged country....You know, we did reconciliation in Iraq, too. We didn't reconcile al Qaeda in Iraq with the government. We reconciled former members or allies of al Qaeda in Iraq or the Ba'ath party to the government, as a means of cementing the victory over al Qaeda in Iraq and the Ba'athists. There's a subtle but important difference.
“We actually view the Taliban as being an important partner in a peaceful Afghan-led reconciliation process. We are not actively targeting the Taliban,” [Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis] added.
A "Bit" Blunt?
Ran Baratz, who was tapped by Netanyahu as Israel's next "media czar," once criticized Obama for the president's response to the prime minister's planned speech before Congress against the Iran nuclear deal.I guess at least we know where he stands.
"Allow me to be a bit blunt, which is a break from my usual moderation," Baratz wrote. "This is what modern anti-Semitism in a liberal Western country looks like. And, of course, it comes with a great deal of tolerance and understanding for Islamic anti-Semitism. The tolerance and understanding is so great that [Obama] is willing to give it a nuclear bomb."
...
In his column for the Hebrew online outlet MIDA, Baratz wrote: "To Kerry's credit, it should be noted that there is no Miss America around who could say what he said any better. This is the time to wish the secretary of state good luck, and to count down the days with the hope that someone over there at the State Department will wake up and begin to see the world through the eyes of a person whose mental age exceeds 12."
BLM Affiliates Put Out A Policy Agenda
So, on the one hand I have been critical of the Black Lives Matters movement's essential strategy, to whit, that of breaking the law in order to gain attention for its agenda. I think that strategy is doomed to failure as a means of improving the problem set that it treats, as it obliges the police to take enforcement action against ever more people -- and the more aggressive the lawbreaking, the more aggressive the enforcement action is going to become in turn. You can't get to the place where the police learn to work with you if you're forcing them to either fail to do their duty or else to use force against you.
On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to a large part of their claims. Police militarization of equipment and training is a problem. It puts lives at risk needlessly by adopting a posture in which lethal force is an option early. The loss of the "peace officer" mentality that looks for solutions that regain and strengthen the common peace, in favor of a "law enforcement" mentality that merely acts to enforce the law, has damaged the police as much as it has damaged anyone. The use of the police as revenue collection agents, coupled with the multiplication of (increasingly trivial) offenses for which one can be fined, is harmful to the common peace and lawful order. It undermines public trust in the institution of the police, and that ends up also harming the police as well as the nation as a whole. Likewise, as the Waco situation shows (in a context in which race is a non-factor, as essentially everyone is white), genuinely independent review of police actions can be a helpful control against the impulse not to come clean when you make a serious mistake.
So, while I think they need a completely different strategy -- one of obeying the law scrupulously while pushing their agenda -- I'm open to hearing their policy ideas. An affiliated group has just released an agenda detailing several.
About half of them sound good to me, and the other half I think aren't so good. Broken windows policing is one I'm divided on. On the one hand, I'm not convinced it doesn't work, as demonstrated especially in once-dangerous urban areas in New York. I wonder if we couldn't use more of it in places like the south side of Chicago. On the other hand, it may be that there is a point of diminishing returns past which the policy should be allowed to slide -- a little -- in the interest of greater peace and trust between the police and the community at large.
I'm curious to hear thoughtful responses to it all.
On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to a large part of their claims. Police militarization of equipment and training is a problem. It puts lives at risk needlessly by adopting a posture in which lethal force is an option early. The loss of the "peace officer" mentality that looks for solutions that regain and strengthen the common peace, in favor of a "law enforcement" mentality that merely acts to enforce the law, has damaged the police as much as it has damaged anyone. The use of the police as revenue collection agents, coupled with the multiplication of (increasingly trivial) offenses for which one can be fined, is harmful to the common peace and lawful order. It undermines public trust in the institution of the police, and that ends up also harming the police as well as the nation as a whole. Likewise, as the Waco situation shows (in a context in which race is a non-factor, as essentially everyone is white), genuinely independent review of police actions can be a helpful control against the impulse not to come clean when you make a serious mistake.
So, while I think they need a completely different strategy -- one of obeying the law scrupulously while pushing their agenda -- I'm open to hearing their policy ideas. An affiliated group has just released an agenda detailing several.
About half of them sound good to me, and the other half I think aren't so good. Broken windows policing is one I'm divided on. On the one hand, I'm not convinced it doesn't work, as demonstrated especially in once-dangerous urban areas in New York. I wonder if we couldn't use more of it in places like the south side of Chicago. On the other hand, it may be that there is a point of diminishing returns past which the policy should be allowed to slide -- a little -- in the interest of greater peace and trust between the police and the community at large.
I'm curious to hear thoughtful responses to it all.
Bill of... "Rights"?
According to the Declaration of Independence, God endowed human beings with certain inalienable rights -- that is, rights that you cannot get rid of even of you should choose to do so. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as also property which was only omitted from the draft after substantial argument about what it meant for slavery. (What did "liberty" mean for slavery?)
According to a bunch of illegal immigrants called United We Stay, they have rights as well to free health care, free school, and free citizenship even though they broke the law in entering the country and remaining here. They also say they have a right to have us stop enforcing our laws by deporting them.
I'm a little fuzzy on the philosophical authority for the claim. I get the claim from God, or from natural rights, or from positive law justified by democratic participation in a polity via citizenship. This is a "human rights" claim, but surely not one anyone can take seriously -- otherwise, we should all have the right to move anywhere we want and be provided for by whoever happens to be there. Not only is that not workable, such a principle would rapidly destroy anywhere nice enough to justify moving to it.
It's what Kant would call a conflict of the will: just because enough of us live by the maxim, the good that maxim seeks to obtain is destroyed. One of his examples, as I recall, is theft: theft as a maxim destroys itself in just this way, as what the maxim to steal hopes to gain is property, but if enough people steal your property becomes worthless as you can't hang onto it long enough to use it. Such a maxim can't be justified simply because of this basic flaw in its internal logic.
According to a bunch of illegal immigrants called United We Stay, they have rights as well to free health care, free school, and free citizenship even though they broke the law in entering the country and remaining here. They also say they have a right to have us stop enforcing our laws by deporting them.
I'm a little fuzzy on the philosophical authority for the claim. I get the claim from God, or from natural rights, or from positive law justified by democratic participation in a polity via citizenship. This is a "human rights" claim, but surely not one anyone can take seriously -- otherwise, we should all have the right to move anywhere we want and be provided for by whoever happens to be there. Not only is that not workable, such a principle would rapidly destroy anywhere nice enough to justify moving to it.
It's what Kant would call a conflict of the will: just because enough of us live by the maxim, the good that maxim seeks to obtain is destroyed. One of his examples, as I recall, is theft: theft as a maxim destroys itself in just this way, as what the maxim to steal hopes to gain is property, but if enough people steal your property becomes worthless as you can't hang onto it long enough to use it. Such a maxim can't be justified simply because of this basic flaw in its internal logic.
Ought Implies Can
What do you mean, one ought not to be a corrupt official?
“It’s impossible, absolutely impossible,” argued defense lawyer Steven Molo, “for a member of the Assembly to . . . do the job that a person in the Assembly does and not have some sort of conflict of interest.The Post is not impressed with the defense. Well, actually, they are -- they're impressed with the gall it takes to forward it as a defense.
“That may make you uncomfortable,” he added, “but that is the system New York has chosen, and it is not a crime.”
A Eulogy for a Hated Man
Ahmad Chalabi died this week of a heart attack. He is one of the most agreed-upon villains in DC circles. Democrats hate him for having fooled Clinton. Republicans hate him for having suckered W. In spite of his reputation as a con-man extraordinaire, however, Chalabi is a very plausible hero to millions of Shi'ite Iraqis: his tireless campaign to convince Washington of Saddam's WMD program is what brought the US to Iraq, and removed Saddam from their throats.
One of those writes in his memory.
One of those writes in his memory.
Chalabi’s most revealing, and most cited, soliloquy from February 2004 goes: “We are heroes in error. As far as we’re concerned we’ve been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We’re ready to fall on our swords if he wants.” He improvised the “heroes in error” bit on the fly. The rest of the scripting was mine. He probably shouldn’t have read out a 27 year-old’s snarky comeback to drive the plot....The rest of the eulogy is worth reading, if only better to understand what has passed before our eyes.
I broke with him in September 2004. I have never discussed the reasons for that break, neither in person nor in print. Chalabi’s very human and personal foibles put stress on our saint-disciple relationship. When I caught him lying to me, because he didn’t want to see himself through my newly-opened eyes (another very human thing), the break became inevitable. He often cited a line from the Quran, in the words of immortal saint al-Khidhir (Elijah, I guess) to Moses, which paraphrased into English goes something like, “Didn’t I tell you that you wouldn’t have the stomach for me?"
Commenting on Your Co-Workers' Appearance
You may have been misinformed that making a big deal about your co-workers' appearance is inappropriate. It turns out, it's absolutely key to your success at work.
At least, if your boss is Hillary Clinton. And you're unfailingly flattering.
At least, if your boss is Hillary Clinton. And you're unfailingly flattering.
Solutions for non-believers
The cool thing about markets is that they can solve problems even for people who are deeply suspicious of markets' supposedly cold indifference to altruism.
Gun Control Test Vote: VA Senate
Strike one.
You think they'll figure this out before it's too late?
Related news: gun sales back at record highs, six months running.
You think they'll figure this out before it's too late?
Related news: gun sales back at record highs, six months running.
Shotgun Boogie
So, Ted Cruz went hunting, as candidates do in election years, and...
Likewise, the muzzle rule applies to firearms except when you have personally checked them right now to ensure they are unloaded. Otherwise, how could you transport one to wherever you were going to hunt? You couldn't drive your car with the thing stored in the trunk without the muzzle becoming pointed at things it shouldn't were it loaded.
Fortunately, in addition to the four rules of gun safety, there is another method that is "almost entirely capable of preventing accidental shootings," which is to ensure the firearm is not loaded. Without ammunition in it, a firearm is quite inert.
The most amusing thing about this to me is that the same story ran in 2008 about then-Governor Palin, who was photographed holding a shotgun with the breech open (in this case, not over her shoulder but under her arm). "Is that even the right way to hold a rifle?" demanded critics. "Can't you shoot your foot off like that?"
Turns out that you really can't. But hey, let's have a song.
Staunch gun rights advocate Ted Cruz is here seen holding a shotgun while being interviewed by CNN. Can you see what he’s doing wrong? That’s right, he’s violating the first two rules of gun safety.Those four rules are good, but the first one is properly "Treat all guns as if they are loaded, until you have personally checked it right now to be sure it is unloaded." After all, you couldn't disassemble a firearm to clean it if you could never treat it as if it were unloaded. Cruz personally knows his firearm is unloaded because the breech is open and empty, as we can all plainly see in real time.
When you learn to shoot, apply for a hunting or carry license and any time you’re at a gun range, there’s four basic rules of gun safety that — and this is impressed on you very strongly — must be observed at all times:
1) Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
2) Never point a firearm at something you’re not willing to destroy.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
4) Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Properly observed, these rules are almost entirely capable of preventing accidental shootings.
Likewise, the muzzle rule applies to firearms except when you have personally checked them right now to ensure they are unloaded. Otherwise, how could you transport one to wherever you were going to hunt? You couldn't drive your car with the thing stored in the trunk without the muzzle becoming pointed at things it shouldn't were it loaded.
Fortunately, in addition to the four rules of gun safety, there is another method that is "almost entirely capable of preventing accidental shootings," which is to ensure the firearm is not loaded. Without ammunition in it, a firearm is quite inert.
The most amusing thing about this to me is that the same story ran in 2008 about then-Governor Palin, who was photographed holding a shotgun with the breech open (in this case, not over her shoulder but under her arm). "Is that even the right way to hold a rifle?" demanded critics. "Can't you shoot your foot off like that?"
Turns out that you really can't. But hey, let's have a song.
America in 2016, As Viewed from Classical Athens
Plato, in Laws III, talks about the two sorts of ruin that afflicted Persia and Athens. It strikes a familiar chord on both terms. How familiar does this sound, when thinking of the corruption of the Clintons or the endless regulation of the Obama faction?
Who will enforce these new laws in any case? Will the people they want to fight for them comply? Will the police, whom they have hated upon ruthlessly and horribly for more than a year? Will the military, which is drawn in plurality from the part of the country they hate most ruthlessly and horribly of all?
As for the right, or what passes for it among common Americans today, the situation is a wave of support for... a reality-TV judge.
They love Trump because he is bold in just this way: loudly, fearlessly, and in ignorance. This is the last power they sometimes feel they have, to judge as he does. They want to believe in it.
There is a real danger that he will win. There is a very powerful wind at his back. There is a despair eating the heart of middle aged Americans without college. When we see a demographic collapse brought on by suicide, alcohol and drugs, unheard of except among Russian men after the fall of the Soviet Union, we know we are talking about something much more powerful than a passing fancy. It is the pain of a people who have come to believe that their lives are worse than wasted, who are ashamed to live without work or on government aid, who are in pain from finding themselves useless and without a place or a point. They are not only hurt, but righteously angry.
This has been brought on by the pressures against this class of our fellow Americans brought by those who support massive immigration and globalization, either because they hoped to fundamentally change the nature of America, or because they sought campaign donations from corporations that benefit from cheaper labor. It is the fault of those who have ensured that all new jobs since the start of the recession have gone to immigrants. They have called down this whirlwind.
I do not distrust my fellow Americans, especially not the poor and downtrodden members of this class, who have suffered so much at the hands of those who dare to think themselves their betters. I feel a great loyalty to them, and am angry at how they have been betrayed by the government -- of both parties -- which owed them fellowship and loyalty. It is only that it is hard to think clearly in pain and anger, as I know too well myself.
We remarked that the Persians grew worse and worse. And we affirm the reason of this to have been, that they too much diminished the freedom of the people, and introduced too much of despotism, and so destroyed friendship and community of feeling. And when there is an end of these, no longer do the governors govern on behalf of their subjects or of the people, but on behalf of themselves; and if they think that they can gain ever so small an advantage for themselves, they devastate cities, and send fire and desolation among friendly races. And as they hate ruthlessly and horribly, so are they hated; and when they want the people to fight for them, they find no community of feeling or willingness to risk their lives on their behalf[.]As this faction pursues further restriction on our ancient liberties, now on guns as earlier on freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of association, and politically-incorrect expression, they find there is no trust left among the people. Why can we not discuss 'common sense gun regulations'? Because no one can trust that such regulations are not a back door to confiscation. We are unable to reason together because of decades of bad faith.
Who will enforce these new laws in any case? Will the people they want to fight for them comply? Will the police, whom they have hated upon ruthlessly and horribly for more than a year? Will the military, which is drawn in plurality from the part of the country they hate most ruthlessly and horribly of all?
As for the right, or what passes for it among common Americans today, the situation is a wave of support for... a reality-TV judge.
[A]s time went on, the poets themselves introduced the reign of vulgar and lawless innovation.... And by composing such licentious works, and adding to them words as licentious, they have inspired the multitude with lawlessness and boldness, and made them fancy that they can judge for themselves about melody and song. And in this way the theatres from being mute have become vocal, as though they had understanding of good and bad in music and poetry; and instead of an aristocracy, an evil sort of theatrocracy has grown up. For if the democracy which judged had only consisted of educated persons, no fatal harm would have been done; but in music there first arose the universal conceit of omniscience and general lawlessness;-freedom came following afterwards, and men, fancying that they knew what they did not know, had no longer any fear, and the absence of fear begets shamelessness.Donald Trump is a theatrocrat if ever there was one. His judgments are judgments of the sort Plato fixes his gaze upon here, and he has like the theatrocrat of old swayed the audience into believing that they can judge as well. Watching these shows, and rendering judgments as if they knew what they were talking about, is now the pastime of millions. I have seen only enough of these shows to know that everyone in the audience is boldly stating their opinion about which chef did best in the competition -- though they have never studied cooking, and never tasted the food.
They love Trump because he is bold in just this way: loudly, fearlessly, and in ignorance. This is the last power they sometimes feel they have, to judge as he does. They want to believe in it.
There is a real danger that he will win. There is a very powerful wind at his back. There is a despair eating the heart of middle aged Americans without college. When we see a demographic collapse brought on by suicide, alcohol and drugs, unheard of except among Russian men after the fall of the Soviet Union, we know we are talking about something much more powerful than a passing fancy. It is the pain of a people who have come to believe that their lives are worse than wasted, who are ashamed to live without work or on government aid, who are in pain from finding themselves useless and without a place or a point. They are not only hurt, but righteously angry.
This has been brought on by the pressures against this class of our fellow Americans brought by those who support massive immigration and globalization, either because they hoped to fundamentally change the nature of America, or because they sought campaign donations from corporations that benefit from cheaper labor. It is the fault of those who have ensured that all new jobs since the start of the recession have gone to immigrants. They have called down this whirlwind.
I do not distrust my fellow Americans, especially not the poor and downtrodden members of this class, who have suffered so much at the hands of those who dare to think themselves their betters. I feel a great loyalty to them, and am angry at how they have been betrayed by the government -- of both parties -- which owed them fellowship and loyalty. It is only that it is hard to think clearly in pain and anger, as I know too well myself.
"Get Over It"
Hillary Clinton gives some advice to Africa.
It's not that different from the advice the President gave when he spoke in Kenya.
If you are an American, you should ask yourself: why are they giving you different advice?
It's not that different from the advice the President gave when he spoke in Kenya.
If you are an American, you should ask yourself: why are they giving you different advice?
Asking for her hand. A lesson.
So normally, I don't bother complaining about music or other elements of popular culture. Partly because it does no good, but mostly because the general solution is simple, change the station. But There is a song out there that annoys me. Less because it is bad (though that is also true) but mostly for the message it passes along to young men. You are welcome to give it a listen here, though I don't recommend it save to satisfy curiosity, but I will include the relevant lyrics below.
Kant and Warning Labels
If I were crafting a warning label for Kant's works,* it would not read as this one does:
Secondly, the thing you really need to be warned about with Kant is that he doesn't use words like anyone else you know. You're going to encounter a lot of words that you think you recognize from a lifetime of reading, yet when Kant uses them all together they are not going to make any sense. This is because he made up his own language. Even in German, the problem is serious according to friends fluent in that tongue; in translation, it is severe. Assume that any word over two or three syllables is a technical term that means something specific for Kant that it never means for anyone else, and that you need to find out just what that meaning is to understand what he's trying to tell you.
Those are my first and second thoughts. Open Culture comes up with its own:
* (I want credit for avoiding in the headline all the horrible puns suggested by this story: "I Kant Believe This Publisher's Gall" and the like.)
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.First of all, any parents who are reading Kant's critiques with their children deserve our robust congratulations and are in no need of further guidance.
Secondly, the thing you really need to be warned about with Kant is that he doesn't use words like anyone else you know. You're going to encounter a lot of words that you think you recognize from a lifetime of reading, yet when Kant uses them all together they are not going to make any sense. This is because he made up his own language. Even in German, the problem is serious according to friends fluent in that tongue; in translation, it is severe. Assume that any word over two or three syllables is a technical term that means something specific for Kant that it never means for anyone else, and that you need to find out just what that meaning is to understand what he's trying to tell you.
Those are my first and second thoughts. Open Culture comes up with its own:
First, we must point out Wilder Publications’ strange certainty that a hypothetical Kant of today would express his ideas in tolerant and liberal language. The supposition has the effect of patronizing the dead philosopher and of absolving him of any responsibility for his blind spots and prejudices, assuming that he meant well but was simply a blinkered and unfortunate “product” of his time.Homeschoolers, apparently. The assumption that parents will be reading this with their children suggests to me that homeschooling may be a much better form of education than anything else going.
But who’s to say that Kant didn’t damn well mean his comments that offend our sensibilities today, and wouldn’t still mean them now were he somehow resurrected and forced to update his major works?
...
Secondly, who is this edition for?
* (I want credit for avoiding in the headline all the horrible puns suggested by this story: "I Kant Believe This Publisher's Gall" and the like.)
Vortex
Einstein was right again.
Time and space, according to Einstein's theories of relativity, are woven together, forming a four-dimensional fabric called "space-time." The mass of Earth dimples this fabric, much like a heavy person sitting in the middle of a trampoline. Gravity, says Einstein, is simply the motion of objects following the curvaceous lines of the dimple. If Earth were stationary, that would be the end of the story. But Earth is not stationary. Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went to space in 2004 to check.
This Autumn, If It Were a Celtic Punk Song
Although without the clappy happy ending.
Or maybe
Still, my woes are my own danged fault. (Philosophy joke: What does the repentant solipsist say? It's all my fault!)
So, to happy endings ...
President Obama: You Know, We Could Use More Criminals In Government
I mean, I would have thought there to be no shortage.
"Simply because of a mistake" is fair enough, as applied to certain offenses. One might have said, "We shall no longer discriminate against certain kinds of offenses for certain kinds of positions." You could do a double-blind sort of thing with Federal hiring -- they employ enough people to do it -- whereby the first would filter to ensure that the crimes were of the right type to be ignored, and forward the listings stripped of criminal history to the actual hiring committee.
But, no. Instead, we won't consider criminal history... in hiring for government jobs, which come with government power... and somehow this makes sense? Somehow this is a good idea we should all get behind?
Well, you know how on job applications, there's sometimes a little box that asks whether or not you've been convicted of a crime? With the wave of a pen, Obama just ordered that box to be removed from applications for jobs within the federal government, saying, "We can't dismiss people out of hand simply because of a mistake they made in the past."You really can't make this stuff up.
"Simply because of a mistake" is fair enough, as applied to certain offenses. One might have said, "We shall no longer discriminate against certain kinds of offenses for certain kinds of positions." You could do a double-blind sort of thing with Federal hiring -- they employ enough people to do it -- whereby the first would filter to ensure that the crimes were of the right type to be ignored, and forward the listings stripped of criminal history to the actual hiring committee.
But, no. Instead, we won't consider criminal history... in hiring for government jobs, which come with government power... and somehow this makes sense? Somehow this is a good idea we should all get behind?
A Political Philosophy Wrapped in a Rant
This piece is really about the DMV not shining in comparison with the free market -- a point against which none of us are likely to argue -- but it is framed in an interesting account of the state.
And yet here we are.
We need a better account, one that does not look for the evil as bred in the bone, but one that recognizes the evil as a corruption of what was once healthy. It won't lie in the traditional analyses of what went wrong with America -- not in slavery or racism, I mean, for America has proceeded against those evils as resolutely through its history as any diverse nation is likely to do. It is, rather, a turning away from the favoring of the small Aristotelian cells of natural government in favor of a stronger, alien state. It is, likewise, about the turning away from the natural producer of the smaller Aristotelian governments -- the family, and those brotherhoods of table and church that Aristotle describes later in the Politics:
Perhaps it is a good place to begin an inquiry, in any case. There are levels of government and forms of governance that, if it were all to disappear tomorrow, we families would move to come together and re-establish. These levels and forms are healthy. What more?
[B]anditry frequently degenerates into a protection racket, a relatively modest tax on criminal enterprises and non-criminal enterprises alike. Protection rackets have their own challenges: For one thing, you actually do have to provide some protection, mainly from other predators like you. Over the years, economic success and administrative demands eventually transform bands of roving bandits into bands of stationary bandits. One popular theory of the state — one that is pretty well-supported by the historical evidence in the European context — is that this is where governments come from: protection rackets that survive for a long enough period of time that they take on a patina of legitimacy. At some point, Romulus-and-Remus stories are invented to explain that the local Mafiosi have not only historical roots but divine sanction.Cf. Aristotle's account:
The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas 'companions of the cupboard,' and by Epimenides the Cretan, 'companions of the manger.' But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled 'with the same milk.'...I would say that there is a sense in which both are true for America, for example: the frontier was settled by families who came together in marriages and formed ever-stronger communities (Aristotle), with very limited support from a distant government that claimed authority and the right to tax (Williamson). The American Revolution is the elimination of the 'stationary bandits' by the Aristotelian states that had formed on the frontier. So we began in the right way, surely.
When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.
And yet here we are.
We need a better account, one that does not look for the evil as bred in the bone, but one that recognizes the evil as a corruption of what was once healthy. It won't lie in the traditional analyses of what went wrong with America -- not in slavery or racism, I mean, for America has proceeded against those evils as resolutely through its history as any diverse nation is likely to do. It is, rather, a turning away from the favoring of the small Aristotelian cells of natural government in favor of a stronger, alien state. It is, likewise, about the turning away from the natural producer of the smaller Aristotelian governments -- the family, and those brotherhoods of table and church that Aristotle describes later in the Politics:
It is clear then that a state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the prevention of mutual crime and for the sake of exchange. These are conditions without which a state cannot exist; but all of them together do not constitute a state, which is a community of families and aggregations of families in well-being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life. Such a community can only be established among those who live in the same place and intermarry. Hence arise in cities family connections, brotherhoods, common sacrifices, amusements which draw men together. But these are created by friendship, for the will to live together is friendship. The end of the state is the good life, and these are the means towards it. And the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honorable life.I suppose we might say that it is a turning away from the natural toward the artificial, but that wouldn't do for Aristotle: he thought it was the purpose of art to bring to fulfillment and perfection that which nature had, for whatever reason, left incomplete or imperfect.
Perhaps it is a good place to begin an inquiry, in any case. There are levels of government and forms of governance that, if it were all to disappear tomorrow, we families would move to come together and re-establish. These levels and forms are healthy. What more?
OPM
I got a note in the mail today from the Federal Government's Office of Personnel Management, letting me know that my security clearance information was among those stolen in the massive data breach we've read about. They've taken a page from Target -- the store, that favorite of Michelle Obama's -- by offering me three years of free identity theft protection by way of compensation.
Which is all well and good, but -- like the President's own pre-announced withdrawal timeline for his Afghanistan surge -- that only tells the Chinese how long they have to wait before going gangbusters with the stolen data. My personal interests aside, out of a simple concern with national security they ought to flag my data (and all our data that was stolen) forever, not for three years. Whoever stole this stuff knows everything there is to know about where I've lived and worked, has on file personal references from people who have been interviewed in support to the investigation, and so forth. You could obtain any kind of paperwork from the government, or for that matter from private banks, based on what's in that file.
Fair enough if the three years is a stopgap while they put something else in place to ensure that the stolen data can't be used by the hackers, although it's not clear what that "something" might be. Perhaps a marker that anyone affected must be handled on a different basis than past information, should they need new clearances (or loans).
Still, three years is not that long a time. The scale of this breach, targeting as it did those with security clearances, ought to merit a much more permanent and serious response. That's true even if the government only cares about its own security, and not at all about those of us who are personally compromised.
Which is all well and good, but -- like the President's own pre-announced withdrawal timeline for his Afghanistan surge -- that only tells the Chinese how long they have to wait before going gangbusters with the stolen data. My personal interests aside, out of a simple concern with national security they ought to flag my data (and all our data that was stolen) forever, not for three years. Whoever stole this stuff knows everything there is to know about where I've lived and worked, has on file personal references from people who have been interviewed in support to the investigation, and so forth. You could obtain any kind of paperwork from the government, or for that matter from private banks, based on what's in that file.
Fair enough if the three years is a stopgap while they put something else in place to ensure that the stolen data can't be used by the hackers, although it's not clear what that "something" might be. Perhaps a marker that anyone affected must be handled on a different basis than past information, should they need new clearances (or loans).
Still, three years is not that long a time. The scale of this breach, targeting as it did those with security clearances, ought to merit a much more permanent and serious response. That's true even if the government only cares about its own security, and not at all about those of us who are personally compromised.
Once in a lifetime
From Maggie's Farm, images of the desert bloom resulting from historic rains in the driest place on Earth.
That explains it
A retread, but still a Halloween-worthy explanation of the country's economic woes.
But that's a serious allegation!
Apparently nothing can ever come to light that will keep a lot of MSM commentators from expressing uncomprehending shock at the notion that Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi. In this interview, Charlie Rose asks in confused irritation what possible motive she could have had. Rubio gamely replies that it was a campaign tactic in the final weeks of the 2012 presidential election. "But that's a very serious allegation!" Rose stutters, for all the world as if no one had ever brought it to the attention of his colleagues until that moment, or as if they'd have been digging into the matter before now if only they'd known. Rose then tries to argue that Clinton must have been in the dark, because the CIA kept changing its analysis--as if the changes in the talking points in the days following the attack had had anything to do with the untrammeled professional judgment of CIA analysts. You have to wonder how much of this stuff Rose really believes, because it's hard to imagine that at this point he couldn't have made himself aware of the message-machine process during that eventful week, if he were willing to open his eyes. Disagreeing with Rubio's interpretation of the facts I could almost accept, but claiming to be innocent of the controversy is a stretch. Rose acts as if Rubio had suddenly decided to blame the situation on an attack from Mars.
What I rather like about the repeated display, however, is that it gives Rubio yet more opportunities to lay out the evidence to viewers who, like Rose, perhaps are hearing the facts for the first time. A few may become curious.
What I rather like about the repeated display, however, is that it gives Rubio yet more opportunities to lay out the evidence to viewers who, like Rose, perhaps are hearing the facts for the first time. A few may become curious.
Fun to Shoot
Powerline has the right attitude. I'm going to take the day off to enjoy this beautiful fall weather while it lasts. Do some hiking, and then perhaps later...
Taking it back
Bookworm Room's on fire with the videos lately. There's a Democratic Debate Bad Lip Reading video up, but also this PSA applicable to the coming weekend:
Immoderate moderators
Much of the fireworks in last night's debate centered on the media's habit of beclowning itself. The Democratic-operatives-with-a-byline in charge of moderating the debate were supposed to be conducting a session on "economic issues." This is apparently what they think economic issues look like:
- A question about Rubio’s Senate attendance, driven by a newspaper editorial.
- A question about Jeb’s decline in the polls.
- A question about Hewlett-Packard’s stock performance while Carly Fiorina was the CEO.
- A question about Rubio’s family finances and his use of some retirement dollars.
- A question assuming the veracity of the “women earn 77 percent as much as men” canard. Wow. Just wow.
- A question to Ben Carson about Costco’s policy on benefits for employees in same-sex relationships.
- A question to Mike Huckabee about whether Trump has the moral authority to unite America. Wow again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)