Aircraft Designers and Love
Just adding to Eric's AMV, Miyazaki had another movie with a brilliant young aircraft designer falling in love, although the hero of the story is a flying pig.
Saturday Morning AMV
Miyazaki again. Only in Japan could you make an animated romance about an aircraft designer. But I suppose it's all the more interesting for that.
"Reconciliation" Is An Odd Choice of Words
The Senate vote on violating the Constitution was brought under the reconciliation procedures, which are supposed to deal with budget matters. The NRA reports.
Despite the seemingly innocuous title, the bill set up a dramatic showdown over Second Amendment rights.Probably you should let your Senators know how you feel about how they voted, because the issue is likely to come up again.
The bill was brought under budget reconciliation, an expedited legislative procedure for a budget resolution to meet fiscal targets. Under this procedure, the bill required only 51 votes to pass the Senate and was limited to 20 hours of debate. It was also subject to a rule which prohibits non-budget related provisions from being added.
Anti-gun Democrats were nevertheless determined to exploit both the bill and recent tragedies to attach as many gun control amendments as possible. To proceed to debate on these out-of-order amendments, however, they had to reach a supermajority of 60 votes to suspend the rules. The pro-gun Senate you elected held the line. Every anti-gun amendment was defeated.
Long-time Second Amendment opponent Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) offered a far-reaching amendment that would have given the U.S. Attorney General what amounted to a discretionary veto on gun sales to anyone “appropriately suspected” of having some connection to “terrorism.” ...
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) also dredged up his ill-fated ban on private firearm transfers between friends and many family members. That was defeated by a vote of 47-50 – receiving seven votes less than it got two years ago....
In the days leading to the vote, gun prohibitionists and their allies in the media had whipped themselves up to a veritable frenzy. The pressure they brought to bear on the Senate was intense. Nevertheless, cooler heads prevailed, backed by sound research and empirical evidence.
That's Some Edge
Headline: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use 'Anti-Muslim' Speech That 'Edges Toward Violence'"
Apparently the Senate voted on that gun control "proposal" of the President's, that he or any of his agencies be allowed to ban whomever they want from purchasing firearms with no due process. Had Congress gone for it, the courts would have surely thrown it out -- it's a violation of the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments. Of course, being a scholar of Constitutional law he must know this. He proposed it anyway, and got a vote on it because of Senate allies.
The contempt for the Constitution is growing very hard to ignore.
Apparently the Senate voted on that gun control "proposal" of the President's, that he or any of his agencies be allowed to ban whomever they want from purchasing firearms with no due process. Had Congress gone for it, the courts would have surely thrown it out -- it's a violation of the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments. Of course, being a scholar of Constitutional law he must know this. He proposed it anyway, and got a vote on it because of Senate allies.
The contempt for the Constitution is growing very hard to ignore.
What? No Way.
Headline: "Obama is Wrong: Mass Shootings Do Happen Elsewhere, and More Frequently."
Norway had the highest annual death rate, with two mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Macedonia had a rate of 0.38, Serbia 0.28, Slovakia 0.20, Finland 0.14, Belgium 0.14 and the Czech Republic 0.13. The U.S. comes in eighth with 0.095 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Austria and Switzerland are close behind.Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium? Aren't those some of the very countries that we're being told we should emulate as ideal models?
In terms of the frequency of attacks, the U.S. ranks ninth, with 0.09 attacks per million people. Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic all had higher rates.
An Insight Into ClintonWorld
An email from the cache of correspondence Hillary Clinton kept on her private server during her tenure as Secretary of State shows that former aide Anne-Marie Slaughter proposed raising private funds for a Palestinian state. It “might be a crazy idea,” wrote Slaughter, director of the State Department’s policy planning office from 2009-2011, who suggested that a “pledge for Palestine” fundraising drive targeting billionaires “would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state.”... It would also, she wrote, have a “shaming effect” on Israel.
The email provides a peculiar view into ClintonWorld, where the hard work of policy is greased by the kind of really rich people whose money really moves the world. And since billionaires—in the thinking of Clinton apparatchiks like Slaughter—are the arbiters of cosmic morality, how better to embarrass a U.S. ally?
Slaughter’s “crazy idea” isn’t just crazy, it is also probably illegal. U.S. policymakers aren’t supposed to be using their office to raise private funds to reach policy goals, regardless of the policy.
"Alt Right"?
I hadn't heard the term either. The Daily Beast considers it a form of white supremacism, but while I also oppose white supremacism, I suspect their definition of it may be wider than mine.
So, pro:
* 'Neoreactionary' sounds good, though I don't know what she means by it.
* Opposition to immigration is possibly good, depending on what exactly is meant by it -- the USA benefits from some level of immigration of the right kind of people, and whether they are 'Hispanic or Muslim' has nothing to do with whether they are the right kind of people. Give me all the Mexicans or Arabs you can find who are like this guy. We need people who are devoted to the American project.
* By the same token, I'd be happy to support emigration -- for those who aren't devoted to the American project. If there's somewhere you'd rather be, let's help you get there.
* I have no animosity toward Muslims. Most of them are like anyone else. Others are my enemies, by their own choice. I love my enemies.
* Opposition to "multiculturalism" is good. Multiculturalism somehow goes hand in hand with "cultural appropriation." Having people from lots of cultures is great, as long as we can all learn from each other and build something together. The cultural balkanization of American is bad.
* Opposition to political correctness is good. Discourtesy is not good, but anyone who wants to impose speech controls has gone against the spirit of America.
Con:
* "Cuckservative" is the kind of sexualized language that has damaged our politics every time it is deployed. We are supposed to reason together. We cannot do that while we try to reduce ourselves or each other to sexual appetites or the functions of material organs. Even when we're talking about sex in politics, as we must sometimes do, it is best to not to use language that activates sexuality in the mind. It certainly should not be used elsewhere. Explain your objections without it, and not only will your position be stronger, so will the political system out of which a strong argument might produce something.
* It may be obvious by now that I am not a huge supporter of Donald Trump for President.
* Everything in the "good" category could have a bad aspect: opposition to immigration out of racism, for example; xenophobia rather than mere disdain for being told how to live by the PC or multi-culti factions.
So, do any of you have anything to do with this 'alt-right' movement? How do you find it on balance? More like the good, or more like the bad?
What Roy left out of his interview is that the alt right is a neoreactionary effort comprised of right-wing agitators brought together by their opposition to immigration (in particular, Hispanic and Muslim immigration), animosity to Muslims, and general opposition to multiculturalism (they call it cultural Marxism). They hate political correctness, they like Donald Trump, and they love dubbing their enemies “cuckservatives.”In fairness, the fact that people on the Left are screaming those things is no reason to think it's plausibly characteristic of the movement. These days it is said to be racist to deny the existence of races: "colorblind" is supposedly a code-word for practices that refuse to appropriately take color into account.
“Our enemies scream the usual ‘RACIST’, ‘WHITE SUPREMACIST’ and ‘NAZI,’” reads a post on alt right blog RamZPaul. “We just laugh and go forward.”
So, pro:
* 'Neoreactionary' sounds good, though I don't know what she means by it.
* Opposition to immigration is possibly good, depending on what exactly is meant by it -- the USA benefits from some level of immigration of the right kind of people, and whether they are 'Hispanic or Muslim' has nothing to do with whether they are the right kind of people. Give me all the Mexicans or Arabs you can find who are like this guy. We need people who are devoted to the American project.
* By the same token, I'd be happy to support emigration -- for those who aren't devoted to the American project. If there's somewhere you'd rather be, let's help you get there.
* I have no animosity toward Muslims. Most of them are like anyone else. Others are my enemies, by their own choice. I love my enemies.
* Opposition to "multiculturalism" is good. Multiculturalism somehow goes hand in hand with "cultural appropriation." Having people from lots of cultures is great, as long as we can all learn from each other and build something together. The cultural balkanization of American is bad.
* Opposition to political correctness is good. Discourtesy is not good, but anyone who wants to impose speech controls has gone against the spirit of America.
Con:
* "Cuckservative" is the kind of sexualized language that has damaged our politics every time it is deployed. We are supposed to reason together. We cannot do that while we try to reduce ourselves or each other to sexual appetites or the functions of material organs. Even when we're talking about sex in politics, as we must sometimes do, it is best to not to use language that activates sexuality in the mind. It certainly should not be used elsewhere. Explain your objections without it, and not only will your position be stronger, so will the political system out of which a strong argument might produce something.
* It may be obvious by now that I am not a huge supporter of Donald Trump for President.
* Everything in the "good" category could have a bad aspect: opposition to immigration out of racism, for example; xenophobia rather than mere disdain for being told how to live by the PC or multi-culti factions.
So, do any of you have anything to do with this 'alt-right' movement? How do you find it on balance? More like the good, or more like the bad?
No!
Headline: 'Costs, Spending Explode Under Obamacare.'
So spending is way up, but now most people have huge deductibles? I wonder why the economy is so sluggish?
So spending is way up, but now most people have huge deductibles? I wonder why the economy is so sluggish?
A Moment of Clarity
It's worth celebrating a moment of refreshing honesty, in which pretenses of "common sense" are set aside, and a man speaks his real mind.
Still, just because I disagree with everything about his proposal and a lot about his analysis, let's celebrate his honesty. This is the real goal: large scale confiscation of firearms, as well as completely eliminating immigration restrictions and instituting a universal basic income. Disarm the public to the greatest possible degree, completely eliminate official border security as well, and then tax anyone with property for enough to pay everyone who comes as much as they are said to 'need.'
Clearly he thinks this will lead to a US that looks like Europe. It will, in the sense that it would destroy both American and Europe. America would rapidly absorb multitudes more from the poorest parts of the world, and rapidly lose whatever wealth could fly. Europe would lose the protection the American military has provided it for seventy years, and with it the capacity to sustain public assistance budgets as large as has been common for decades. That isn't what he imagines will happen, but that is what would happen in fact.
Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.The main form of "safety" he seems to think Australia and similar countries achieved was a reduction in suicides by gun. As far as I know, you're as safe from suicide right now as you decide to be. Access to guns may make suicide by gun more likely, but there's no reason to believe (as he asserts) that it would "save" thousands of lives a year. It's not that hard to tie a rope, and it's quite easy to take a few extra pain pills if you can get access to them.
...
The US doesn't just have a gun violence problem because of its lax gun regulation. It has a problem because it has a culture that encourages large-scale gun possession, and other countries do not. That, combined with Australia's experience, makes large-scale confiscation look like easily the most promising approach for bringing US gun homicides down to European rates.
Large-scale confiscation is not going to happen. That's no reason to stop advocating it. (I also want to repeal all immigration laws and give everyone a monthly check from the government with no strings attached, and will argue for those ideas even though they're doomed.) But it does mean that we should be realistic about what gun control with an actual shot of passage can achieve. It can make us safer. It cannot make us Europe.
Still, just because I disagree with everything about his proposal and a lot about his analysis, let's celebrate his honesty. This is the real goal: large scale confiscation of firearms, as well as completely eliminating immigration restrictions and instituting a universal basic income. Disarm the public to the greatest possible degree, completely eliminate official border security as well, and then tax anyone with property for enough to pay everyone who comes as much as they are said to 'need.'
Clearly he thinks this will lead to a US that looks like Europe. It will, in the sense that it would destroy both American and Europe. America would rapidly absorb multitudes more from the poorest parts of the world, and rapidly lose whatever wealth could fly. Europe would lose the protection the American military has provided it for seventy years, and with it the capacity to sustain public assistance budgets as large as has been common for decades. That isn't what he imagines will happen, but that is what would happen in fact.
Monster
Mike's most recent post began with the confession. I suppose we should pause for a moment to remember that it is universal. Chesterton approaches it at the end of Orthodoxy.
The recognition that we are monsters is meant to be liberating. In recognizing that we are not perfect just as we are, we are free to try to cut loose of what is wrong with us. Even if we fail, at least we know in what direction to strive.
All the real argument about religion turns on the question of whether a man who was born upside down can tell when he comes right way up. The primary paradox of Christianity is that the ordinary condition of man is not his sane or sensible condition; that the normal itself is an abnormality. That is the inmost philosophy of the Fall. In Sir Oliver Lodge's interesting new Catechism, the first two questions were: "What are you?" and "What, then, is the meaning of the Fall of Man?" I remember amusing myself by writing my own answers to the questions; but I soon found that they were very broken and agnostic answers. To the question, "What are you?" I could only answer, "God knows." And to the question, "What is meant by the Fall?" I could answer with complete sincerity, "That whatever I am, I am not myself."If you are not yourself, what are you? Yourself, plus something else: the orthodox answer being yourself plus original sin. Like a chimera -- or, as Chesterton himself more rightly noted, like a centaur or a mermaid -- you are a human being, and also an animal. You are in the world, but not of it.
The recognition that we are monsters is meant to be liberating. In recognizing that we are not perfect just as we are, we are free to try to cut loose of what is wrong with us. Even if we fail, at least we know in what direction to strive.
Another Dead End
The President ponders the mystery of yesterday's attack.
“At this stage we do not yet know why this terrible event occurred,” he said.It's too bad we can't identify a common theme between this and other organized cells that carry out bomb and gun attacks in major Western cities.
“It is possible that this was terrorist-related but we don’t know. it’s also possible that this was workplace related,” he continued.
Consciousness vs. "Fissiparous Seething"
A reasonably good summary of the problem that consciousness poses for our physical understanding of reality. It will be familiar to most of you, but it's worth going over again because it remains one of the more interesting problems.
Happier news
The Cameroon army frees 900 Boko Haram hostages, incidentally reducing the carbon footprint of a lot of Boko Haram members while they're at it.
Monsters
Well, the title certainly applies to the San Bernadino shooters, but in this particular case, it doesn't.
You may or may not be surprised to find that it in fact applies to me. Apparently, I am a "cold-hearted monster" "indifferent to loss of life". What could I have done to earn these appellation? I objected to the President's proposal to strip citizens of their Fifth Amendment rights to due process because they're on a "No Fly List". After asserting what it is that I object to (the arbitrary removal of civil rights on the say so of an unelected bureaucrat), I was told that I must come up with an alternative solution then. Otherwise I am... I am unsure... wrong? Bad? Irresponsible? It was never made clear to me. So I gave my response. "Nothing" would be a better solution than this. And to borrow from an old joke, "that's when the fight started".*
You may or may not be surprised to find that it in fact applies to me. Apparently, I am a "cold-hearted monster" "indifferent to loss of life". What could I have done to earn these appellation? I objected to the President's proposal to strip citizens of their Fifth Amendment rights to due process because they're on a "No Fly List". After asserting what it is that I object to (the arbitrary removal of civil rights on the say so of an unelected bureaucrat), I was told that I must come up with an alternative solution then. Otherwise I am... I am unsure... wrong? Bad? Irresponsible? It was never made clear to me. So I gave my response. "Nothing" would be a better solution than this. And to borrow from an old joke, "that's when the fight started".*
Pop Culture Metaphors Don't Work For Me
Oddly placed in an article on dark matter:
If dark matter were a pop star, WIMPs would be Beyoncé. “WIMPs are the canonical candidate,” says Manoj Kaplinghat, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Irvine.What on earth is that supposed to mean?
There. Will. Be. Polka!
To paraphrase Ace, or some moron over there, it's a spectacularly silly time to be alive.
Berdoo Is The Weirdest Thing I've Ever Seen
Initial reports are never right, but today was really strange. Who are these guys?
1) It seems clear that this was a semi-professional team of guys who knew how to work together, and who had either the capacity to make pipe bombs or connections who did. They carried out their plan and managed to exfil successfully before police could arrive. Yet hours later, they're still driving around in the same car, in the same kit, a mile and a half away?
2) The target doesn't make any obvious sense as a terrorist target, except that it was a soft target with lots of people.
It's like you had a team of guys who meticulously planned out how they'd carry out a major attack, but never got further in their planning than how they'd drive away from the scene within a given response time, leaving IEDs to cover their tracks. There was apparently no "then what?" considered. There were major freeways they could have taken, and if you've got three guys you surely have access to more than one car. They could have dumped the SUV and their kit, piled into a white sedan, and been in another state by the time the police caught up to the first vehicle.
Wannabe martyrs? One of whom lost his nerve and fled on foot when the final firefight arrived? But then why bother with the exfil? You could have stayed and killed a few more people, and become martyrs where you were. The police were coming.
It's like they had everything mapped out until a minute after they drove away, and then suddenly realized they had no idea what came next (and no imagination between them that would let them plan up something better than 'drive around the neighborhood in the getaway car').
The one thing that might make sense is if they had been trained by professionals who considered them disposable. They were taught how to do the part they did right, and then... what now?
Or maybe they're just yahoos who thought this out carefully on their own, and weren't bright enough to think beyond it.
Otherwise, conflicting details in all the reports make it hard to know what to think so far.
1) It seems clear that this was a semi-professional team of guys who knew how to work together, and who had either the capacity to make pipe bombs or connections who did. They carried out their plan and managed to exfil successfully before police could arrive. Yet hours later, they're still driving around in the same car, in the same kit, a mile and a half away?
2) The target doesn't make any obvious sense as a terrorist target, except that it was a soft target with lots of people.
It's like you had a team of guys who meticulously planned out how they'd carry out a major attack, but never got further in their planning than how they'd drive away from the scene within a given response time, leaving IEDs to cover their tracks. There was apparently no "then what?" considered. There were major freeways they could have taken, and if you've got three guys you surely have access to more than one car. They could have dumped the SUV and their kit, piled into a white sedan, and been in another state by the time the police caught up to the first vehicle.
Wannabe martyrs? One of whom lost his nerve and fled on foot when the final firefight arrived? But then why bother with the exfil? You could have stayed and killed a few more people, and become martyrs where you were. The police were coming.
It's like they had everything mapped out until a minute after they drove away, and then suddenly realized they had no idea what came next (and no imagination between them that would let them plan up something better than 'drive around the neighborhood in the getaway car').
The one thing that might make sense is if they had been trained by professionals who considered them disposable. They were taught how to do the part they did right, and then... what now?
Or maybe they're just yahoos who thought this out carefully on their own, and weren't bright enough to think beyond it.
Otherwise, conflicting details in all the reports make it hard to know what to think so far.
Final IAEA Report on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program Released
Two weeks early, too. Iran definitely had one, it lasted formally until 2003, informally continued after, and the IAEA has gotten chiefly stonewalling and obfuscation from Iran about its program since then. Iran's written answers promised under the "road map" in July were so ambiguous that the IAEA provided a list of follow up questions and held a number of technical meetings to try to get answers, but the report rather suspiciously says absolutely nothing about whether any answers were forthcoming.
Too bad we'll all be having another round of talk about how important it is to strip Americans of their weapons today instead. This will probably slide into the ether almost unnoticed.
Too bad we'll all be having another round of talk about how important it is to strip Americans of their weapons today instead. This will probably slide into the ether almost unnoticed.
Quiz: Opening Lines of Medieval Literature
Without making any use to any reference materials whatsoever, including of course search engines, I managed 9 of 10. Oddly enough, I'd read the one I missed many times -- Erec en Enide -- but somehow failed to remember the opening.
Dissent Magazine: "Beyond the Wage System"
A call for a universal basic income to address the exploitative nature of work, "under-work," "over-work," and non-work.
The author "teaches in the Women’s Studies Program at Duke University. She studies feminist theory, political theory, the critical study of work, and utopian thought."
By coincidence, I also ran across this image from an anarchist cartoonist that seems to capture the argument surprisingly well:
The author "teaches in the Women’s Studies Program at Duke University. She studies feminist theory, political theory, the critical study of work, and utopian thought."
By coincidence, I also ran across this image from an anarchist cartoonist that seems to capture the argument surprisingly well:
The American People Are Uniquely Bad
Asked about the "mass shooting" where a nut job shot three people at a Colorado abortion clinic, President Obama once again became exasperated with the American people.The author thinks it might be part of a case for his removal from office -- not by impeachment, but for cause of mental impairment according to the 25th Amendment. That of course is merely a rhetorical flourish: the 25th Amendment requires members of his cabinet or the President himself to admit that he cannot perform the functions, and the action can be undone simply by the President sending a letter to the effect that "no such disability exists" unless the Vice President anda majority of executive branch heads insist that he is not able. It was very carefully balanced so as not to be an extra tool for Congress to use against a President it didn't like.
"I say this every time we've got one of these mass shootings: This just doesn't happen in other countries."
He actually said this. In Paris.
Still it is a strange thing to have said, in Paris.
UPDATE: The Washington Post fact-checks the statement.
Is his statement true?
In one sense, the answer would be “yes.” President Obama’s statement was in the form of: “Every time X happens, I say Y.”
The Fruits of Gun Control Talk
This is probably a great time to invest in gun manufacturing stocks, given that the President claims it'll be a major focus of his final year in office. Congratulations to those who already do own such stocks: you'll probably be getting a nice dividend.
Please Refrain From Shooting Your Cab Driver
The fact that your cab driver is a Muslim does not justify the practice. If he took you where you wanted to go without heavily padding the fee by ferrying you along the "scenic route," you should tip him instead.
Unless your cab driver should try to kill you, kidnap you at gunpoint, or something similar, shooting them is always inappropriate.
Unless your cab driver should try to kill you, kidnap you at gunpoint, or something similar, shooting them is always inappropriate.
You Know What Doesn't Matter to Children? Parents.
A rather bold thesis! Let's look at the evidence.
Well, and his peer group: it turns out that the 'socialization' that really matters is the kind of kids he runs with. "As Harris notes, parents are not to blame for their children’s neuroses (beyond the genes they contribute to the manufacturing of that child), nor can they take much credit for their successful psychological adjustment."
Psychoanalysts hardest hit.
In terms of compelling evidence, let’s start with a study published recently in the prestigious journal Nature Genetics.1 Tinca Polderman and colleagues just completed the Herculean task of reviewing nearly all twin studies published by behavior geneticists over the past 50 years....So, good news for those of you who are parents: Junior is a rat because of your rotten genetics, not because of your moral failings.
Before progressing, I should note that behavioral geneticists make a finer grain distinction than most about the environment, subdividing it into shared and non-shared components.1,2,3,4 Not much is really complicated about this. The shared environment makes children raised together similar to each other.3 The term encompasses the typical parenting effects that we normally envision when we think about environmental variables. Non-shared influences capture the unique experiences of siblings raised in the same home; they make siblings different from one another. Another way of thinking about non-shared environments is that they represent the parts of your life story that are unique from the rest of your family. Importantly, this also includes all of the randomness and pure happenstance that life tends to hurl in our direction from time to time. Returning to the review of twin research, the shared environment just didn’t matter all that much (that’s on average, of course, for some traits it mattered more than others). The non-shared environment mattered consistently.
The pattern of findings mentioned above is nothing new.1,2,3,4,5 The importance of genetics and the non-shared environment (and the relatively minor importance of the shared environment) was already so entrenched in behavior genetics that years before the Polderman study was published it had been enshrined as a set of “laws.”2 The BG laws, though, are based largely (but certainly not completely) on twin studies, the meta-analysis by Polderman et al. was comprised of twin studies, and if you pay attention to this sort of thing you’ve probably heard some nasty things about twin studies lately.3 You’ve read that twin studies contain an insidious flaw that causes them to underestimate shared environmental effects (making it seem like parents matter less than they do). The assumptions of twin research, however, have been meticulously studied. The methods of twin researchers have been around for decades and have been challenged, critiqued, refined, adjusted, and (perhaps most importantly) cross validated with other techniques that rely on different assumptions entirely.3,4 They work, and they work with impressive precision.
Based on the results of classical twin studies, it just doesn’t appear that parenting—whether mom and dad are permissive or not, read to their kid or not, or whatever else—impacts development as much as we might like to think. Regarding the cross-validation that I mentioned, studies examining identical twins separated at birth and reared apart have repeatedly revealed (in shocking ways) the same thing: these individuals are remarkably similar when in fact they should be utterly different (they have completely different environments, but the same genes).3
Well, and his peer group: it turns out that the 'socialization' that really matters is the kind of kids he runs with. "As Harris notes, parents are not to blame for their children’s neuroses (beyond the genes they contribute to the manufacturing of that child), nor can they take much credit for their successful psychological adjustment."
Psychoanalysts hardest hit.
Oh, It's Even Worse Than That
Michael Ledeen writes on the Iran deal:
Guess which one?
I dare say very few people realize there is no formal deal. Countless journalists refer to something that was “signed” or “inked” in Vienna, even though no such thing took place. A handful of careful writers, notably Yigal Carmon and Amir Taheri have gotten it right, and last week the State Department admitted that nobody has signed The Deal and it is not legally binding on anybody.Oh, it's been signed by one person. Thus, it's legally binding on one country.
As I wrote in July, Iran has promised to be on good behavior, and we have promised to pay for it. We are indeed paying, as we have for more than two years ($700 million per month), and the Iranians, as is their wont, have done their worst to spread terror and jihadism all over the world, from the Middle East to Asia, Africa and South America.
Such a deal! Carmon thinks Obama will have to admit failure, and return to the negotiating table. As I predicted…
Guess which one?
I'm Big on Metaphors
Sounds like you're suggesting unions for grad students. Which, frankly, isn't that insane given the tremendous abuses they are suffering under currently: for below-poverty-line pay, you teach most of the courses the university offers. As Federal student loans vastly enrich university budgets, and as the teaching is the real value the university provides, that's the kind of imbalance that leads to people thinking that a union might not be a bad idea. Solidarity, baby! Popcorn!
Grim's Law of Wrench-Turning and Social Media
When looking for practical advice on how to repair mechanical problems with your ride, remember: YouTube is invaluable, Google is helpful, and Facebook is evil.
Don't forget to mix sugar into your gasoline to make sure it doesn't get too thin in the dry winter weather, and be sure to let all the summer air out of your tires and refill them with winter air so they don't burst in the cold.
In Fairness, the Baptists Banned Alcohol Sales Too
America's first majority Muslim city has elected its first majority Muslim city council, and they've passed their first laws.
While the members of the Hamtramck, Michigan city council have denied that they would put religion into politics, their actions show otherwise. They’ve already banned alcohol sales within 500 feet of local mosques, and allowed daily calls to prayer to reverberate through town as early as 6am.I suppose churches would want to be excepted from public noise ordinances insofar as they had church bells. On the other hand, they wouldn't generally be ringing them at six in the morning.
The Feast of St. Andrew
Saint Andrew is a strange choice to be the national saint of Scotland. Scotland has plenty of its own saints, had they wished to choose a Scot. The Scots nevertheless chose him, but celebrate his feast day with a celebration of traditional Scottish culture. Just as ironically, Romania celebrates the Feast of St. Andrew -- who was a Jew from Galilee in spite of his Greek name -- with a festival descended from the Roman Saturnalia.
In any case, here's an appropriate video.
In any case, here's an appropriate video.
Yeoman "Farmers"
W. R. Mead is on ground I find very familiar today. He is making a pragmatic argument about why we should shift to a system that prefers small business development, but there's a political philosophical argument for the proposal as well. It's Jefferson's old argument about the increased practical liberty that comes from owning your own means of production. Political liberty is good, but if you are effectively under the thumb of another, you are not really at liberty to speak your mind. This is why James Jackson, that greatest of Georgian political heroes, fought to undo the Yazoo land fraud and ensure a Georgia in which you could own your own land.
When I say he fought for this I mean literally fought, not "fought for" in the figurative sense preferred by contemporary politicians. First he fought in the Revolutionary War for the principle of political liberty. Then he fought four duels in the course of trying to undo the Yazoo land fraud as his opponents tried to kill him to prevent his success. He was not dissuaded by these multiple attempts on his life, but saw the question through to victory.
So what was the principle for which he fought? It was that the American system of government should work to ensure that Americans had at least the real potential to own their own means of production. Instead of a society structured around a renter/land-lord relationship, it would be a society structured as much as possible to be about individual families owning the things they needed to produce a living. Then they could say what they wanted when it came time to reason politically rather than having to scrape to the opinions of the great or the rich. It would enshrine the political control of the community among the people because the people would be practically as well as formally free.
There is an Aristotelian idea behind this model as well. In the Politics, Aristotle writes that the least dangerous group to own power in any society is the propertied middle class. Because they have land or businesses of their own, they want strong protections for private property, and thus will not (as the poor tended to do in Aristotle's time) vote to 'take from the rich and give to the poor.' Because they are not so rich that they can afford to be long away from tending to their own business, they will not seek to rule any more than is absolutely necessary, ensuring that government remains limited to only those concerns that absolutely require it. Unlike government by the rich or by those who are paid to govern, popular government led by the middle class will not seek to overawe every aspect of life in order to further their own class interests.
Thus they will avoid both the problems associated with government by unregulated democracy, and government by an elite that is rich or that is paid to perform public office.
It remains a good ideal for future reform. Government could do much less, so much less that it was only done part time by those who would want as quickly as possible to get back to literally minding their own business. What is the solution to poverty on this model? Encouraging the poor in coming to develop a productive business of their own.
When I say he fought for this I mean literally fought, not "fought for" in the figurative sense preferred by contemporary politicians. First he fought in the Revolutionary War for the principle of political liberty. Then he fought four duels in the course of trying to undo the Yazoo land fraud as his opponents tried to kill him to prevent his success. He was not dissuaded by these multiple attempts on his life, but saw the question through to victory.
So what was the principle for which he fought? It was that the American system of government should work to ensure that Americans had at least the real potential to own their own means of production. Instead of a society structured around a renter/land-lord relationship, it would be a society structured as much as possible to be about individual families owning the things they needed to produce a living. Then they could say what they wanted when it came time to reason politically rather than having to scrape to the opinions of the great or the rich. It would enshrine the political control of the community among the people because the people would be practically as well as formally free.
There is an Aristotelian idea behind this model as well. In the Politics, Aristotle writes that the least dangerous group to own power in any society is the propertied middle class. Because they have land or businesses of their own, they want strong protections for private property, and thus will not (as the poor tended to do in Aristotle's time) vote to 'take from the rich and give to the poor.' Because they are not so rich that they can afford to be long away from tending to their own business, they will not seek to rule any more than is absolutely necessary, ensuring that government remains limited to only those concerns that absolutely require it. Unlike government by the rich or by those who are paid to govern, popular government led by the middle class will not seek to overawe every aspect of life in order to further their own class interests.
Thus they will avoid both the problems associated with government by unregulated democracy, and government by an elite that is rich or that is paid to perform public office.
It remains a good ideal for future reform. Government could do much less, so much less that it was only done part time by those who would want as quickly as possible to get back to literally minding their own business. What is the solution to poverty on this model? Encouraging the poor in coming to develop a productive business of their own.
"Reason" a raison
Little French lingo for a Monday afternoon, since the President is badmouthing us in Paris at the climate change conference. On his other favorite topic, Reason magazine has the sense of it: "Obama Insists 'We Have to Do Something' About Mass Shootings but Can't Say What or Why It Would Work."
UPDATE: It sounds as if the President's spokesman does have a specific plan:
The Times describes Obama as increasingly exasperated by Congress's refusal to enact the gun controls he supports. Some of us are increasingly exasperated by Obama's failure to elucidate any logical connection between those measures and the crimes they supposedly would prevent.It's a faith-based approach, which, actually, is another tie between his two favorite subjects.
UPDATE: It sounds as if the President's spokesman does have a specific plan:
The Obama administration is pressing for gun control, repeating a demand that Congress pass a ban on gun ownership for Americans on the no-fly list.So, your proposal is that Congress should immediately give the executive branch unilateral authority to rescind any individual's Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights based on whatever criteria it likes, without any due process at all? That's a modest proposal.
“If the U.S. Government has determined that it is too dangerous for you to board a plane then you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during a press conference in Paris today.... “Congress should pass this law before leaving for the Holidays,” Earnest said.
Knocked That One Out Of The Park
Noah Rothman at Commentary magazine notices that "Problems change, but the remedy doesn't." The old problem was the Soviet critique of Western imperialism. The new problem is how to resolve an alleged crisis with climate change. Those sound like they are different enough problems that they should have nearly wholly different solution sets. But no, the solutions proposed are the very same solutions:
The notion that the American way of life is unsustainable and unfair toward the rest of the world’s population is an old argument, and its remedies are suspiciously familiar. It was once claimed that the prosperity of the first world must be curtailed if there was to be peace.... Replace the scourge of climate change with poverty and “climate-friendly technologies” with advanced military-industrial technologies, and you have a boilerplate Soviet speech aimed at an international audience.It's not very surprising to find John F. Kerry at the forefront of advocating that America yield to the Communist agenda. He's been at that for a while now.
The Beauty of Nature, Perfected by Art
Isle of Lewis, Scotland. Someday, I think I may need to go and visit that place.
Of Course He Did
'At Paris Conference, Obama says US Partly to Blame for Climate Change.'
We're lucky he didn't assume the whole blame for us.
We're lucky he didn't assume the whole blame for us.
Fair Enough
The Colorado Fraternal Order of Police would like everyone to know that they don't appreciate the suggestion that they are racists.
"Carelessly Labeled"
A woman named Monica Bauer -- Master of Divinity, playwright, ordained as a minister in the United Church of Christ -- wants to accuse the entire Right to Life movement of being accomplices in murder. Exactly whose murder isn't clear, since no one belonging to Planned Parenthood's organization was hurt in the recent incident in Colorado, but let's leave that pesky factual question. I just want to get after the basic assertion.
Jesus never said anything about abortion. However, the objection to abortion does not stand on any obscure theology or any strange passages about 'spilling seed.' It's about the killing of a human being.
The appellation "baby-killing" is not some sort of weird locution: it involves killing a human being at a stage of development that, were the child wanted by his or her mother, we would have no problem identifying as a baby. We would say, and do say, "When is the baby due?" or "Have you decided what to name the baby?" It's only when mother has decided to kill her baby that we are told that we can only describe it using clinical language designed to mask the humanity of the creature being killed.
You may object to murder, since murder is defined in different ways by different people. The law doesn't consider this murder as murder is defined by the law -- a rather circular argument made worse given that the law often did treat it as a kind of murder until the Supreme Court overturned the laws of all fifty states. So we might well say that it is not murder in the technical sense of the word given to us on stone tablets from that famous bench in Washington, D.C.
Still, a commonplace definition of the word murder as it might be used by any ordinary person is this: "the intentional killing of an innocent human being." Let's run through the steps.
1) Is it intentional? Yes.
2) Is it a killing? Yes.
3) Is it a living being? Obviously it is, or it couldn't be killed.
4) Is the being to be killed innocent in the usual sense of the word "innocent"? Yes.
5) Is it human? It either is or it isn't. If it isn't, what kind of being would you say it was?
A more extended argument on that last point: to be a thing of a certain kind is to be structured in a certain way. A table is a thing that is structured in such a way as to be capable of holding objects off the floor. Artifacts like tables are structured by makers, who put them into a given order for a given purpose. Living things are different: they structure themselves out of other things they find in the world. They are their own purpose.
Now a given living thing -- say a fox or a dog or a hawk -- is not the stuff of which it is made. All of us have had dogs, I presume, and all of those dogs have grown from puppies, taking on more and more stuff from the world and putting it into the order that is themselves. The physical parts of themselves -- proteins, water -- are all exchanged over the course of their lives, but we recognize that it is still our dog. It's the activity of the ordering principle that is the life of the dog, and it is the order that is the dog. As long as it continues, we say that our dog is alive. When our dog dies, the ordering stops: though it may look like our dog for a while, it is no longer actively being put in order as a living thing.
The living, growing being is ordering the world as it encounters it into itself. Of course it is a human being: it is putting the world into a human order. It will remain a human being as long as this continues, even if she should live to be a hundred and one.
That's what you are killing.
I am no absolutist on this point. I understand that there are cases when the life of the mother will be lost, when there is a sense in which the child is not "innocent" and the killing is therefore not murder -- indeed, it might almost be morally obligatory. But these are a tiny minority of cases, as any honest observer will confess.
The language being used to describe these acts is not careless. It is dangerous because it is accurate. It is the right way to describe what we are allowing to happen all across our nation, using ordinary language as we would ordinarily use it.
[T]he religious extremist is most likely a right-wing Christian. And the shooter had help. He had help from an entire movement that has carelessly labeled abortion as "murder" and "baby-killing." Killing abortion providers flows logically from the moment you call abortion "murder" and this labeling has to stop. Now.There are actually a few more pesky factual matters here -- for example, there's no evidence in any of the recent interviews conducted with family and neighbors to indicate that this guy was a "religious extremist," or even "religious," let alone "right wing" or even a Christian. But we'll leave all that too.
Am I a Christian? You bet. Have I read the Bible? Many times, and carefully. Graduated from Yale Divinity School with a Masters in Divinity. Ordained in the ministry in 1982, in the United Church of Christ. Still an active member of the church. Jesus never said a word about abortion, and the only way anti-choice activists twist the Bible to their side is to take a few lines from a Psalm or a few words about "spilling seed" out of context. There are entire books debunking the pro-life movement as resting on shaky theological grounds, so I won't waste time recapping all the arguments here.
Jesus never said anything about abortion. However, the objection to abortion does not stand on any obscure theology or any strange passages about 'spilling seed.' It's about the killing of a human being.
The appellation "baby-killing" is not some sort of weird locution: it involves killing a human being at a stage of development that, were the child wanted by his or her mother, we would have no problem identifying as a baby. We would say, and do say, "When is the baby due?" or "Have you decided what to name the baby?" It's only when mother has decided to kill her baby that we are told that we can only describe it using clinical language designed to mask the humanity of the creature being killed.
You may object to murder, since murder is defined in different ways by different people. The law doesn't consider this murder as murder is defined by the law -- a rather circular argument made worse given that the law often did treat it as a kind of murder until the Supreme Court overturned the laws of all fifty states. So we might well say that it is not murder in the technical sense of the word given to us on stone tablets from that famous bench in Washington, D.C.
Still, a commonplace definition of the word murder as it might be used by any ordinary person is this: "the intentional killing of an innocent human being." Let's run through the steps.
1) Is it intentional? Yes.
2) Is it a killing? Yes.
3) Is it a living being? Obviously it is, or it couldn't be killed.
4) Is the being to be killed innocent in the usual sense of the word "innocent"? Yes.
5) Is it human? It either is or it isn't. If it isn't, what kind of being would you say it was?
A more extended argument on that last point: to be a thing of a certain kind is to be structured in a certain way. A table is a thing that is structured in such a way as to be capable of holding objects off the floor. Artifacts like tables are structured by makers, who put them into a given order for a given purpose. Living things are different: they structure themselves out of other things they find in the world. They are their own purpose.
Now a given living thing -- say a fox or a dog or a hawk -- is not the stuff of which it is made. All of us have had dogs, I presume, and all of those dogs have grown from puppies, taking on more and more stuff from the world and putting it into the order that is themselves. The physical parts of themselves -- proteins, water -- are all exchanged over the course of their lives, but we recognize that it is still our dog. It's the activity of the ordering principle that is the life of the dog, and it is the order that is the dog. As long as it continues, we say that our dog is alive. When our dog dies, the ordering stops: though it may look like our dog for a while, it is no longer actively being put in order as a living thing.
The living, growing being is ordering the world as it encounters it into itself. Of course it is a human being: it is putting the world into a human order. It will remain a human being as long as this continues, even if she should live to be a hundred and one.
That's what you are killing.
I am no absolutist on this point. I understand that there are cases when the life of the mother will be lost, when there is a sense in which the child is not "innocent" and the killing is therefore not murder -- indeed, it might almost be morally obligatory. But these are a tiny minority of cases, as any honest observer will confess.
The language being used to describe these acts is not careless. It is dangerous because it is accurate. It is the right way to describe what we are allowing to happen all across our nation, using ordinary language as we would ordinarily use it.
There Are Two Americas...
...one urban, one rural.
The big problem is to figure out how to restrict the harms the urban areas cause to those areas. That's where nearly all the problems are coming from, and yet they have just slightly more votes. A proper Federalism using the 50 states might not do it, as the urban areas can overawe the decent parts of their states. But a federalism that treats urban areas as states in themselves -- maybe. It would mean increasing the number of states by a few dozen, in return for having rural states that could really live according to traditional mores without the chaos caused by these urban areas.
The big problem is to figure out how to restrict the harms the urban areas cause to those areas. That's where nearly all the problems are coming from, and yet they have just slightly more votes. A proper Federalism using the 50 states might not do it, as the urban areas can overawe the decent parts of their states. But a federalism that treats urban areas as states in themselves -- maybe. It would mean increasing the number of states by a few dozen, in return for having rural states that could really live according to traditional mores without the chaos caused by these urban areas.
Gizmodo: Physicists Say Everyone Is Lying About That Russian Bomber
Interesting, although the Russian claims sound less like fabrications.
We're not done with this one. I think Russia may manage to peel France off of the NATO coalition with it, given America's terrible response to the whole thing. Even if they don't manage to bring France into a coalition with themselves -- and right now, the French President not only sounds like he's open to that, he sounds like he thinks it's his idea -- they could still split NATO by making France a free agent again. They were, for most of the Cold War.
We're not done with this one. I think Russia may manage to peel France off of the NATO coalition with it, given America's terrible response to the whole thing. Even if they don't manage to bring France into a coalition with themselves -- and right now, the French President not only sounds like he's open to that, he sounds like he thinks it's his idea -- they could still split NATO by making France a free agent again. They were, for most of the Cold War.
C'mon. The Boy's Name is "Tomahawk."
A Sacramento, California, mom who let her 4-year-old son play outside at a playground 120 feet from her home was arrested. Her neighbors called 911 when they saw the kid outside. While many people might think four is too young for a boy to be outside on his own, the bigger question is: Is this a criminal offense? And doesn't the boy's mother have the right to make that choice?When a boy's name is Tomahawk, he has probably been raised well enough to handle a playground in a gated community.
The boy (whose name is Tomahawk) was in a gated apartment complex and on a playground. He's an outdoorsy kid who loves exploring and sounds like he can take care of himself fairly well.
Certainty and Uncertainty
When I saw the news of an active shooter in a Planned Parenthood yesterday, I figured there was even money on it being a jealous husband or a domestic terrorist. After reports came in for a while, though, neither of these scenarios sounded very likely:
1) MSNBC -- hardly a conservative outlet -- reported that all the shooting had actually happened at a nearby Chase bank.
2) Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains division put out a statement that they didn't think this had been targeted at them.
3) Planned Parenthood put out a statement a few hours after the shootings that said that none of their staff and also none of their patients had been among the victims.
4) The history of the guy suggested he was barely connected to the world we live in, occupying a cabin with no electricity nor plumbing. He also had a legal history that suggested both domestic violence and cruelty to animals.
So, now it sounded like a bank robbery gone wrong, with the hostage taking at the PP location just by coincidence.
Then, today, we get these anonymous quotes sourced to law enforcement officials:
Those statements are proving politically very useful to those on the Left, for whom this is not an uncertain but a very certain opportunity. It's an opportunity to tell everyone on the Right to shut up once and for all about Planned Parenthood, and to make any rhetoric about abortion as the killing of babies off limits as hate speech that somehow causes irrational violent types to lash out.
Also, it's a chance to push for gun control, the President's new favorite topic. Funny how we didn't hear anything about Chicago in his speech, a city with the strictest gun control in the nation and also gun violence the likes of which most of the rest of the country never dreams. Or Paris, which has every kind of gun control a progressive heart could desire, and all the same far worse shootings occur.
The President is behind the ball on this one. Even INTERPOL has been suggesting, for a couple of years now, that an armed citizenry may be the only rational response to the threat of terrorism by active shooters. Harden the whole society, and such threats become much less dangerous in scope.
One solid thing can be said from my position: it sounds as if the police officer killed was a really decent guy. My sympathies go to his family and community.
UPDATE: Uncertainty abounds.
UPDATE: Someone thinks of citing the Catechism.
1) MSNBC -- hardly a conservative outlet -- reported that all the shooting had actually happened at a nearby Chase bank.
2) Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains division put out a statement that they didn't think this had been targeted at them.
3) Planned Parenthood put out a statement a few hours after the shootings that said that none of their staff and also none of their patients had been among the victims.
4) The history of the guy suggested he was barely connected to the world we live in, occupying a cabin with no electricity nor plumbing. He also had a legal history that suggested both domestic violence and cruelty to animals.
So, now it sounded like a bank robbery gone wrong, with the hostage taking at the PP location just by coincidence.
Then, today, we get these anonymous quotes sourced to law enforcement officials:
In one statement, made after the suspect was taken in for questioning, Dear said "no more baby parts" in reference to Planned Parenthood, according to two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case.So now, who knows? Maybe somehow it was intended as a terrorist act aimed at Planned Parenthood after all, and he was just spectacularly bad at it. He may be too disordered to have had a certain purpose.
But the sources stressed that Dear said many things to law enforcement and the extent to which the "baby parts" remark played into any decision to target the Planned Parenthood office was not yet clear. He also mentioned President Barack Obama in statements.
Those statements are proving politically very useful to those on the Left, for whom this is not an uncertain but a very certain opportunity. It's an opportunity to tell everyone on the Right to shut up once and for all about Planned Parenthood, and to make any rhetoric about abortion as the killing of babies off limits as hate speech that somehow causes irrational violent types to lash out.
Also, it's a chance to push for gun control, the President's new favorite topic. Funny how we didn't hear anything about Chicago in his speech, a city with the strictest gun control in the nation and also gun violence the likes of which most of the rest of the country never dreams. Or Paris, which has every kind of gun control a progressive heart could desire, and all the same far worse shootings occur.
The President is behind the ball on this one. Even INTERPOL has been suggesting, for a couple of years now, that an armed citizenry may be the only rational response to the threat of terrorism by active shooters. Harden the whole society, and such threats become much less dangerous in scope.
One solid thing can be said from my position: it sounds as if the police officer killed was a really decent guy. My sympathies go to his family and community.
UPDATE: Uncertainty abounds.
UPDATE: Someone thinks of citing the Catechism.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.It's one of the areas in which I am most inclined to sin, I must confess.
"Oslo is Dead"
The constant international obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian question continues. The last seemed-like-it-might-work protocols are now clearly dead. So what's next, asks Geoffrey Aronson at Al Jazeera.
What has changed is that today there is a growing sense that Israel must set the agenda for the post-Oslo era. Israeli leaders now see an opportunity to make a dramatic Israeli move, to shuffle the cards in a way that responds to domestic political pressures to respond to continuing protests, advances Israel's settlement interests, and exploits Washington's retreat from diplomacy.My sense of this conflict has always been that the Israelis should set the agenda and resolve it however they wished. Israel has repeatedly won its right to exist on the field of honor, even if you are not inclined to believe in its Biblical warrant. The decades of constant meddling in these internal affairs has done nothing to bring peace to the land.
"If we do not initiate, someone else will take the initiative for moulding our future," warned a retired Israeli military general Shlomo Yanai.
Jerusalem is the crown jewel of Israel's national and territorial aspirations. And it is the place where the effort to square the circle of challenges posed by annexation is centred.
The contest over Al-Aqsa commands the most attention, but Israeli efforts since the second Intifada have focused on reducing the number and access of Palestinians in the city.
More on Medieval Thanksgiving
While looking up something that I was thinking about with regard to Eric's comment on the Ancient Roman use of spices, I learned something that I did not know: the way that we use the term "entree" in North American English is not just different from the way the French use it, it's different from the way everyone else in the world uses it. But it is not different because it's an American innovation. It's different because we retain the Medieval meaning of the word.
The word entrée in French originally denoted the "entry" of the dishes from the kitchens into the dining hall. In the illustration from a French fifteenth-century illuminated manuscript of the Histoire d'Olivier de Castille et d'Artus d'Algarbe, a fanfare from trumpeters in the musicians' gallery announces the processional entrée of a series of dishes....For us as for 15th century diners the entree is the showily-presented main course, which in terms of Thanksgiving would be when the Turkey is brought to the table on a big platter and carved for everyone.
In traditional French haute cuisine, the entrée preceded a larger dish known as the relevé, which "replaces" or "relieves" it, an obsolete term in modern cooking, but still used as late as 1921 in Escoffier's Le Guide Culinaire.
In France, the modern restaurant menu meaning of "entrée" is the course that precedes the main course in a three-course meal, i.e. the course which in British usage is often called the "starter" and in American usage the "appetizer."
Chivalry and "Non-New-Agey Spirituality"
This site looks at first glance like the least likely place you'd expect to find an essay on the glories of chivalry and masculinity, and yet...
The gallantry of a fully expressed man is without compare, and that fully expressed masculinity becomes attractive rather than threatening when a woman knows that her man would not only lay his coat over a puddle for her, or raise his voice to defend her, but that he’d put his body in front of hers to protect her.Indeed.
*Snicker*
Google's algorithm has determined that your economic plan is a phishing scam.
He's still better than Clinton.
He's still better than Clinton.
Riding Weather
Everyone listens to "Alice's Restaurant" on Thanksgiving, and this year is the 50th anniversary -- yeah, really -- of that 18-22 year old song of revolt against being drafted. It's a great song in its way. But it wasn't the only great song to come out of that album.
How Medieval is Thanksgiving?
Not entirely, to be sure! Turkey is a new world bird: indeed, I was just talking to a professor last week who was telling me that Syrian refugees in Europe have been turning up their noses at processed turkey sandwiches because the meat is unfamiliar to them, and they can't be sure it is halal. Chicken is known in the Middle East, and well known, but turkey is still unfamiliar.
All the same, it turns out that the answer is "somewhat."
All the same, it turns out that the answer is "somewhat."
In other words, the Englishmen who landed in Massachusetts didn’t eat turkey because it was the only local food available. Rather, they’d been quite familiar with it back in England, where it was even common to remove the skin and feathers, cook it and serve it with the feathers replaced, as if it were still living – a standard medieval trick.
The side dishes also date back to Europe, with flavor profiles that are actually medieval in origin.
Take cranberry sauce. In medieval Europe, sour fruit sauce with wild fowl was a popular combination, one that balanced a cold and moist condiment with a hot, dry meat. In the mid-17th century, for example, the famous French chef La Varenne served turkey with raspberries.
But the real connection between Thanksgiving and the medieval feast is in the spices. Although today we use the blanket term “pumpkin spice” to characterize variations of cinnamon, nutmeg, clove and ginger (and they show up practically everywhere in cheap artificial form), these flavors were the backbone of medieval cuisine, appearing in a wide array of sweet and savory dishes, from chicken to pasta.
Back then, it simply wasn’t a lavish meal without a riot of spices (which, because they needed to be imported from Asia, were wildly expensive). Today the only one of these spices that stays on the table year-round is pepper. But their pivotal role in Thanksgiving again is a reminder of the tradition’s remote origins.
This Should Be A Fun Holiday
Are you ready to be a horrible pain in everyone's neck this Thanksgiving? If not, don't worry! People are here to help you annoy everyone with whom you were planning to share this moment of family togetherness.
Time's Up in California
Los Angeles passed a measure banning all "high capacity" (i.e., normal capacity) detachable magazines and required citizens to turn them in to police. The sixty day "grace period" during which you would "graciously" be allowed to surrender your private property to the government without compensation has now closed, and the total number of magazines received by police is:
Zero.
Zero.
Yeah, No.
Rich Lowry: "Donald Trump’s appeal is as American as Andrew Jackson."
I missed the part where Donald Trump won a major battle, or a series of small wars, or defended his wife's honor, or indeed showed respect for anyone's honor besides his own. Trump may have some of Jackson's flaws, but I see no sign that he has any of Jackson's substantial virtues.
I missed the part where Donald Trump won a major battle, or a series of small wars, or defended his wife's honor, or indeed showed respect for anyone's honor besides his own. Trump may have some of Jackson's flaws, but I see no sign that he has any of Jackson's substantial virtues.
Drink More Whiskey
At least, that's the advice I glean for America from this review:
Cheever describes local taverns as “the cradle of the revolution.” And through the 18th century, she explains, a steady stream of beer and rum helped to unleash the bravado and defiance necessary to inch toward independence. The patriots who tossed tea into the Boston Harbor in 1773 hadn’t planned on doing so, but they were blasted after hours of drunken scheming. “Perhaps if they had been sober,” Cheever writes, “the night would have been different; they were not sober. They were drunk enough to change history.”We could use some more of that. You might try Leadslinger's.
As the American Revolution ignited, “drinking seems to have gone hand in hand with heroism.”
Duffel Blog Strikes Again
Veteran student center turned into a "safe space."
“The Veterans Center was a place where they could go where they wouldn’t feel marginalized,” Northeastern President Joseph Aoun said. “It was a state of the art building with padded walls, straightjackets, and doors that locked from the outside. Veterans could attend class online to keep them away from the student body. This would allow veterans to have a safe space and keep them contained for campus safety. Unfortunately, something went wrong.”That sounds about right.
Just days after the Veteran Center opened, construction workers were seen entering the building with metal poles and hot tubs. An audit revealed the Northeastern Student Veteran’s Association spent their entire budget sponsoring work visas for Thai women.
“We had several reports of odd purchases,” Northeastern University Police Chief Paddy O’Shea Finnegan said. “Huntington Wine and Spirits reported they were sold out. Clerks at Wollaston’s said guys with short haircuts were buying bananas but warning each other not to eat them.”
Members of the ROTC battalion attempted to enter but were only allowed access if they brought cookies from Stetson East. The cadets left the building wide eyed, with an understanding why officers are taught to be scared of enlisted soldiers.
Police were called to the Veteran Center after shirtless men were seen shooting fireworks off the top of the building.
"cultural issues of implication involved in the practice"
Yeah, I don't know what that means, either. Here's a link to the whole thing, but you're not going to be any more enlightened once you've read it. The gist of it is that the University of Ottawa decided that yoga classes for disabled students were triggering colonialist cultural appropriation cooties or something.
The yoga instructor was trying to be sensitive, so she suggested:
“What do you think about having a class that is just stretching for mental health?” she wrote. “We don’t have to call it yoga (because that’s not really what we are doing, we are just stretching). I think that will work because it would literally change nothing about the class. … I know some people are offended but I am sure we can change it so that everyone feels included.... Now that I am aware that this is a sensitivity, I can just leave all yoga-ness out.”Not so fast, running dog colonialist person of uncolor. The purge must go deeper than that.
“The higher-ups at the student federation got involved, finally we got an e-mail routed through the student federation basically saying they couldn’t get a French name and nobody wants to do it, so we’re going to cancel it for now....”
This Was Bound To Happen
Turkey has reportedly shot down a Russian jet.
The state of play in the air war over this region has been as follows: Russia dispatched substantial air forces, including their "supermaneuverable" Su-30 air superiority fighters. Now, these are plausibly multi-role fighters, so it wasn't totally odd that they would deploy them against an enemy that had no air force. Still, they were clearly testing Turkish airspace, reportedly locking onto Turkish planes and violating Turkish territory. The Pentagon decided to move a bunch of F-15Cs over to Turkey as a guarantor, since Turkey's aging F-16s are probably overmatched by the Russian jets. These are upgraded F-15s specifically structured for air-to-air combat.
Russia took note of the deployment, which wasn't even plausibly aimed at ISIS but at their own jets, and deployed S-300 missiles in Syria. These are thought capable of taking down anything we've got short of true stealth planes such as the F-22 and F-35. So far we haven't sent any, but it's the next logical phase in the escalation.
So today the Russians lost a bomber, an Su 24 according to their defense ministry. Exactly who shot it down -- ground fire or a Turkish F-16 -- is in dispute, as is the Turks' claim that it violated their airspace.
UPDATE: Reuters is reporting that the Russian pilots survived, but were shot dead by Turkish militia.
The state of play in the air war over this region has been as follows: Russia dispatched substantial air forces, including their "supermaneuverable" Su-30 air superiority fighters. Now, these are plausibly multi-role fighters, so it wasn't totally odd that they would deploy them against an enemy that had no air force. Still, they were clearly testing Turkish airspace, reportedly locking onto Turkish planes and violating Turkish territory. The Pentagon decided to move a bunch of F-15Cs over to Turkey as a guarantor, since Turkey's aging F-16s are probably overmatched by the Russian jets. These are upgraded F-15s specifically structured for air-to-air combat.
Russia took note of the deployment, which wasn't even plausibly aimed at ISIS but at their own jets, and deployed S-300 missiles in Syria. These are thought capable of taking down anything we've got short of true stealth planes such as the F-22 and F-35. So far we haven't sent any, but it's the next logical phase in the escalation.
So today the Russians lost a bomber, an Su 24 according to their defense ministry. Exactly who shot it down -- ground fire or a Turkish F-16 -- is in dispute, as is the Turks' claim that it violated their airspace.
UPDATE: Reuters is reporting that the Russian pilots survived, but were shot dead by Turkish militia.
Whatever Happened to those "Little Platoons"?
A leftist worries aloud that America may be falling into fascism. If only we had those 'little platoons' -- whatever happened to them?
This problem goes far deeper than better techniques for getting out the vote. It reflects a massive decay of civil society, a deep disinterest and contempt for government and politics, one that often seems richly earned.The irony of this remark is biting until you get just a little deeper into the piece, and he explains his version of this idea.
This is also the soil in which fascism grows. As political scientists have demonstrated for more than a century, it is mass society, in which people are disconnected from the "little platoons" beloved of Edmund Burke and the local associations celebrated by Tocqueville, where a strongman can suddenly seem the solution to people's inchoate frustrations with their own lives and the irrelevance of politics.
There was a time in America when poor and working class people did have representative institutions that connected them to civic and political life. They were called labor unions.Oh, I see. If only we could assign all these people to a labor union that would help organize them 'in their own interest' and align them with correct politics. Mao did that. It wasn't exactly Burke's idea, though.
Quelle Suprise
The fruits begin to come in.
[E]ven some secular French journalists have started writing about a phenomenon that’s become difficult to ignore: an increasingly self-confident Catholicism that combines what might be called a dynamic orthodoxy with a determination to shape French society in ways that contest the status quo—both inside and outside the Church.Secularism was just a phase.
On October 30, readers of France’s main center-right newspaper, Le Figaro, woke up to the headline “La révolution silencieuse des catholiques de France.” What followed was a description of how those whom Le Figaro calls France’s néocatholiques have come to the forefront of the nation’s political, cultural, and economic debates. Significantly, the new Catholics’ idea of dialogue isn’t about listening to secular intellectuals and responding by nodding sagely and not saying anything that might offend others. Instead, younger observant Catholics have moved beyond—way, way beyond—what was called the “Catholicism of openness” that dominated post-Vatican II French Catholic life. While the néocatholiques are happy to listen, they also want to debate and even critique reigning secular orthodoxies. For them, discussion isn’t a one-way street. This is a generation of French Catholics who are, as Le Figaro put it, “afraid of nothing.”
Good Heavens, No
This headline: "After Paris Attacks, a Political Leader Wants to Bring Back This Medieval Execution for Jihadists."
No, no, no.
The guillotine is not medieval. While there were some predecessor devices that were, the guillotine came to be during a debate of the parliament that produced the French Revolution. Its association with that revolution, and especially its frequent use during the Terror, made it a symbol of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.
No, no, no.
The guillotine is not medieval. While there were some predecessor devices that were, the guillotine came to be during a debate of the parliament that produced the French Revolution. Its association with that revolution, and especially its frequent use during the Terror, made it a symbol of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.
As a member of the assembly Guillotin mainly directed his attention towards medical reform, and it was on 10 October 1789, during a debate on capital punishment, that he proposed that "the criminal shall be decapitated; this will be done solely by means of a simple mechanism." The "mechanism" was defined as "a machine that beheads painlessly". His proposal appeared in the Royalist periodical, Les Actes des Apôtres.So it was all about reforming the law to eliminate distinctions between classes, about bringing reason and science to bear on social problems, and about reducing the pain and cruelty of the death penalty (with an eye towards its eventual abolition, as France did in 1981). It would be ironically appropriate for the Enlightenment's foremost weapon to be brought to bear against ISIS.
At that time, beheading in France was typically done by axe or sword, which did not always cause immediate death. Additionally, beheading was reserved for the nobility, while commoners were typically hanged. Dr. Guillotin assumed that if a fair system was established where the only method of capital punishment was death by mechanical decapitation, then the public would feel far more appreciative of their rights.
Despite this proposal, Guillotin was opposed to the death penalty and hoped that a more humane and less painful method of execution would be the first step toward a total abolition of the death penalty. He also hoped that fewer families and children would witness executions, and vowed to make them more private and individualized. It was also his belief that a standard death penalty by decapitation would prevent the cruel and unjust system of the day.
Federalism: Still A Long Way To Go
If you are a lover of the Constitution, and especially if you are the kind of Constitutionalist who takes originalism and/or the 10th Amendment seriously, this Pew poll contains a little good news and a lot of bad news. The good news is that Americans have a very low opinion of the Federal government, and are open to stripping it of some of the powers it currently exercises. The bad news is that majorities still think the Federal government should have "a major role" in tons of things that the Constitution intended to leave to the states.
You have to assume people just aren't paying attention.
Fully 80% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services, compared with just 31% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.Oddly, not even a third of Republicans and Republican leaners say they are angry with the Federal government, which they certainly have cause to be. Only half of this group thinks the Federal government runs its programs poorly, which may be even stranger for the party of Reagan in the wake of the VA scandal, the complete failure to enforce immigration laws, the Obamacare debacles -- think how much fun it must be to be one of those millions who have lost their health care plan twice due to Obamacare and its collapsing "marketplaces" -- the foreign policy embarrassments, the Justice Department's failure to prosecute crimes for politically favored individuals, the Fast & Furious scandal, the IRS-stalking-conservatives scandal, the....
Yet both Republicans and Democrats favor significant government involvement on an array of specific issues. Among the public overall, majorities say the federal government should have a major role in dealing with 12 of 13 issues included in the survey, all except advancing space exploration.
You have to assume people just aren't paying attention.
A Slight Miscalculation
These airstrikes were launched not because U.S. officials were prescient. They came after the Obama administration found and quietly fixed a colossal miscalculation. U.S. intelligence had grossly overestimated the damage they’d inflicted during airstrikes on the militants’ oil production apparatus last year, while underestimating Islamic State’s oil revenue by $400 million.That's four times as much as the administration had previously believed they were getting, and doesn't count income from the slave trade, general crime and extortion in its area of operation, etc.
Political Suicide
There are many ways in which the Democratic Party is pursuing an agenda that is bad for ordinary Americans, but for the most part the public hasn't grasped just how and why it is bad for them. There are two areas, however, where the public has clearly and substantially rejected the current agenda of the Democrats in Washington:
1) Gun Control,
2) Increasing immigration -- especially immigration of refugees from the civil war in Syria, but also generally.
The polling on these is clear, but if you don't trust polls practical behavior by Americans shows the degree to which these positions are rejected. On the one hand you have the record gun sales across the country, lasting for years. On the other you have the sustained popularity of Donald Trump, whose major virtue in the eyes of the public is intense, loud opposition to immigration. You've got the fact that a majority of state governors felt that it was good politics to formally reject new refugees last week.
What if we could combine both of these into a single symbolic effort to tie the Democratic party to the two things Americans have most clearly rejected?
Mike's got the principled argument against all this right in his post below. Even if you rejected the principles, though, politically this is irrational. It's as if they were trying to throw the 2016 elections.
1) Gun Control,
2) Increasing immigration -- especially immigration of refugees from the civil war in Syria, but also generally.
The polling on these is clear, but if you don't trust polls practical behavior by Americans shows the degree to which these positions are rejected. On the one hand you have the record gun sales across the country, lasting for years. On the other you have the sustained popularity of Donald Trump, whose major virtue in the eyes of the public is intense, loud opposition to immigration. You've got the fact that a majority of state governors felt that it was good politics to formally reject new refugees last week.
What if we could combine both of these into a single symbolic effort to tie the Democratic party to the two things Americans have most clearly rejected?
Mike's got the principled argument against all this right in his post below. Even if you rejected the principles, though, politically this is irrational. It's as if they were trying to throw the 2016 elections.
Froggy Used To Call These "Security Rounds"
On stopping active shooters.
A reasonable person might well expect a suicide vest from someone engaged in an essentially terrorist act. We haven't seen them deployed in active shooting situations in America usually, but they're commonly deployed overseas. There's no reason it shouldn't become common here, really.
A reasonable person might well expect a suicide vest from someone engaged in an essentially terrorist act. We haven't seen them deployed in active shooting situations in America usually, but they're commonly deployed overseas. There's no reason it shouldn't become common here, really.
Why are they allowed to have guns?
We get this piece of silliness from ABC News:
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/667080923561766913/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
It notes that individuals on the FBI terrorist watch list can legally purchase firearms. What an outrage! Why should people, arrested and charged with no crime whatsoever be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights! They're on a watch list!!! Isn't that like, super important?
Well, As noted over at Ace of Spades, Charles C. W. Cooke breaks down how it's not just the NRA that opposes restricting firearm purchases by those on the terrorist watch list, but that infamous right-wing group the ACLU does as well. Why? Well, there's this little thing called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that says that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And one of those liberties that no person shall be deprived of is the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Because there is no due process involved with getting on a terrorist watch list. One is placed on that list by whim of the FBI, not by a court of law, or a jury of one's peers. If all it took was an unelected official to declare that the NRA was a terrorist group to forbid its membership from purchasing firearms legally, well then you don't actually believe some future administration wouldn't be a bit tempted to do so, do you? Listen to the rhetoric of people like Michael Bloomberg or Gavin Newsome. I guarantee you if they had their way, anyone who owns a firearm would be thrown onto such a watch list.
And this brings me to the last point. Legal points of sale are not what the terrorists have ever previously shown an interest in. For the Paris attack (in a country with strict gun control... sorry "common sense" gun control), they did not get their weapons from the US, or another lax gun control law nation. They got them illegally in Belgium which, if anything, has even stricter ("more sensible") gun control laws than France. Restricting the ability of citizens to purchase weapons legally does not stop those who wish to purchase them illegally.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/667080923561766913/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
It notes that individuals on the FBI terrorist watch list can legally purchase firearms. What an outrage! Why should people, arrested and charged with no crime whatsoever be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights! They're on a watch list!!! Isn't that like, super important?
Well, As noted over at Ace of Spades, Charles C. W. Cooke breaks down how it's not just the NRA that opposes restricting firearm purchases by those on the terrorist watch list, but that infamous right-wing group the ACLU does as well. Why? Well, there's this little thing called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that says that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And one of those liberties that no person shall be deprived of is the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Because there is no due process involved with getting on a terrorist watch list. One is placed on that list by whim of the FBI, not by a court of law, or a jury of one's peers. If all it took was an unelected official to declare that the NRA was a terrorist group to forbid its membership from purchasing firearms legally, well then you don't actually believe some future administration wouldn't be a bit tempted to do so, do you? Listen to the rhetoric of people like Michael Bloomberg or Gavin Newsome. I guarantee you if they had their way, anyone who owns a firearm would be thrown onto such a watch list.
And this brings me to the last point. Legal points of sale are not what the terrorists have ever previously shown an interest in. For the Paris attack (in a country with strict gun control... sorry "common sense" gun control), they did not get their weapons from the US, or another lax gun control law nation. They got them illegally in Belgium which, if anything, has even stricter ("more sensible") gun control laws than France. Restricting the ability of citizens to purchase weapons legally does not stop those who wish to purchase them illegally.
Ouch!
My neighbor just posted this on Facebook. I love watching these things just to see the old dancers, and it's fun to have it set to a modern funky song. But even if you don't enjoy that, the final few seconds are not to be missed. I wouldn't have thought it was possible to survive a dance move like that.
Also, I do love me some Fred Astaire, from head to toe.
Also, I do love me some Fred Astaire, from head to toe.
More Friday Night Music
Continuing with the African theme, I wore out the cassette tape of this album in college. One hoped to see more of the fusion going on here.
Some Very Different Music For a Friday Night
Not sure if this is more diverse or more vibrant, but it's kind of cool.
Zero Hedge: Most of the Country Peaked in the Late 1990s
...and the labor force participation rate hasn't been this low since Carter.
Why Is It So Hard To Speak The Truth?
Someone must have seen that Iraqi comedian making fun of us for not being able to call ISIS "Islamic," and decided they needed to push back really hard.
Really hard.
So now George W. Bush is the spokesman for the Democratic Party? On the right attitude towards the war?
People can't seem to distinguish between the following claims:
1) "ISIS is essentially Islamic."
2) "Islam is essentially like ISIS."
Claim 1 is demonstrably, empirically true. ISIS -- like a number of other Islamic organizations to include Hizb-ut Tahrir and of course al Qaeda -- is founded for no other reason than to realize a particular vision of Islamic law on earth. They have put a tremendous amount of work into developing their visions. Many of their leaders are lifelong religious students. ISIS leader Baghdadi was a cleric before he became a revolutionary. These organizations have published decades' worth of material explaining exactly how their vision aligns with sha'riah law and the life of the Prophet and his companions.
Furthermore -- whether you like it or not -- their interpretations of sha'riah law are not absurd. They are often the most obvious readings of those laws.
Claim 2 is not obviously true.
For one thing, there are a lot of different schools of sha'riah law. Most of the Islamic world doesn't live under any interpretation similar to this, however obvious these interpretations may be, and haven't historically. That makes perfect sense. Catholics have the Bible, and we also have the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas -- a huge series of densely-argued Aristotelian philosophy about how to interpret the Bible, as well as a long history of earlier Catholic philosophers. The results they come up with are not always the most obvious readings of the Bible. Some Protestant schools prefer more obvious and literal readings. That doesn't make Protestants un-Christian, nor Catholics either.
Jews, by the same token, have on the one hand the Torah; and on the other, a vast collection of Rabbinical scholarship that tries to interpret and understand. Islam, for its own sake, has a similar tradition in its history. One of Thomas Aquinas' chief sources was Averroes, also known as Ibn Rushd, who was an Islamic law judge as well as a philosopher and whose reading of Islamic law was fairly humane (especially in his treatment of women).
So, are we at war with Islam? No. Are we at war with a radical Islamic group? Yes. Are they Muslims? Yes. Are all Muslims them? No. Is ISIS Islamic? Yes, essentially so. Is Islam like ISIS? Not all of it, not by far. Does Islam have anything to do with ISIS? Yes, obviously.
Speak the truth.
Really hard.
So now George W. Bush is the spokesman for the Democratic Party? On the right attitude towards the war?
People can't seem to distinguish between the following claims:
1) "ISIS is essentially Islamic."
2) "Islam is essentially like ISIS."
Claim 1 is demonstrably, empirically true. ISIS -- like a number of other Islamic organizations to include Hizb-ut Tahrir and of course al Qaeda -- is founded for no other reason than to realize a particular vision of Islamic law on earth. They have put a tremendous amount of work into developing their visions. Many of their leaders are lifelong religious students. ISIS leader Baghdadi was a cleric before he became a revolutionary. These organizations have published decades' worth of material explaining exactly how their vision aligns with sha'riah law and the life of the Prophet and his companions.
Furthermore -- whether you like it or not -- their interpretations of sha'riah law are not absurd. They are often the most obvious readings of those laws.
Claim 2 is not obviously true.
For one thing, there are a lot of different schools of sha'riah law. Most of the Islamic world doesn't live under any interpretation similar to this, however obvious these interpretations may be, and haven't historically. That makes perfect sense. Catholics have the Bible, and we also have the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas -- a huge series of densely-argued Aristotelian philosophy about how to interpret the Bible, as well as a long history of earlier Catholic philosophers. The results they come up with are not always the most obvious readings of the Bible. Some Protestant schools prefer more obvious and literal readings. That doesn't make Protestants un-Christian, nor Catholics either.
Jews, by the same token, have on the one hand the Torah; and on the other, a vast collection of Rabbinical scholarship that tries to interpret and understand. Islam, for its own sake, has a similar tradition in its history. One of Thomas Aquinas' chief sources was Averroes, also known as Ibn Rushd, who was an Islamic law judge as well as a philosopher and whose reading of Islamic law was fairly humane (especially in his treatment of women).
So, are we at war with Islam? No. Are we at war with a radical Islamic group? Yes. Are they Muslims? Yes. Are all Muslims them? No. Is ISIS Islamic? Yes, essentially so. Is Islam like ISIS? Not all of it, not by far. Does Islam have anything to do with ISIS? Yes, obviously.
Speak the truth.
Safety in Numbers
One:
“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”Two:
“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”
However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”
This is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended.
President Obama’s marquee deportation amnesty has been stalled by the courts, but the rest of his executive actions on immigration, announced exactly a year ago, are moving forward — including his move protecting more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants from any danger of deportation....
“There are 7 or 8 or 9 million people who are now safe under the current policy. That is a victory to celebrate while we wait for the Supreme Court,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat who was among the chief cheerleaders pushing Mr. Obama to go around Congress and take unilateral steps last year.
Vibrant diverse youths
The AP staff must have a macro that generates these phrases:
Saint-Denis is one of France's most historic places. French kings were crowned and buried through the centuries in its famed basilica, a majestic Gothic church that towers over the area. Today the district is home to a vibrant and very ethnically diverse population and sees sporadic tension between police and violent youths.
The Flowers of Bermuda
The chorus carries a haunting juxtaposition:
He was the Captain of the Nightingale
Twenty-one days from Clyde in coal
He could smell the flowers of Bermuda in the gale
When he died on the North Rock Shoal
Jacksonians Forever
W. R. Mead is not pleased with the defiance of the old tradition.
To see the full cynicism of the Obama approach to the refugee issue, one has only to ask President Obama’s least favorite question: Why is there a Syrian refugee crisis in the first place?That's right, first to last.
Obama’s own policy decisions—allowing Assad to convert peaceful demonstrations into an increasingly ugly civil war, refusing to declare safe havens and no fly zones—were instrumental in creating the Syrian refugee crisis. This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn. For him to try and use a derisory and symbolic program to allow 10,000 refugees into the United States in order to posture as more caring than those evil Jacksonian rednecks out in the benighted sticks is one of the most cynical, cold-blooded, and nastily divisive moves an American President has made in a long time.
Moreover, many of those “benighted” people were willing to sign up for the U.S. military and go to fight ISIS in Syria to protect the refugees....
The “why are Jacksonians such xenophobes?” conversation, given the way so much of the country’s media works, is the conversation we are having. It is not the conversation the country, or even the President, needs.... Things can and will get worse as long as American policy continues to flounder; instead of arguing about how to shelter a few thousand refugees we need to look hard at how we are failing to address the disaster that has created millions, and that continues to grow.
Challenge Accepted
Instapundit suggests putting this map of states that refused refugees and plugging it into the Electoral College.
Here's what I got, giving the D's all the states that haven't taken the step of formally refusing.
(Updated with new information this afternoon.)
Here's what I got, giving the D's all the states that haven't taken the step of formally refusing.
Click the map to create your own at (Updated with new information this afternoon.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)