Headline: "Trump orders arrest of violent protesters. Wants 'law and order' for the United States."
UPDATE: The Obama administration's immigration efforts are setting Trump up for success.
Sturgill Simpson on NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts
Grim introduced Mr. Simpson the other day and I enjoyed his sound. NPR has a neat little program called Tiny Desk Concerts where musicians play a few songs live in the NPR offices. I've enjoyed several of these concerts now.
The 30% Solution
The Speed Metal band Metallica used to say, "Kill 'em all." But in a scholarly treatment of the world's worst wars, from ancient Athens to the Thirty Years war and from Napoleon to the Confederacy, Spengler says that's not necessary. Killing just 30% of the military-aged male population appears to do the trick.
Rather bloody mathematics, that, but his citations are chiefly to solid academic works. I wonder if he hasn't identified something universal in the inflection point. If so, I wonder why that universal would hold in such different times and cultures.
UPDATE: Thinking about this more overnight, I notice the omission of two examples of war of attrition that I'd have expected to see: the Vietnam War, and the Russian war in Afghanistan. Figures for Vietnam are controversial, but the high-end numbers don't support anything like a 30% loss of military aged males: the population of Vietnam actually grew rapidly during the war, from 28 to 45 million. I'll estimate military-aged as roughly 1/3rd of any population, with males being roughly 1/2, so 1/16th is the very rough estimate for military-aged males in a population. The highest number of estimated Vietnamese killed is 3.1 million; 1/6th of 28 million is 4.7 million. But in fact the population will have added nearly an additional 5 million military-aged males during the 20 years of the war, with those deaths being spread out over the whole course of the war and not all happening at once.
Thus I estimate deaths would have needed to be twice what they were and then some to attain the 30%, and that's if the highest estimates of dead are accurate. If the lower estimates are accurate instead, then more than six times as many deaths would have been necessary to attain the figure Spengler describes.
For Afghanistan, the total population is thought to have been around 16 million in 1981-2. 1/6th of that is 2.7 million. The 9 year Soviet war killed -- again, taking the highest estimate -- 1.6 million. So once again, in spite of Soviet brutality, they never approached the figure Spengler describes.
So these two possible counter-examples, in which industrial powers attempted to use attrition as a strategy, both fail to disprove his argument.
Rather bloody mathematics, that, but his citations are chiefly to solid academic works. I wonder if he hasn't identified something universal in the inflection point. If so, I wonder why that universal would hold in such different times and cultures.
UPDATE: Thinking about this more overnight, I notice the omission of two examples of war of attrition that I'd have expected to see: the Vietnam War, and the Russian war in Afghanistan. Figures for Vietnam are controversial, but the high-end numbers don't support anything like a 30% loss of military aged males: the population of Vietnam actually grew rapidly during the war, from 28 to 45 million. I'll estimate military-aged as roughly 1/3rd of any population, with males being roughly 1/2, so 1/16th is the very rough estimate for military-aged males in a population. The highest number of estimated Vietnamese killed is 3.1 million; 1/6th of 28 million is 4.7 million. But in fact the population will have added nearly an additional 5 million military-aged males during the 20 years of the war, with those deaths being spread out over the whole course of the war and not all happening at once.
Thus I estimate deaths would have needed to be twice what they were and then some to attain the 30%, and that's if the highest estimates of dead are accurate. If the lower estimates are accurate instead, then more than six times as many deaths would have been necessary to attain the figure Spengler describes.
For Afghanistan, the total population is thought to have been around 16 million in 1981-2. 1/6th of that is 2.7 million. The 9 year Soviet war killed -- again, taking the highest estimate -- 1.6 million. So once again, in spite of Soviet brutality, they never approached the figure Spengler describes.
So these two possible counter-examples, in which industrial powers attempted to use attrition as a strategy, both fail to disprove his argument.
National Review: Die, White Working Class
Kevin Williamson, who has often been cited here and who is certainly a good writer capable of clear and clever thought, thinks America's white working class is vicious and worthless, and we'd be better off if they died out.
I don't share his economic theories. I do think immigration had a major effect on destroying America's working class, and I think the free-trade policies he champions did too. Bracket that, though: we'll agree to disagree on the question.
The welfare dependency he cites is a major part of the problem. America's welfare state, set up precisely to help the poorest Americans, has been deeply destructive to their lives and culture. It should be dismantled.
However, I am surprised that he doesn't see the effect of both welfare and over-regulation on the traditional economies of these regions. What did they ever produce? Small farms. You weren't going to get rich running a family farm, but you could sell the milk you got from your cow each day, and cheese, and a few crops. You were going to have to work hard (the absence of which he says is the root of the moral rot he describes). You'd need to keep the family together, somehow, to get that work done. Presumably no one would do it if they could sit back and collect a check from D.C., and the checks get bigger if the family falls apart. Subsidize anything and you get more of it.
But now not only is there the check, there's a huge set of rules and regulations that ban you from collecting and selling your cow's milk without expensive technological investments. You'd need to hire a lawyer to make sure your farm wasn't violating rules nine ways to Sunday.
The black market in drugs flourishes in part because, if everything you know how to do for money is illegal, you might as well do the most profitable one of the crimes.
The problems he cites of course generalize to all of America's working poor, but if you wrote the same column about the urban poor you'd be fired as a racist. (John Derbyshire's equally honest treatment of urban black culture in America is how he got shown the door). I won't call for that, because I value honesty. It's good to speak your mind plainly. Being offensive is sometimes helpful to breaking a deadlock on a big problem. The solution to America's poverty problem is not that the poor communities should 'die out,' however.
The solution is dismantling the existing transfer-payment welfare system and also the vast set of food production regulations that make farming the business of corporations instead of small family farms. In their place, we will need to set up CCC-style systems to teach people how to do the things that the current generation no longer knows how to do because their grandparents had to give it up.
We can structure our regulations to make it more likely that small family farms succeed, and we can make work-based systems like this the only welfare game going. Do that, and you'll have a healthier working poor. They'll still be poor. But they will have decent lives.
Along the way, we'll also get a better kind of food. Small farmers doing grass-fed, grass-finished beef or free-range chickens is something people want anyway: it's just too expensive to be marketable. Increase the supply vastly, however, and the price will come down. Doing so will ultimately be much cheaper than the transfer-payment systems we have now, and give us several goods we would be glad to have.
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy—which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog—you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that...He's a good enough writer that I assume he didn't misspeak.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. The white American under-class is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.
I don't share his economic theories. I do think immigration had a major effect on destroying America's working class, and I think the free-trade policies he champions did too. Bracket that, though: we'll agree to disagree on the question.
The welfare dependency he cites is a major part of the problem. America's welfare state, set up precisely to help the poorest Americans, has been deeply destructive to their lives and culture. It should be dismantled.
However, I am surprised that he doesn't see the effect of both welfare and over-regulation on the traditional economies of these regions. What did they ever produce? Small farms. You weren't going to get rich running a family farm, but you could sell the milk you got from your cow each day, and cheese, and a few crops. You were going to have to work hard (the absence of which he says is the root of the moral rot he describes). You'd need to keep the family together, somehow, to get that work done. Presumably no one would do it if they could sit back and collect a check from D.C., and the checks get bigger if the family falls apart. Subsidize anything and you get more of it.
But now not only is there the check, there's a huge set of rules and regulations that ban you from collecting and selling your cow's milk without expensive technological investments. You'd need to hire a lawyer to make sure your farm wasn't violating rules nine ways to Sunday.
The black market in drugs flourishes in part because, if everything you know how to do for money is illegal, you might as well do the most profitable one of the crimes.
The problems he cites of course generalize to all of America's working poor, but if you wrote the same column about the urban poor you'd be fired as a racist. (John Derbyshire's equally honest treatment of urban black culture in America is how he got shown the door). I won't call for that, because I value honesty. It's good to speak your mind plainly. Being offensive is sometimes helpful to breaking a deadlock on a big problem. The solution to America's poverty problem is not that the poor communities should 'die out,' however.
The solution is dismantling the existing transfer-payment welfare system and also the vast set of food production regulations that make farming the business of corporations instead of small family farms. In their place, we will need to set up CCC-style systems to teach people how to do the things that the current generation no longer knows how to do because their grandparents had to give it up.
We can structure our regulations to make it more likely that small family farms succeed, and we can make work-based systems like this the only welfare game going. Do that, and you'll have a healthier working poor. They'll still be poor. But they will have decent lives.
Along the way, we'll also get a better kind of food. Small farmers doing grass-fed, grass-finished beef or free-range chickens is something people want anyway: it's just too expensive to be marketable. Increase the supply vastly, however, and the price will come down. Doing so will ultimately be much cheaper than the transfer-payment systems we have now, and give us several goods we would be glad to have.
Pressing Charges
From a Trump rally in Kansas City (not the one in Wichita Valerie cited):
If he can make that shift, he will be poised to run as the law-and-order candidate in the fall. It will be difficult for Clinton or Sanders to take the same tone, because the BLM movement has their number. They can't afford to stand up to this kind of anti-free-speech, lawless disruption.
“I hope they get put into, I hope these guys get thrown into jail. They’ll never do it again. It’ll destroy their record. They’ll have to explain to mom and dad why they have a police record, and why they can’t get a job. And you know what? I’m going to start pressing charges against these people. And then we won’t have a problem.Trump is really good at playing the crowd. He's talking the right way now -- not 'Hey, I'll pay your legal fees if you beat up a protester.' American Presidents don't invite brown shirts to engage in violence against protesters. They use official police forces.
“And I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to ruin somebody’s life. They’re probably good kids, you know. They’re probably good kids. I don’t what to ruin people’s lives. But the only way we’re going to stop this craziness is if we press charges. Because then their lives are going to be ruined. They’re going to know their lives are going to be ruined. So I’ll just tell you folks from now on, if you do anything, we’re pressing charges, okay?”
If he can make that shift, he will be poised to run as the law-and-order candidate in the fall. It will be difficult for Clinton or Sanders to take the same tone, because the BLM movement has their number. They can't afford to stand up to this kind of anti-free-speech, lawless disruption.
You'll Get Some On You
Indiana U is hosting an interdisciplinary conference in Psychoanalysis and Analytic Philosophy. I can't think of anything worse for Analytic Philosophy, although frankly that faction of the field deserves what it courts.
A History Lesson on Hillary Clinton
Oddly enough, Clinton enjoys her strongest support among older Democrats, the ones who were around and ought to remember all this. The younger Democrats, who didn't have the opportunity to see the constant crime and deceit, are the ones who have her figured out. That's an interesting irony.
UPDATE: Salon magazine hits the Clintons hard from the left.
UPDATE: Also, this progressive blogger who remembers the history unkindly.
The Anti-Klan Rally Will Be Held At The Klan Rally
I haven't seen a uniformed member of the Ku Klux Klan anywhere in Georgia since I was a boy. However, on April 23rd there is going to be a Klan rally at Stone Mountain (which has the dubious distinction of being the place where the Klan was reborn in 1915 after its successful suppression by Federal Marshals teamed up with Beford Forrest and other former-Confederate luminaries). I know this because there is going to be an anti-Klan rally at the Klan rally, and the group organizing it is soliciting attendance.
This group is called "All Out ATL," apparently a local wing of a nationwide movement. They are, naturally, Bernie Sanders voters who speak blithely about revolution. They are better fit to keep company with the Klan than they realize, preferring direct action and street violence to suppress their political opponents and smooth the way for their agenda. They see themselves as in "solidarity" (of course) with the protesting groups that shut down the Trump rally in Chicago. The comparison would no doubt shock them, but in truth they are a lot alike. I imagine the one group has more grad students than the other, but they are both motivated by hate and a taste for suppressing their enemies with force.
The Klan is a despicable organization we ought to oppose. It is possible to do so without becoming like them.
This group is called "All Out ATL," apparently a local wing of a nationwide movement. They are, naturally, Bernie Sanders voters who speak blithely about revolution. They are better fit to keep company with the Klan than they realize, preferring direct action and street violence to suppress their political opponents and smooth the way for their agenda. They see themselves as in "solidarity" (of course) with the protesting groups that shut down the Trump rally in Chicago. The comparison would no doubt shock them, but in truth they are a lot alike. I imagine the one group has more grad students than the other, but they are both motivated by hate and a taste for suppressing their enemies with force.
The Klan is a despicable organization we ought to oppose. It is possible to do so without becoming like them.
Politics as the Jerry Springer Show
Possibly also an assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
UPDATE: Drudge linked this video of Ronald Reagan's response to lawbreaking protests. It's worth watching for the short clip of him reading the riot act to the college faculty.
UPDATE: Drudge linked this video of Ronald Reagan's response to lawbreaking protests. It's worth watching for the short clip of him reading the riot act to the college faculty.
I'm Looking At You, Ash Carter
As our Secretary of Defense celebrates his decision to force all combat positions open to women in the military, I would like to present a Marine Corps recruit currently in training at Parris Island (the Land that Time Forgot). I could tell you her name, as a friend of mine worked with her while she was in the USMC's JROTC. All I'm going to tell you is that she is a young woman of spirit and dedication, and that she is exactly what the USMC is looking for right now.
Marines in the audience will notice that her belt is out of order and needs to be cut. At this stage in her career, that error on her DIs and not on her. Being a country girl, I'm sure she can shoot a rifle well. She says she wants to be a Marine to make her parents proud, and to do something important with her life. Those are both honorable, laudable goals. I think the world of this young woman and wish her well.
All the same, take a close look at what we're doing.
Marines in the audience will notice that her belt is out of order and needs to be cut. At this stage in her career, that error on her DIs and not on her. Being a country girl, I'm sure she can shoot a rifle well. She says she wants to be a Marine to make her parents proud, and to do something important with her life. Those are both honorable, laudable goals. I think the world of this young woman and wish her well.
All the same, take a close look at what we're doing.
And now for something completely different
The amazing thing is, he barely seems to be moving his hands:
The Shutdown in Chicago
It was carefully organized, of course, but (as I heard someone remark last night) that doesn't change the fact that any other candidate could have held a rally in Chicago without drawing this reaction. For now: if this is seen to have been effective at killing the Trump candidacy, it will become a regular playbook entry for these organizations. BLM has made disrupting political rallies a standard of its tactics already, though the scale of this was larger.
Ironically, that would end up having a fascist effect on American politics even though the people behind this claim to be motivated by a fear of fascism.
Ironically, that would end up having a fascist effect on American politics even though the people behind this claim to be motivated by a fear of fascism.
He Is Very Disappointed In Us
David Frum, writing in the Atlantic, says of the President:
He admits one major mistake: not making sufficient allowances for how unreasonable other people are.Apparently he inherited lousy allies as well as an American population that is significantly less capable than he expected.
Brokerage and floor fights
Knowing nothing of brokered conventions, and having recently discovered I can't even figure out my own state's rules for allotting delegates to candidates, I found this article by Michael Barone interesting. He predicts that the rules will permit the party to outmaneuver Trump almost no matter how the vote comes out, that Cruz will end up with the nomination, and that we'll know the answer by June.
She Was One of Us
Hannah Arendt:
[W]hat would have become of that, had she not come to these [American] shores — who knows? It was the experience of the Republic here which decisively shaped her political thinking, tempered as it was in the fires of European tyranny and catastrophe, and forever supported by her grounding in classical thought. America taught her a way beyond the hardened alternatives of left and right from which she had escaped; and the idea of the Republic, as the realistic chance for freedom, remained dear to her even in its darkening days.She died in her error, as I hope to myself.
She Sure -Sounds- Like a Target
FOX News is reporting that the FBI has been questioning Clinton's IT dude in such a way as to try to tie together images of then-Secretary Clinton using her electronic devices with the email server's records. The claim is that they are trying to put together voids in the email record, so they can get some sense of just what she deleted as "personal" and never turned over to State.
They are, in other words, looking at her personally. They want to know exactly what she herself was doing, and how it ties into the records they are examining.
If that's not a "target" of the investigation, it's certainly a "subject" of the investigation in the technical terminology they use. The real point of her denials of being a "target" is that she wants to say something like this:
This is just a security review! Nobody is thinking of indicting me!
If they're looking at images of her and trying to tie them to events, though, they're looking at her personally. This was never just a security review, but it might have been targeted at finding a scapegoat among her chief aides. Now it sounds like they are doing the right thing, and targeting her personally for her manifest and constant violations of national security law.
They are, in other words, looking at her personally. They want to know exactly what she herself was doing, and how it ties into the records they are examining.
If that's not a "target" of the investigation, it's certainly a "subject" of the investigation in the technical terminology they use. The real point of her denials of being a "target" is that she wants to say something like this:
This is just a security review! Nobody is thinking of indicting me!
If they're looking at images of her and trying to tie them to events, though, they're looking at her personally. This was never just a security review, but it might have been targeted at finding a scapegoat among her chief aides. Now it sounds like they are doing the right thing, and targeting her personally for her manifest and constant violations of national security law.
Better Late than Never
National Review endorses Ted Cruz.
I agree that Cruz is the best choice among the remaining candidates. I would rank them roughly as follows: Cruz -> Rubio -> Kaisch -> Sanders -> Trump -> Clinton. I'm not sure if Kaisch deserves to be ranked that high, but he does have gubernatorial credentials.
I agree that Cruz is the best choice among the remaining candidates. I would rank them roughly as follows: Cruz -> Rubio -> Kaisch -> Sanders -> Trump -> Clinton. I'm not sure if Kaisch deserves to be ranked that high, but he does have gubernatorial credentials.
Religious Jokes for a Friday
It would be a good idea to have a laugh given the dreary state of American politics. How about some religious jokes from my wife's Uncle Bill in Canada?
*** Opening Joke
Recently a large seminar was held for ministers in training. Among the guests were many well-known motivational speakers.
One of these speakers boldly approached the pulpit and, gathering the entire crowds attention, said, The best years of my life were spent in the arms of a woman that wasn't my wife!
The crowd was shocked! He followed up by saying, And that woman was my mother!
The crowd burst into laughter and he gave his speech, which went over well.
About a week later one of the ministers who had attended the seminar decided to use that joke in his sermon. As he shyly approached the pulpit one sunny Sunday, he tried to rehearse the joke in his head. It seemed a bit foggy to him this morning.
Getting to the microphone he said loudly, The greatest years of my life were spent in the arms of another woman that was not my wife! His congregation sat shocked.
After standing there for almost 10 seconds trying to recall the second half of the joke, the pastor finally blurted out, …and I can't remember who she was!
*** Absolution
Edgar went to confession on Saturday and he told Father Duffy that he had an affair with a married
women from the parish. Father Duffy asked Edgar who she was and Edgar said, "Father, I can't tell you."
Father said, "If you don't tell me I cant give you absolution."
Edgar again said, "I know Father, but I just can't tell you."
Father Duffy then asked, "Was it Mrs. Murphy?"
"No, Father."
"Was it Mrs. O'Malley?"
"No, Father."
"Was it Mrs. O'Brian?"
"No, Father. I just cannot tell you who it was."
Father Duffy tells Edgar to go out and think about it and then come back when ready to confess who it was. Edgar leaves the church and runs into his friend Jim. Jim asks, "Did you tell him you had the affair?"
"Yes. He wanted to know who it was, but I wouldn't tell him."
"What did he say? Did he give you absolution?"
"Oh no, but he did give me three new possibilities........"
*** Religious Objects
A teacher asks her students what religious objects they have in their homes.
One boy answers, "We have a picture of a woman with a halo holding a baby and every day my mother kneels in front of it."
The next little boy says, "We have a brass statue of a man seated with crossed legs and a Chinese face, and every day my parents burn an incense stick before it."
Then a third boy pipes up, "In the bathroom we have a flat, square box with numbers on it. Every day my mother stands on it first thing in the morning and screams, 'OH MY GOD!!!'"
Georgia Legislature Passes Campus Carry
It is now off to the Governor for his signature.
I've had one of these licenses for decades, with a short void while I was a citizen of other states in the early 2000s. The permit requirements are fairly stringent. Most undergraduates are simply too young to apply, as you must be 21. All applicants are finger-printed and undergo both state and Federal criminal background checks. In addition, the probate court contacts Georgia's mental health facilities to make sure that they have no mental issues, and have never been in drug or alcohol rehabilitation treatment. All these checks are repeated every five years, and any serious criminal convictions -- as well as mere accusations of domestic violence, which is taken especially seriously by the Federal government -- void the license and are entered into the central tracking system to prevent the issuing of a new one.
Georgia has no firearms training requirement, which is a weakness in the law in my opinion: I think all American citizens should be trained in the use of firearms in High School as part of their militia service as citizens. Nevertheless, for the most part the state takes seriously the question of making sure that only rational adults of continually demonstrated good behavior are licensed.
The people who are likely to shoot up a campus are unlikely to prove to have a license -- nor, for that matter, are they likely to have cared whether it was legal to bring the gun in the first place.
The article does mention the recent robberies at Georgia State University, where I went to school as an undergraduate long ago. They're right that there were robberies regularly, as it is right downtown in Atlanta and classes run well into the night. Many of the students are "nontraditional," meaning they have enrolled in school later in life, and often they are working a full-time job in addition to pursuing a degree after work. These students are a very low risk for turning criminal, but they are exposed to a significant risk of robbery or assault walking back to their cars, or to the MARTA station, on what is often a lonely campus late at night.
I've had one of these licenses for decades, with a short void while I was a citizen of other states in the early 2000s. The permit requirements are fairly stringent. Most undergraduates are simply too young to apply, as you must be 21. All applicants are finger-printed and undergo both state and Federal criminal background checks. In addition, the probate court contacts Georgia's mental health facilities to make sure that they have no mental issues, and have never been in drug or alcohol rehabilitation treatment. All these checks are repeated every five years, and any serious criminal convictions -- as well as mere accusations of domestic violence, which is taken especially seriously by the Federal government -- void the license and are entered into the central tracking system to prevent the issuing of a new one.
Georgia has no firearms training requirement, which is a weakness in the law in my opinion: I think all American citizens should be trained in the use of firearms in High School as part of their militia service as citizens. Nevertheless, for the most part the state takes seriously the question of making sure that only rational adults of continually demonstrated good behavior are licensed.
The people who are likely to shoot up a campus are unlikely to prove to have a license -- nor, for that matter, are they likely to have cared whether it was legal to bring the gun in the first place.
The article does mention the recent robberies at Georgia State University, where I went to school as an undergraduate long ago. They're right that there were robberies regularly, as it is right downtown in Atlanta and classes run well into the night. Many of the students are "nontraditional," meaning they have enrolled in school later in life, and often they are working a full-time job in addition to pursuing a degree after work. These students are a very low risk for turning criminal, but they are exposed to a significant risk of robbery or assault walking back to their cars, or to the MARTA station, on what is often a lonely campus late at night.
A surprising education success story
In my high school in the 1970s, if you wanted any serious instruction, AP courses were your only option. Nevertheless, I never sat for any AP tests; my university had no required freshman courses to place out of, and I never sensed that any prerequisite courses were likely to waste my time. It was all I could do to keep up with a full course load at the suddenly much more challenging level that awaited me after I left public high school. The AP high school courses nevertheless were quite good, an adequate preparation for a rigorous university, if not necessarily a substitute for freshman year. If I had chosen to attend a state school, I might well have placed out of many freshman courses, since many of them amounted to remedial high school instruction.
This AEI article claims that AP has succeeded notably in expanding its market reach during the last decade or two, without sacrificing its quality control. There have been reports of PC nonsense influencing the exams, but the overall rigor remains high.
This AEI article claims that AP has succeeded notably in expanding its market reach during the last decade or two, without sacrificing its quality control. There have been reports of PC nonsense influencing the exams, but the overall rigor remains high.
Lizards in amber
This is cool. A proto-chameleon beautifully preserved in amber pushes the estimated origins of that line back about 79 million years, leaving an extremely long fossil gap now needing to be filled with more discoveries.
News from Ghana
Alec Ndiwane decided that the Lord wanted him to challenge some lions.
The Zion Christian Church Prophet was at the park with his fellow church members when, according to GhanaWeb, he went into a trance and began speaking in tongues. The group approached the pride of lions while they munched happily on an antelope, but that’s when Ndiwane ran toward the lions....Don't feel bad, Alec. Sometimes the Lord helps the bear.
Unfortunately, lions are fast and fierce animals and when one of the lions snapped her paws on him, Ndiwane sustained injuries to his buttocks.
...
“I do not know what came over me,” Ndiwane confessed. “I thought the Lord wanted to use me to show his power over animals. Is it not we were given dominion over all creatures of the earth.”
This Will Be Interesting
Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional. Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, I concur with the order....So rules Alabama's Supreme Court. (H/t D29.)
I agree with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, and with Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, that the majority opinion in Obergefell has no basis in the law, history, or tradition of this country. Obergefell is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial authority that usurps the legislative prerogative of the states to regulate their own domestic policy. Additionally, Obergefell seriously jeopardizes the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It's the right moment for a push like this: the usual answer, the deployment of Federal Marshals or even Federal troops to force compliance with Federal orders, is risky in the middle of an election season dominated by rebellion in both parties against their establishments. The states do have an interest in defending their own Constitutional powers under the 10th amendment: that powers not granted to the Federal government nor forbidden to the states are reserved to the states or to the People. No power to arbitrate fundamental moral questions for all states was ever granted to the Federal government, not even by the 14th Amendment, which only gives the Federal courts the power to ensure that existing rights and privileges are respected equally for all citizens. That power has been stretched out of shape, and now is thought to give the Nine power to force their views on every American and every state.
Did He Really Say That?
President Obama, on Putin:
That they are not playing your stupid games does not mean that they aren't a player. They're going to own the northern Middle East thanks to your failure to grasp this, just like they own Crimea. Have any G20 meetings about the lawful disposition of Crimea or Ukrainian territories, by the way? Who set the agenda for those?
“He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn’t suddenly make him a player. You don’t see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.”Oh, really? Had any G20 meetings about Syria lately? The agenda on Syria was set by the Russians the day they parked an air force and a highly capable naval gunnery command there, providing fire support to their allies Assad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. Their deployment of S-400 missiles cemented that agenda, as has their sale of S-300 missiles to Iran -- banned by the UN Security Council's resolution governing Iran's nuclear "deal." Russia signed off on that piece of paper, too, didn't they? Wonder why it didn't stop them from selling these missiles to Iran?
That they are not playing your stupid games does not mean that they aren't a player. They're going to own the northern Middle East thanks to your failure to grasp this, just like they own Crimea. Have any G20 meetings about the lawful disposition of Crimea or Ukrainian territories, by the way? Who set the agenda for those?
What Could Go Wrong?
NSA data becomes widely available:
What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations.In addition to the civil rights abuses pondered at the link, let me raise a National Security concern: you'll be giving a vast number of people access to this information, which means its parameters and limits will become widely known very quickly. The tool will rapidly become useless for what it was originally intended to do.
Richard Fernandez on Challenging Opinions
The Belmont Club author, and one of the bloggers I've always respected most, gives a remarkable podcast interview.
He begins by contrasting historical imperalist treatments of the Middle East with the current post-Bush chaos unleashed by the Obama administration. The price of chaos, he says, will be much higher.
He begins by contrasting historical imperalist treatments of the Middle East with the current post-Bush chaos unleashed by the Obama administration. The price of chaos, he says, will be much higher.
NPR & Harvard: Boy, Obamacare is a Disaster
PowerLine notes an NPR report that can't sugarcoat the medicine.
You can list me in the group whose benefits have stayed about the same -- it's a grandfathered plan -- but whose co-pays have increased and whose premiums have skyrocketed. I'm paying I think twice now what I was paying before this lovely adventure began, for exactly the same plan (since I am now forbidden by law to change it without losing it forever).
You can list me in the group whose benefits have stayed about the same -- it's a grandfathered plan -- but whose co-pays have increased and whose premiums have skyrocketed. I'm paying I think twice now what I was paying before this lovely adventure began, for exactly the same plan (since I am now forbidden by law to change it without losing it forever).
Please Let That Be True
I don't know enough about Federal prosecutions to know if this statement is accurate. The source is the right kind of person to know, but if there's a loophole, I'd expect it to be in play in a Clinton-related case.
DiGenova said it was clear to him if a federal grand jury had been impaneled after Justice Department officials acknowledged they had issued statutory immunity to Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s former IT chief.
Druid Temple in Scotland
Underground, and possibly. Interesting pictures, and worth entertaining as a theory.
The Expected Violence
Multiple camera angles caught a Trump supporter sucker-punching a black activist who was being removed from a rally following an attempt to disrupt that rally by protesting. The use of several cameras at different angles to capture his removal -- and the subsequent violence -- makes it difficult to claim the offense was faked or is being misunderstood.
Will Trump try to talk his people into not taking the bait? Does he actually have that much control over the passions he's riding toward the nomination? I am doubtful on both questions.
Will Trump try to talk his people into not taking the bait? Does he actually have that much control over the passions he's riding toward the nomination? I am doubtful on both questions.
Trump on the Oprah Winfrey Show
Decades ago, talking about foreign policy and foreign trade.
He sounds pretty much the same, right down to praising Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis for doing "one hell of a job." The America-first, tired-of-seeing-our-country-lose tone is the same, too.
Also, President Obama just said the same thing about allied free riders that Donald Trump apparently took out a full-page ad to say 24 years ago.
He sounds pretty much the same, right down to praising Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis for doing "one hell of a job." The America-first, tired-of-seeing-our-country-lose tone is the same, too.
Also, President Obama just said the same thing about allied free riders that Donald Trump apparently took out a full-page ad to say 24 years ago.
The Democratic Debate, Abridged
A pro-Clinton writer despairs.
UPDATE: A former Clinton administration counsel writing at Salon magazine thinks it should really be over for her.
UPDATE: A former Clinton administration counsel writing at Salon magazine thinks it should really be over for her.
Sadr City
Corb Lund has a new album out. One of the things I like about his work is that he focuses on telling other folks' stories.
Is Hillary Clinton a Regional Candidate?
So asks an author at The Week. Pointing out that Clinton has only done well in the South, which the Democrats will doubtless lose in November anyway, he notices a pro-Sanders argument that she is even weaker against whomever the Republicans field than Sanders would be: the bulk of her voters will be overwhelmed in what are, overall, easy Red states.
It must be strange to be a "regional" candidate in the region that supports you least.
It must be strange to be a "regional" candidate in the region that supports you least.
Fiorina Backs Cruz
I grew to like Fiorina more and more the longer she was in the race, although she lacked the necessary experience to be an ideal candidate for President. This was back when we were thinking about ideal candidates for President, instead of wondering if we were going to get the felon or the guy who really wants you to know about the size of his genitalia.
She's throwing her support to Cruz.
She's throwing her support to Cruz.
American Veteran Killed in Israel
Taylor Force was killed in Jaffa by a Palestinian terrorist. He was a Redleg and a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of course, being a tourist, he was unarmed at the time.
UPDATE: Donations for his family can be given here. Condolences can be left on the West Point Association of Graduate's page for him once they have finished putting together the tribute page, as he was an alumnus of the Academy.
Of course, being a tourist, he was unarmed at the time.
UPDATE: Donations for his family can be given here. Condolences can be left on the West Point Association of Graduate's page for him once they have finished putting together the tribute page, as he was an alumnus of the Academy.
Life Exists Not Despite But Because of Entropy
A young man at the Institute has come up with a novel theory for explaining the origins of life: in fact, he has developed a mathematical formula for it.
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.This leads him to make a small, humble claim.
“I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”OK, but if you are right, the Fermi paradox becomes even more urgent.
They Know If You Feel Bad Or Good, So You'd Better Feel Good for Goodness Sake...
Neuroscientists report that they can tell whether your motives are altruistic or selfish using fMRI scans, regardless of whether your actions are altruistic or selfish.
Increasingly we hear that it is not enough to do the right thing for the right reasons: you've got to feel the right way, too. Now we can look forward to a future in which that is enforced and transgressors punished.
Increasingly we hear that it is not enough to do the right thing for the right reasons: you've got to feel the right way, too. Now we can look forward to a future in which that is enforced and transgressors punished.
Landlines
Twelve years ago, pollsters began to notice that millions of people were abandoning traditional land phone lines for cell phones. Even then, we were wondering about the effect on polling. In Michigan last night, we may have seen it:
Nevertheless, thanks to the rigged nature of the "Democratic" primary, Clinton came out ahead in delegates.
Of course, superdelegates can change their votes. Put that way, the race is a lot closer:
Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.Sanders is the perfect candidate for an error of this type, as his support is demographically concentrated among the young. Many of the youngest voting generation have never had a landline. Telephone polls that aren't adequately capturing cell phones just don't know how to reach and count these folks.
Both the FiveThirtyEight polls-plus and polls-only forecast gave Clinton a greater than 99 percent chance of winning. That’s because polling averages for primaries, while inexact, are usually not 25 percentage points off. Indeed, my colleague Nate Silver went back and found that only one primary, the 1984 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, was even on the same scale as this upset
Nevertheless, thanks to the rigged nature of the "Democratic" primary, Clinton came out ahead in delegates.
Of course, superdelegates can change their votes. Put that way, the race is a lot closer:
True and accurate numbers are the following: after “Super Saturday,” Clinton has 663 pledged delegates. Sanders has 459 pledged delegates. Clinton needs 1,720 delegates to win. Sanders needs 1,924 delegates to win.Sanders still has a chance to pull this thing off. At the least, he's going to drain Clinton of money and energy all the way to the convention if he keeps winning at this pace. At most, he'll pull off a historic upset.
Sanders is a few hundred delegates behind Clinton, and Clinton has over a thousand delegates to go before she clinches the nomination.
Israeli Successfully Defends Country's Reputation
I really liked Israel.
An Israeli man attacked by a Palestinian Tuesday allegedly pulled his assailant’s knife from his own neck and then proceeded to kill the attacker.
The 40-year-old Israeli was apparently collecting money for charity at a store in the suburb of Petah Tikva at the time he was assaulted.
White Privilege
In Flint, Michigan -- home of Michael Moore, who made a couple of his early documentaries on the hardship of the factory workers and other urban and rural poor in the area -- Bernie Sanders declared that poverty is an ethnic issue. "When you are white, you don’t know what its like to be living in a ghetto,” he said. “You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”
Go tell it in Appalachia, Bernie.
Go tell it in Appalachia, Bernie.
International Women's Day Quiz
Can you identify these 15 "iconic" women?
I happened to do so successfully, earning the award text: "Amazing! You can easily identify the most iconic women in history. You're a true feminist who understands the meaning of girl power!"
Indeed, that's what everybody says about me.
I do take women seriously. That's not quite the same thing.
I happened to do so successfully, earning the award text: "Amazing! You can easily identify the most iconic women in history. You're a true feminist who understands the meaning of girl power!"
Indeed, that's what everybody says about me.
I do take women seriously. That's not quite the same thing.
Campus Carry Advances in Georgia
Senate Judiciary Committee cleared it. Now the Senate as a whole has to vote on it. The governor, who is not on my good list most of the time, has made noises sounding like he would sign it into law this year.
The proposed law actually only affects those 21 and older, who have been through the background checks and fingerprinting necessary to get a license. Thus, almost no undergraduates would be affected -- only a few upper-classmen, graduate students, and adults who were attending college later in life would be eligible. These will be people who have proven their capacity to handle adult stress without resorting to crime or violence, or ending up in mental health care or drug/alcohol rehab. The crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is vanishingly small, but they do provide an important distributed defense in the rare but not unheard-of case of a terrorist attack or active shooter.
In spite of that, there was a three hour hearing in which people came and railed against it. Even in Georgia, a lot of the Great and the Good are terrified of handguns.
The proposed law actually only affects those 21 and older, who have been through the background checks and fingerprinting necessary to get a license. Thus, almost no undergraduates would be affected -- only a few upper-classmen, graduate students, and adults who were attending college later in life would be eligible. These will be people who have proven their capacity to handle adult stress without resorting to crime or violence, or ending up in mental health care or drug/alcohol rehab. The crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is vanishingly small, but they do provide an important distributed defense in the rare but not unheard-of case of a terrorist attack or active shooter.
In spite of that, there was a three hour hearing in which people came and railed against it. Even in Georgia, a lot of the Great and the Good are terrified of handguns.
Sigh
Reason magazine:
Surely a satirist who set out to write a deliberate parody of left-wing papers using the jargon of the earnest social justice warrior could not have done a better job than a paper on "just and equitable human-ice interactions."The paper itself appears to be a masterwork of the correlation-must-equal-causation fallacy combined with the sentiment epitomized by the famous parody NYT headline: "World ends tomorrow: Women, minorities hardest hit."
But the paper is real—very real. The University of Oregon, in fact, put out a glowing press release touting its existence.
Not Torturing People is a Competitive Disadvantage
This doesn't strike me as a well-considered objection to the practice of banning torture.
First of all, I'm not sure it's true that our torture ban represents a strategic disadvantage. One of the reasons that the Sunni tribes were willing to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq was because of its reliance on torture. Even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, that we were less likely to torture our opponents horribly (and showed an appropriate sense of shame about our lapses) made it easier for Sunni insurgents to consider walking away from the hatred of years of conflict with us, and consider a new partnership.
Second, even if it were true that a 'torture gap' was a strategic disadvantage, it may be that we could afford a strategic disadvantage given our other strategic advantages like the possession of a real air force. If so, we might be willing to accept the small cost in order to uphold our moral principles. This one is pretty important. It's worth paying significant costs to maintain.
In general I oppose trading moral principles for economic gains. If however you are the kind of person who is so invested in an economic mindset that you must sell off valuable moral principles, at least you shouldn't sell them cheaply. You should get a better deal for our principle against torture than beating ISIS, which is soon to be Russia's problem anyway as the current administration will have finished conceding the entire Middle East to Putin before you take office.
Third, I am deeply suspicious of the government's capacity to avoid sliding down slippery slopes. It has proven over the last two decades that it is inclined to do so. Removing the law against torturing terrorists suggests removing the law against torturing some despised classes of Americans, such as perhaps drug dealers. Removing that law suggests widening the class of despised Americans against whom torture can be wielded, perhaps to include "racists" or "sexists." Given the government's propensity to sludge down to the lowest level it can find, we should be reinforcing these walls rather than weakening them.
I could go on, but this surely suffices.
First of all, I'm not sure it's true that our torture ban represents a strategic disadvantage. One of the reasons that the Sunni tribes were willing to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq was because of its reliance on torture. Even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, that we were less likely to torture our opponents horribly (and showed an appropriate sense of shame about our lapses) made it easier for Sunni insurgents to consider walking away from the hatred of years of conflict with us, and consider a new partnership.
Second, even if it were true that a 'torture gap' was a strategic disadvantage, it may be that we could afford a strategic disadvantage given our other strategic advantages like the possession of a real air force. If so, we might be willing to accept the small cost in order to uphold our moral principles. This one is pretty important. It's worth paying significant costs to maintain.
In general I oppose trading moral principles for economic gains. If however you are the kind of person who is so invested in an economic mindset that you must sell off valuable moral principles, at least you shouldn't sell them cheaply. You should get a better deal for our principle against torture than beating ISIS, which is soon to be Russia's problem anyway as the current administration will have finished conceding the entire Middle East to Putin before you take office.
Third, I am deeply suspicious of the government's capacity to avoid sliding down slippery slopes. It has proven over the last two decades that it is inclined to do so. Removing the law against torturing terrorists suggests removing the law against torturing some despised classes of Americans, such as perhaps drug dealers. Removing that law suggests widening the class of despised Americans against whom torture can be wielded, perhaps to include "racists" or "sexists." Given the government's propensity to sludge down to the lowest level it can find, we should be reinforcing these walls rather than weakening them.
I could go on, but this surely suffices.
OAF on the VA
A former hitter describes the VA as "purgatory," and proposes that you take whatever money you get out of them for disability and spend it on private healthcare instead. Along the way, he offers this quote:
Law 40: Despise the Free Lunch - What is offered for free is dangerous—it usually involves either a trick or a hidden obligation. What has worth is worth paying for. By paying your own way, you stay clear of gratitude, guilt, and deceit.
—48 Laws of Power
The Florida Sun Sentinel: No One for President
If only that were an option.
The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board is not going to make an endorsement in Florida's March 15 Republican presidential primary because the kind of person who should be running is not in the race....
Trump may be entertaining, but he lacks the experience and temperament to be president. He does not deserve your vote.
...
If you think Marco Rubio can unite the Republican Party under a winning banner, vote for him. But remember that he has almost no experience and has done little but run for office. Then, when he gets in office, he doesn't go to work very much.... Rubio lacks the experience, work ethic and gravitas needed to be president. He has not earned your vote.
...
If you want someone who won't compromise on social issues, who will stand strong for limited government and will make his decisions based on the Bible, your choice is clear: Ted Cruz....
Cruz scares us.
...
If you consider yourself a mainstream Republican, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is your man. He's a solid conservative who's fought public services unions, opposed same-sex marriage and battled to limit abortion rights. He supports a path to legalization — though not citizenship — for undocumented immigrants. He has strong credentials in government at the state and federal levels.... But while Kasich is the most qualified of the four candidates left standing, he lacks presidential presence. And he doesn't have a chance of winning because the Republican base is in rebellion and he got out of the gate too late to build a viable campaign organization.
Perhaps in a more-rational election year, the Sun Sentinel would endorse John Kasich. But we can't urge you to vote for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination.
More in the "Who Is Trump Really?" line
From Jim Gerraghty's newsletter this morning:
In that CNN poll that showed Trump way ahead among Republicans, 35 percent said they would “definitely not” support him and 13 percent said the would “probably not” support him. There’s a certain percentage of primary voters who will only vote for Trump; there’s a percentage that will never vote for Trump. There’s no way to square that circle.
Every vote has to be earned; if a Trump supporter thinks Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio won’t improve the country and won’t do anything for them, they’re free to stay home. You can’t make them vote for a candidate they don’t think is any good. But the reverse is true: if a Cruz or Rubio supporter thinks Trump is a dangerous, erratic demagogue serving no cause higher than his own ego, insisting Trump won the nomination fair and square -- with the help of overwhelming media coverage, as our Stephen Miller points out -- isn’t going to make them sign on for a foul-mouthed vindictive narcissist with no concepts of limitations on state power.
ADDENDA: Over the weekend, Saturday Night Live featured a fake “Racists for Trump” ad. . . . This is the same program that had Trump host the show a few months ago. Some might see this as a sign that the media will build up Trump and then destroy him. A little while back, I argued that the media is blind to the ways that they already partially insulated him from these attacks:
If Trump wins the nomination, we’re likely to see the national media turn on a dime and start talking about him in the harshest of tones: He’s a racist, he’s a demagogue, he’s a maniac, he’s uninformed. Except . . . all of these powerful voices have already established Trump as a ubiquitous, delightfully unpredictable, fearless figure who can’t be ignored. If Trump is this repugnant, nasty racist, so undeserving of public office . . . why is he hosting Saturday Night Live and joking around with Fallon and Colbert? If he’s so self-evidently unsuited for the presidency . . . why has the national media spent a full year dissecting his every move? If he’s such a vulgar embodiment of reality-television narcissism, why the soft-focus profiles of his lovely family? If his economic plans are so wildly unrealistic and reckless, why has the business media written those glowing profiles about his keen mind and eye for opportunities?
So, How About that Democrat Debate?
Maine went for Sanders, too.
The line on the right is that the Democratic Party debates are even worse than the Republican debates because they are empty of substance. First of all, I'm not sure how much emptier you can get than the 11th Republican Debate, but at least this part of the criticism is valid:
Two big things came out of the debate from my perspective. The first one is that Bernie Sanders is actually committed to the survival of the American gun industry. He rightly criticized Clinton's argument in favor of making gun manufacturers liable for the abuse of their products as having the consequence that it would destroy the industry. The fact that he raised the criticism shows that, somehow, he has missed the fact that destroying the gun industry is the whole point of the proposal.
Clinton didn't roll her eyes and say "Yes, obviously, Bern," which was a substantial act of self-control on her part. It does show that Sanders' mind on what to do about guns has somehow never drifted to actually destroying the gun industry, whereas Clinton is part of the Democratic Party's faction that never ceases to look for backdoor approaches to doing so. This proposal is of a piece with the proposal to require gun owners to own liability insurance for each firearm they own, or to tax ammunition at a sufficiently massive rate as to make it impractical to buy, or to ban ammunition outright ('the Second Amendment applies to arms, not ammo!'). While I don't doubt that Sanders' SCOTUS appointees would be drawn from a pool that believes the Second should be read out of the Constitution, as Clinton's certainly would be, it's interesting to realize that he thinks his cause is helped by raising the objection he did in front of the Democratic Debate. Raising the objection shows he believes that it will help him to object to destroying the gun industry.
The other thing I find interesting is that the Clinton campaign's #1 thing they want you to take away from the debate is that Sanders tried to get Clinton to stop talking over him. Except that they phrase this, "Sanders tried to shush Clinton."
Clinton has been laying for this moment for months, a fact I know to be true because her allies in the press immediately painted this as a "Rick Lazio moment." I only know who Rick Lazio is because of the frequent references by Clinton supporters to him. They clearly believe that nothing will drive people to support Hillary Clinton more than the idea that she is brusquely treated by a man.
It may be plausible -- AVI was recently describing the kind of voter on whom it will probably work. As a qualification for President, though, "I'm the kind of person who can be pushed around by Bernie Sanders" doesn't strike me as hugely impressive. The Washington Post commentator says, 'Wait until the Trump/Clinton debates.' I say: think about the Putin/Clinton reality you are courting.
That's not to say that Clinton couldn't stand up to Putin, with all the machinery of the Presidency at her beck and call. It is to say that she won't be able to do so via diplomacy. Clinton's political style is like a soccer player gaming the referees:
But there are no more referees when you become President. She will either have to roll over, or she will have to resort to the kind of force that the President can call upon. By way of comparison, I had the strong sense that a Jim Webb presidency would be a peaceful one in part because hostile foreign powers would think twice about messing with that former Marine. His diplomatic efforts would be greatly strengthened by the sense that he was not to be trifled with. Clinton has made a career out of being trifled with -- it's how she got elected to the Senate, and it's how she stood for President the last time, ending up as Secretary of State. The appeal to self-as-victim, in the hope of aligning other self-described victims behind her, is the core of her political stance.
A Clinton Presidency would thus be far more violent than a Webb Presidency would have been. She will have to prove for the first time what Webb proved decades ago at a machine-gun bunker in Vietnam.
The line on the right is that the Democratic Party debates are even worse than the Republican debates because they are empty of substance. First of all, I'm not sure how much emptier you can get than the 11th Republican Debate, but at least this part of the criticism is valid:
An example Sunday night was when Anderson Cooper finally brought up the touchy question of Clinton's emails, ever so gently asking Hillary how she would respond to Trump's promised attacks on the scandal that could emerge, after the FBI investigation, as one of the most serious political crimes in American history.He doubtless felt he'd stretched his neck out by mentioning the subject at all.
Rather than answer the question, Clinton quickly changed the subject to how she had more voters, so far, than Trump. The evasion was so obvious you could drive the whole Russian army through it and probably part of the Polish as well. But did Cooper follow up? He didn't even blink....
Two big things came out of the debate from my perspective. The first one is that Bernie Sanders is actually committed to the survival of the American gun industry. He rightly criticized Clinton's argument in favor of making gun manufacturers liable for the abuse of their products as having the consequence that it would destroy the industry. The fact that he raised the criticism shows that, somehow, he has missed the fact that destroying the gun industry is the whole point of the proposal.
Clinton didn't roll her eyes and say "Yes, obviously, Bern," which was a substantial act of self-control on her part. It does show that Sanders' mind on what to do about guns has somehow never drifted to actually destroying the gun industry, whereas Clinton is part of the Democratic Party's faction that never ceases to look for backdoor approaches to doing so. This proposal is of a piece with the proposal to require gun owners to own liability insurance for each firearm they own, or to tax ammunition at a sufficiently massive rate as to make it impractical to buy, or to ban ammunition outright ('the Second Amendment applies to arms, not ammo!'). While I don't doubt that Sanders' SCOTUS appointees would be drawn from a pool that believes the Second should be read out of the Constitution, as Clinton's certainly would be, it's interesting to realize that he thinks his cause is helped by raising the objection he did in front of the Democratic Debate. Raising the objection shows he believes that it will help him to object to destroying the gun industry.
The other thing I find interesting is that the Clinton campaign's #1 thing they want you to take away from the debate is that Sanders tried to get Clinton to stop talking over him. Except that they phrase this, "Sanders tried to shush Clinton."
Clinton has been laying for this moment for months, a fact I know to be true because her allies in the press immediately painted this as a "Rick Lazio moment." I only know who Rick Lazio is because of the frequent references by Clinton supporters to him. They clearly believe that nothing will drive people to support Hillary Clinton more than the idea that she is brusquely treated by a man.
It may be plausible -- AVI was recently describing the kind of voter on whom it will probably work. As a qualification for President, though, "I'm the kind of person who can be pushed around by Bernie Sanders" doesn't strike me as hugely impressive. The Washington Post commentator says, 'Wait until the Trump/Clinton debates.' I say: think about the Putin/Clinton reality you are courting.
That's not to say that Clinton couldn't stand up to Putin, with all the machinery of the Presidency at her beck and call. It is to say that she won't be able to do so via diplomacy. Clinton's political style is like a soccer player gaming the referees:
But there are no more referees when you become President. She will either have to roll over, or she will have to resort to the kind of force that the President can call upon. By way of comparison, I had the strong sense that a Jim Webb presidency would be a peaceful one in part because hostile foreign powers would think twice about messing with that former Marine. His diplomatic efforts would be greatly strengthened by the sense that he was not to be trifled with. Clinton has made a career out of being trifled with -- it's how she got elected to the Senate, and it's how she stood for President the last time, ending up as Secretary of State. The appeal to self-as-victim, in the hope of aligning other self-described victims behind her, is the core of her political stance.
A Clinton Presidency would thus be far more violent than a Webb Presidency would have been. She will have to prove for the first time what Webb proved decades ago at a machine-gun bunker in Vietnam.
Core personas
A commenter at Maggie's Farm suggested that this 25-year-old interview in Playboy would show us that Trump does have a consistent core, and I have to admit that it does have that effect. He may not be a guy you're crazy about, but perhaps calling him a chameleon is also too harsh. It's refreshing to see anyone in American public life who knows how to talk about creating and possessing wealth without cringing.
Trump Supporters and Dignity
A stab at the question from a Democrat whose friends alternate between Bernie and the candidate she names "old Hilda Baggins."
"America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning." Well, it doesn't try. The Catholic Church tries to help people find dignity and meaning. America sets you free to find your own, in whatever way you like. The American project is about liberty: your dignity is assumed to be guaranteed by your status as a free man or woman.
Whatever esteem you aspire to beyond that, that's for you to build somehow. How? That's up to you, too.
Along the way, you're expected to shift for yourself somehow too. Here's where the trouble comes along: increasingly because of technology, those who earn first in unskilled and now in many skilled ways face competition from the poorest places on earth. Increasingly, because of technology, you also compete with robots that can work 24 hours a day at a fraction of the cost of a human worker.
If you think dignity comes from work, you're in bad shape. But dignity is at least tied up with work, because work is how you get resources, and your status in the community depends on your ability to wield resources. We expect you to pay for everything you use. If you own a home, we expect you to pay taxes on it every year, and will take it from you the minute you can't. If dignity includes having security in a place in the world, it depends in America on having the ability to earn adequate resources.
Probably it does everywhere, really, no matter what schemes are set up to mask that fact.
It's an interesting stab, in any case. The author, one Emma Lindsay -- good Scottish name, that -- deserves credit for having written it. Just the moment at which she proposes to look beyond racism, rather than stopping with it as sufficient cause to condemn, is stunning coming at this time and place and from someone of her particular 'tribe.'
Maybe there's some value to all this Trump business after all. It's at least stimulating some interesting thoughts.
Thing is, Trump supporters don’t vote against their best interests, democrats just don’t understand the interest they care about most.I wonder.
It’s dignity.
...
America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning. We have, with the internet, the power for more people to be appreciated than ever before, yet we use it primarily to shame each other. Shaming Trump supporters for being “ignorant bigots” is the worst thing you can do, because their entire motivation in voting for Trump is to alleviate the shame they are already carrying. If you add to their shame, they will dig in further.
It is, obviously, difficult to think about ways to reduce shame on a national level but we have to start finding ways to have more appreciation for each other, even those we disagree with. At the most basic level we can start by not explicitly shaming people. We can stop calling them ignorant. We can stop mocking them on the internet. We can stop calling them out on twitter.
"America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning." Well, it doesn't try. The Catholic Church tries to help people find dignity and meaning. America sets you free to find your own, in whatever way you like. The American project is about liberty: your dignity is assumed to be guaranteed by your status as a free man or woman.
Whatever esteem you aspire to beyond that, that's for you to build somehow. How? That's up to you, too.
Along the way, you're expected to shift for yourself somehow too. Here's where the trouble comes along: increasingly because of technology, those who earn first in unskilled and now in many skilled ways face competition from the poorest places on earth. Increasingly, because of technology, you also compete with robots that can work 24 hours a day at a fraction of the cost of a human worker.
If you think dignity comes from work, you're in bad shape. But dignity is at least tied up with work, because work is how you get resources, and your status in the community depends on your ability to wield resources. We expect you to pay for everything you use. If you own a home, we expect you to pay taxes on it every year, and will take it from you the minute you can't. If dignity includes having security in a place in the world, it depends in America on having the ability to earn adequate resources.
Probably it does everywhere, really, no matter what schemes are set up to mask that fact.
It's an interesting stab, in any case. The author, one Emma Lindsay -- good Scottish name, that -- deserves credit for having written it. Just the moment at which she proposes to look beyond racism, rather than stopping with it as sufficient cause to condemn, is stunning coming at this time and place and from someone of her particular 'tribe.'
Maybe there's some value to all this Trump business after all. It's at least stimulating some interesting thoughts.
Kansas Goes Sanders, Too
OK, so Kansas is just one little state, and a caucus. Clinton won Louisiana's primary election, which was another Southern state, where she is running a lot stronger than elsewhere.
Still, it shows that the nomination fight is still a fight on the Democratic Party side.
UPDATE: Not quite finished on the Republican side, either.
Still, it shows that the nomination fight is still a fight on the Democratic Party side.
UPDATE: Not quite finished on the Republican side, either.
Noonan Mourns Her Party
It must be especially sad for someone who was a part of the Reagan revolution, itself an insurgent campaign against an earlier Republican establishment.
It's not the end of the world. There's a chance it could be the beginning of something good, if the "new thing" has principles that accord with the principles of these most ordinary American people. It does need some thought, but there's an opportunity for the thoughts of ordinary Americans to matter.
The window won't last. It never does. Think now, and think carefully, and make sure you make your best thinking known.
And I find myself receiving with some anger, even though I understand, those—especially on the top of the party—who are so blithely declaring the end of things. Do they understand what they’re ending?...There's a chance to put together a party that respects the Reagan Democrats, and pursues blue collar interests that unite poorer white and black voters. It would have to break with the Chamber of Commerce to do that, but it would be a formidable party if it could do it. If you cut into black support so that you were winning a third of the black vote, the Democratic party would not win another national election until they found a new coalition. Unite that black vote with the ~40% of Americans who are blue collar whites, and you wouldn't have to win many other voters -- Evangelicals might do it alone. If you could hold most conservatives, you'd have a dominant coalition. If you lost the conservatives who were most attached to Chamber of Commerce issues, you'd still win.
It’s no longer clear what shared principles endure. Everything got stretched to the breaking point the past 15 years.
Party leaders and thinkers should take note: It’s easier for a base to hire or develop a flashy new establishment than it is for an establishment to find itself a new base.
Even if the party stays together with a Trump win, what will it be? It will have been reconstituted.
It's not the end of the world. There's a chance it could be the beginning of something good, if the "new thing" has principles that accord with the principles of these most ordinary American people. It does need some thought, but there's an opportunity for the thoughts of ordinary Americans to matter.
The window won't last. It never does. Think now, and think carefully, and make sure you make your best thinking known.
Clinton Earns Zero Votes at UNL Caucus
Sanders wins the state overall, after caucuses in every county were held for the first time in Nebraska history. At the caucus closest to the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Clinton received zero votes and failed to attain viability.
The conservatives' indirect path to power
Laura Ingraham argues that small-government conservatives should rally behind Trumpist populism because it's the only way to break the iron grip of the GOPe and ensure that the GOP is no longer where genuine conservative ideas go to die. She acknowledges that many conservatives fear Trump is an unprincipled closet liberal, but counters that all the ostensible conservatives we've managed to elect are the same. Cruz might be different, yes, but he should let Trump pave the way and then hope he can get in there somehow and have his ideas heard for a change. Finally, she argues that supporting populism is kinda sorta congruent with small-government conservatism, even if populism has to be implemented by big-government policies, because populism is about increased opportunity instead of the status quo.
I don't find any of this persuasive. The real question is, though, whether I find it more persuasive than the idea that we should either stay home or (gag) vote for Clinton.
I don't find any of this persuasive. The real question is, though, whether I find it more persuasive than the idea that we should either stay home or (gag) vote for Clinton.
Georgia Legislature Update
We're getting close to the end. Most of the issues that opened big are closing weak. Casinos are dead -- they didn't make the 'crossover day' cut, the last day legislation has to jump houses if it's going to get finished in the 40 day session. Medical marijuana just survived that cut, and is now in the Senate.
The campus carry bill is due for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote Monday. Feel free to write them and encourage passage if you'd like. I wrote the chairman.
The Religious Freedom bill is in final negotiations, having passed both houses (unanimously, in the Georgia House of Representatives). The Senate version made some changes that have to be ironed out in committee. However, the bill is considered very likely to die given that Governor Deal has all but promised to veto it. Like many Republican governors, he favors corporate interests over the protection of his constituents' basic liberties.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has developed new bill-success-predicting software that estimates the campus carry bill (HB 859) has a 55% chance of becoming law. The bill tracker has a problem with the religious freedom law, because the Senate combined two house bills -- one of them the tracker estimates has a 99% chance of becoming law, and the other a 5% chance. Most likely the governor will kill them both with his veto. The Republican governor backing corporate interests against the Georgia citizenry by killing a religious freedom bill that passed unanimously in the House will give Evangelical voters in Georgia -- who went huge for Trump in the primary -- yet another reason to hate the Republican establishment come the General Election.
The campus carry bill is due for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote Monday. Feel free to write them and encourage passage if you'd like. I wrote the chairman.
The Religious Freedom bill is in final negotiations, having passed both houses (unanimously, in the Georgia House of Representatives). The Senate version made some changes that have to be ironed out in committee. However, the bill is considered very likely to die given that Governor Deal has all but promised to veto it. Like many Republican governors, he favors corporate interests over the protection of his constituents' basic liberties.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has developed new bill-success-predicting software that estimates the campus carry bill (HB 859) has a 55% chance of becoming law. The bill tracker has a problem with the religious freedom law, because the Senate combined two house bills -- one of them the tracker estimates has a 99% chance of becoming law, and the other a 5% chance. Most likely the governor will kill them both with his veto. The Republican governor backing corporate interests against the Georgia citizenry by killing a religious freedom bill that passed unanimously in the House will give Evangelical voters in Georgia -- who went huge for Trump in the primary -- yet another reason to hate the Republican establishment come the General Election.
The Eleventh Republican Debate
Last night's debate must have been very gratifying for someone who prefers Python metaphors.
Eh, Mike?
Eh, Mike?
Medieval Oaks
Found forgotten in the backyard of Churchill's old palace -- I did not realize he had lived in a palace -- are sixty oaks that date to the Middle Ages.
Some More Takes on Trump
Elizabeth Price Foley at InstaPundit:
What is the GOP establishment smoking? They’re behaving like they’re zoned out on crack–hypersensitive, overheated, paranoid, and filled with anxiety. Why do they not gracefully accept the decision of their own voters?Nick Gillespie at Reason:
The rise of Donald Trump is a direct result of the GOP’s failure to listen to, or even care about, the issues of concern to ordinary (i.e., beyond the Beltway) voters. They want a leader who ardently defends U.S. sovereignty, security, and economic interests, and who overtly snubs stifling political correctness. They don’t want a patrician like Mitt Romney, whose speech today smacks of a controlling, wealthy father chastising his upstart children for their foolish attempts at independence.
People—even or especially Trump supporters—aren't idiots. They know political grandstanding when they see it, and they fully understand that conservatives and Republicans don't really believe in the things they talk about. Or, same thing, that everything can and will change in the blink of the eye or in ways that just don't make sense. Didn't Mitt Romney beg Donald Trump for an endorsement a few years ago? Romney, whom every conservative news org endorsed and approved, ran for president by attacking Obamacare and the incumbent for spending too much money. He also promised to keep the parts of Obamacare "he liked" and refused to name a single big-ticket spending program he would cut or even trim. Upon becoming Speaker of the House after a million years in waiting, John Boehner was incapable of naming a single program or department he would get rid of.
You can hear it already: But...but...but...Romney and Boehner and all the rest aren't real conservatives or Republicans or whatever. No, that would be Paul Ryan, whose first big act as Boehner's replacement was to sign off on a deal that increased spending on defense and social programs. Whatevs, buddy, whatevs.
Operation Restore Hope, Homeland Edition
Otherwise known as "Update: Hillary for Prison, 2016."
A Department of Justice decision to grant immunity to Hillary Clinton’s top IT aide indicates officials are “considering potential criminal charges” against the former secretary of state or her aides, according to a source familiar with the investigation... “Giving him immunity” indicates “they are considering potential criminal charges against people higher up in the chain,” said the source who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the investigation with reporters.If you're a Democrat in office who is afraid of Donald Trump, one way you could help derail his train is by proving that the government is not quite as corrupt as everyone has come to believe that it is.
It's Only "Indiscriminate" in the Technical Sense
The Russian bombing campaign that Gen. Breedlove is describing as "indiscriminate" is so only in the sense that it does not meet the Just War standards for the "discriminate" use of force. It is not indiscriminate in the sense of "random" or "careless." The Russians are hitting the targets they are aiming to hit.
Putin has simply adopted Assad's strategy of emptying Syrian cities by directing mass violence towards civilian populations and their institutions, such as hospitals. There are two strategic goals advanced in this way:
1) An empty land is easier for a weak ruler like Assad to govern, making it more likely that the war will end with him in control of this physical territory.
2) The mass wave of refugees creates incredible pressure on European governments, making it more likely that they will accept any outcome that stops the pain -- meaning that they are more likely to accept an end to the war that leaves Assad in control of that physical territory, in spite of his use of chemical weapons and his ruthless attacks on noncombatants.
In other words, the Russian strategy to protect Assad from ouster because of his attacks on noncombatants is to increase sharply the number and severity of attacks on noncombatants. Europe can't survive the pressure of waves of millions of refugees, going on for years. They will cave, and Assad -- with Russian fire support and Iranian ground support -- will be able to reassert control of at least the western parts of Syria. Those are the parts Russia cares about most.
Then, in the second phase of the war, Russia and Iran can lead Iraq and Syria in consolidating their mastery of eastern Syria and Western Iraq. That will leave the Russian/Iranian alliance in control of the northern Middle East, from Afghanistan (once we withdraw) to the Levant.
A target of opportunity may be breaking NATO, which could occur if the Turks end up in a conflict with Russia that the rest of the NATO powers are unwilling to support. Even if they don't get that, they'll have won a Grand Strategic victory over the United States and the West. If they do, they'll have broken our key alliance for resisting Russian domination of Asia and Eastern Europe.
All in all, a good bit of work from Putin's perspective. Somebody still knows how to play this game.
Putin has simply adopted Assad's strategy of emptying Syrian cities by directing mass violence towards civilian populations and their institutions, such as hospitals. There are two strategic goals advanced in this way:
1) An empty land is easier for a weak ruler like Assad to govern, making it more likely that the war will end with him in control of this physical territory.
2) The mass wave of refugees creates incredible pressure on European governments, making it more likely that they will accept any outcome that stops the pain -- meaning that they are more likely to accept an end to the war that leaves Assad in control of that physical territory, in spite of his use of chemical weapons and his ruthless attacks on noncombatants.
In other words, the Russian strategy to protect Assad from ouster because of his attacks on noncombatants is to increase sharply the number and severity of attacks on noncombatants. Europe can't survive the pressure of waves of millions of refugees, going on for years. They will cave, and Assad -- with Russian fire support and Iranian ground support -- will be able to reassert control of at least the western parts of Syria. Those are the parts Russia cares about most.
Then, in the second phase of the war, Russia and Iran can lead Iraq and Syria in consolidating their mastery of eastern Syria and Western Iraq. That will leave the Russian/Iranian alliance in control of the northern Middle East, from Afghanistan (once we withdraw) to the Levant.
A target of opportunity may be breaking NATO, which could occur if the Turks end up in a conflict with Russia that the rest of the NATO powers are unwilling to support. Even if they don't get that, they'll have won a Grand Strategic victory over the United States and the West. If they do, they'll have broken our key alliance for resisting Russian domination of Asia and Eastern Europe.
All in all, a good bit of work from Putin's perspective. Somebody still knows how to play this game.
Special Forces Sergeant Charles Martland
A delegate from Culpepper, VA -- a city with some significant American heritage -- rises to call his fellows to the defense of an American warrior. The speech is impassioned. I don't know if it is convincing. Many will be put off by the admission that the sergeant "beat" an Afghan police officer, regardless of the fact that this officer was a child rapist.
In the old days, we would have simply asked: What would you have done, if it had been you standing there, and the child came to beg you for help? What would you have done, when the police laughed in your face and the faces of the child and his mother? What else could you do to convey that, at least as long as you were there, the rape of children was going to stop?
In the old days, any American worth his salt would have said nothing in answer to those questions, but nodded. There are no good answers to the questions. In such a place as Afghanistan, there is only doing what you can do as the man on the ground with the gun. You may not be able to change the culture, but you can make it stop for a while.
That's what any of us would have done. It's not a question of what is right. It's a question of what is left.
In the old days, we would have simply asked: What would you have done, if it had been you standing there, and the child came to beg you for help? What would you have done, when the police laughed in your face and the faces of the child and his mother? What else could you do to convey that, at least as long as you were there, the rape of children was going to stop?
In the old days, any American worth his salt would have said nothing in answer to those questions, but nodded. There are no good answers to the questions. In such a place as Afghanistan, there is only doing what you can do as the man on the ground with the gun. You may not be able to change the culture, but you can make it stop for a while.
That's what any of us would have done. It's not a question of what is right. It's a question of what is left.
Ah, the "Tricky Phase" of War
Just when you thought Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bucca and other infamous American moral horrors were behind us, captured ISIS figures means a return to what the NYT calls the "tricky phase." How can we possibly detain these poor creatures without inflicting unavoidable American abuses upon them?
Actually, it sounds like we're just going to turn them over to the Kurds once we are done with them. I imagine that will mean a mercifully short detention.
Actually, it sounds like we're just going to turn them over to the Kurds once we are done with them. I imagine that will mean a mercifully short detention.
More Kant for Lent
Kant's approach to faith is rational rather than simply faithful, which causes him to disdain the idea that one can obtain (or ought to seek) justification by faith alone. To look to God when you aren't shifting the load yourself strikes him as a doomed project, as you are unworthy of the help you seek.
He also brings the Stoics in for some criticism in thinking the natural inclinations are the primary evil in the hearts of men. Not so, he says: the natural inclinations are good, as long as they are well-managed.
Even just the first couple of pages here ought to make for an interesting and worthy discussion.
He also brings the Stoics in for some criticism in thinking the natural inclinations are the primary evil in the hearts of men. Not so, he says: the natural inclinations are good, as long as they are well-managed.
Even just the first couple of pages here ought to make for an interesting and worthy discussion.
Enthusiasm versus Age
In general in American politics, it is better to be supported by the old than by the young. The young have enthusiasm, and will volunteer and knock on doors for you. The old actually show up on election day.
This strikes me as explaining yesterday's results fairly well. Bernie Sanders has all the enthusiasm: no one at all seems to be enthusiastic about voting for Clinton. Democratic participation is way down across the board from 2008 or even 2012. Bernie is winning young voters by vast margins, but he loses the elections because only a few of the young show up relative to their numbers.
As the enthusiasm of the young is disappointed by watching the corruption of the DNC wash away their icon's chances, how many of them who did make it out to the primary will make it back out to the general? I have already heard three young people I know say that they will not be turning out to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the general. Perhaps they will change their mind. Perhaps not.
Republican enthusiasm is way up. Trump voters especially seem to be both enthusiastic and showing up, suggesting that the enthusiasm for him is with the older voters rather than the younger ones on average -- though there are occasional surprises in Trump's support. But anti-Trump Republicans are enthusiastic too: they are enthusiastic about voting against Trump.
Cruz did well last night relative to all the other non-Trump Republicans. By taking Texas and Alaska, America's most emblematically Red states, he has surely won the right to be the conservative candidate in the race. I think the remaining non-Trump candidates should withdraw, especially Rubio, whose near victory in Virginia was occasioned entirely by his support in the Washington, D.C. metroplex. This is not the year for D.C.'s favorite son.
If you don't want Trump, Cruz is probably the last chance. He's the other candidate in the race who is plausibly an outsider, and who speaks to the anger among the millions of voters who have been backing Trump enthusiastically. If you want that enthusiasm to carry over into the general, and you certainly do if you want to win, finding a way to swap Trump out for an establishment figure is not the way to go. Cruz could win the primary and the general. Trump could, too. Nobody else in the field strikes me as having the chance.
This strikes me as explaining yesterday's results fairly well. Bernie Sanders has all the enthusiasm: no one at all seems to be enthusiastic about voting for Clinton. Democratic participation is way down across the board from 2008 or even 2012. Bernie is winning young voters by vast margins, but he loses the elections because only a few of the young show up relative to their numbers.
As the enthusiasm of the young is disappointed by watching the corruption of the DNC wash away their icon's chances, how many of them who did make it out to the primary will make it back out to the general? I have already heard three young people I know say that they will not be turning out to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the general. Perhaps they will change their mind. Perhaps not.
Republican enthusiasm is way up. Trump voters especially seem to be both enthusiastic and showing up, suggesting that the enthusiasm for him is with the older voters rather than the younger ones on average -- though there are occasional surprises in Trump's support. But anti-Trump Republicans are enthusiastic too: they are enthusiastic about voting against Trump.
Cruz did well last night relative to all the other non-Trump Republicans. By taking Texas and Alaska, America's most emblematically Red states, he has surely won the right to be the conservative candidate in the race. I think the remaining non-Trump candidates should withdraw, especially Rubio, whose near victory in Virginia was occasioned entirely by his support in the Washington, D.C. metroplex. This is not the year for D.C.'s favorite son.
If you don't want Trump, Cruz is probably the last chance. He's the other candidate in the race who is plausibly an outsider, and who speaks to the anger among the millions of voters who have been backing Trump enthusiastically. If you want that enthusiasm to carry over into the general, and you certainly do if you want to win, finding a way to swap Trump out for an establishment figure is not the way to go. Cruz could win the primary and the general. Trump could, too. Nobody else in the field strikes me as having the chance.
You Mean It Might NOT Be That They're A Bunch of Authoritarians?
The RAND Corporation says that the single biggest predictor for taking Trump as your first choice is the feeling that "people like me don't have any say" in politics.
Hamas Eats Its Own
Mr. Ishtiwi, 34, was a commander from a storied family of Hamas loyalists who, during the 2014 war with Israel, was responsible for 1,000 fighters and a network of attack tunnels. Last month, his former comrades executed him with three bullets to the chest.UPDATE: Blogger IsraellyCool says he was "rubbed out for Hamasexualityᵀᴹ."
Adding a layer of scandal to the story, he was accused of moral turpitude, by which Hamas meant homosexuality.
Hey, Texas: What?
At first I assumed the news agency had simply left out the word "thousand."
Headline: 75 rounds of ammunition found underneath house, nearby homes evacuated
But wait, it gets worse:
What's up, Texas? These are your police, even. Are you trying to prove Havok Journal right about this?
Headline: 75 rounds of ammunition found underneath house, nearby homes evacuated
But wait, it gets worse:
Capt. Troy Balcar of the San Antonio Fire Department said a family member found a sealed box with about 75 rounds of decades-old ammunition underneath the house. He said the rounds are .40 caliber and about 40 years old, based on a date written on the box. Half a dozen nearby homes were evacuated for about three hours.Yeah, nothing makes ammunition more powerful than decades of exposure.
"This is definitely a big danger, because they've been under there so long," Balcar said. "They've rusted, they've been exposed to the weather, elements outside so we definitely want to get them disposed of as quickly as possible."
What's up, Texas? These are your police, even. Are you trying to prove Havok Journal right about this?
Angelo Codevilla on the Republic
Dr. Codevilla is one of the more insightful writers on the problems facing us today. I remember his first prominent article on these problems well, and wish it had been better heeded at the time.
Now he warns that we are already past the Republic. This is the unrecognized Empire.
Codevilla's piece slams Trump from start to finish, and calls for a return to small-r republicanism and an end to the cycle of revenge against our cultural enemies. I've been calling for the same thing since 2004, without it being highly persuasive to anyone yet. Let us have the Tenth Amendment, and allow the states to diverge on moral and cultural matters. Let us strip the Supreme Court of its extraordinary power, and the Executive of its power to legislate through the bureaucracy.
Return to the Constitution, or dissolve the Union. Living under an Empire operating under the pretense of democratic legitimacy ought to terrify anyone who understands what that would mean. The cycle of cultural violence can only grow worse if we do not find a way to return to our Constitutional principles, and yet remain bound tightly to those who hate and despise us, who scorn and resent us. Power can only protect you for so long.
Now he warns that we are already past the Republic. This is the unrecognized Empire.
Civics classes used to teach: “Congress makes the laws, the president carries them out, judges decide controversies, and we citizens may be penalized only by a jury of our peers.”It's worth revisiting what he had to say in 2010, and comparing it with what he warns of today. Describing the environment that produced the TEA Party as a clash between the pro-American, pro-Christian "country class" and the "ruling class," he warned that what he called the "country class" was not well-positioned for politics.
Nobody believes that anymore, because no part of it has been true for a long time. Barack Obama stopped pretending that it is. During the twentieth century’s second half, both parties and all branches of government made a mockery of the Constitution of 1789. Today’s effective constitution is: “The president can do whatever he wants so long as one-third of the Senate will sustain his vetoes and prevent his conviction upon impeachment.”
Obama has been our first emperor.
Certainly the country class lacks its own political vehicle -- and perhaps the coherence to establish one. In the short term at least, the country class has no alternative but to channel its political efforts through the Republican Party, which is eager for its support. But the Republican Party does not live to represent the country class. For it to do so, it would have to become principles-based, as it has not been since the mid-1860s. The few who tried to make it so the party treated as rebels: Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.... Few Republican voters, never mind the larger country class, have confidence that the party is on their side....Six years on, the ruling class rules the Republican party as well.
The name of the party that will represent America's country class is far less important than what, precisely, it represents and how it goes about representing it because, for the foreseeable future, American politics will consist of confrontation between what we might call the Country Party and the ruling class. The Democratic Party having transformed itself into a unit with near-European discipline, challenging it would seem to require empowering a rival party at least as disciplined. What other antidote is there to government by one party but government by another party? Yet this logic, though all too familiar to most of the world, has always been foreign to America and naturally leads further in the direction toward which the ruling class has led. Any country party would have to be wise and skillful indeed not to become the Democrats' mirror image.
America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons that occupies the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, and of large corporations, and that wields political power through the Democratic Party. Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the Republican Party’s elites into its satellites.What is interesting to me is that the voters have given the Republicans control of the elected branches throughout: in the vast majority of statehouses, in both houses of Congress, in governors' mansions, in every electable branch the Republican party predominates. Now, having raised them to the pinnacle of democratically-attainable power, the waves of voters are poised to seize the Presidency -- but not for a figure from the ruling class.
This class's fatal feature is its belief that ordinary Americans are a lesser intellectual and social breed. Its increasing self-absorption, its growing contempt for whoever won’t bow to it, its dependence for votes on sectors of society whose grievances it stokes, have led it to break the most basic rule of republican life: deeming its opposition illegitimate.
Codevilla's piece slams Trump from start to finish, and calls for a return to small-r republicanism and an end to the cycle of revenge against our cultural enemies. I've been calling for the same thing since 2004, without it being highly persuasive to anyone yet. Let us have the Tenth Amendment, and allow the states to diverge on moral and cultural matters. Let us strip the Supreme Court of its extraordinary power, and the Executive of its power to legislate through the bureaucracy.
Return to the Constitution, or dissolve the Union. Living under an Empire operating under the pretense of democratic legitimacy ought to terrify anyone who understands what that would mean. The cycle of cultural violence can only grow worse if we do not find a way to return to our Constitutional principles, and yet remain bound tightly to those who hate and despise us, who scorn and resent us. Power can only protect you for so long.
Super Tuesday
Very short ballot in Georgia today: one question.
I voted in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton. I will vote against her again, should she survive to the general. I take this to be the last, most important duty I can perform in this deeply disappointing election cycle: to vote against her every chance I get, and thus for whomever may be running against her. At least this time her opponent is an honest man, whatever you think of his honest opinions.
We shall see what profit, if any, comes of it all. Today is a ZeroHedge kind of day, in a ZeroHedge season, in a ZeroHedge cycle.
UPDATE: With 0.1% of precincts reporting, the media has already called the state for Clinton. She may well win, but that seems wildly premature.
I voted in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton. I will vote against her again, should she survive to the general. I take this to be the last, most important duty I can perform in this deeply disappointing election cycle: to vote against her every chance I get, and thus for whomever may be running against her. At least this time her opponent is an honest man, whatever you think of his honest opinions.
We shall see what profit, if any, comes of it all. Today is a ZeroHedge kind of day, in a ZeroHedge season, in a ZeroHedge cycle.
UPDATE: With 0.1% of precincts reporting, the media has already called the state for Clinton. She may well win, but that seems wildly premature.
"The Mandrake" (with Changes)
So a couple weeks ago I mentioned that the University of Georgia was doing a highly unusual take on Machiavelli's "The Mandrake":
1) I am forced to conclude that the claim that their intention in selecting an all-female cast was to "force the audience to ask deeper questions about power play and gender roles" was a lie to protect the play from university censorship. The play was 90 minutes of intensely raunchy, bawdy humor. They stole the 'ongoing urination' joke from Austin Powers. They had a scene with disguises in which a priest was carrying walnuts in his mouth 'to disguise his voice,' which they turned into a three-minute long routine about one of the characters desiring 'nuts in my mouth' ("I have some," replied another character, "but they're a little bit salty").
My sense is that you couldn't have run the same play with the same jokes with a male/female cast on the contemporary university campus. Run the same jokes with an all-female cast, under the banner of 'forcing the audience' to do difficult conceptual work, and no censors even cast their eyes in its direction.
2) The "rap" music was a bad idea. Possibly this was because the cast, in addition to being all-female, was all-white-female. In addition to not being very good at writing hip-hop music, their voices lacked the strength and range to be intelligible over the stomping and clapping. Neither I nor my wife could actually understand anything they were saying during these routines.
3) It turns out that Machiavelli gave by far the strongest lines in the whole play to the young wife. The only time in the entire play that anyone stands up for what is right and invokes morality without any shade of self-interest is her monologue. It comes right after she submits to her (bribed) priest's advice that she go along with the plan. In the monologue, she says that she hopes that if his advice (which includes adultery that will lead to the death of an innocent) is coming from any sort of admixture of self-interest or faithlessness, then that she calls on all the demons of Hell to make sure that his soul is planted right beside hers so that she can watch him suffer for all eternity. It's really powerful stuff.
Because of their casting decisions, this speech -- the moral heart of the story -- was delivered by a one-and-a-half-foot tall puppet.
4) There were the expected number of jokes at the expense of Catholics and Republicans written into the play. FOX News and Donald Trump came in for special mention. The priest was supposedly bisexual and dissolute as well as corrupt. Just as you couldn't have run this play with a male/female cast without drawing university censorship, you couldn't have run the same jokes pointed at Islamic clergy without drawing down a university ban. Aimed at Catholic and conservative American targets, though, these jokes are perfectly safe.
5) Two jokes were aimed at the fear of giving offense in sexual matters on the university campus. These were both funny and well-received by the audience. The first involved the question of whether a meeting was properly described as a rendezvous -- no, said one character, 'because that sounds sexual, and you didn't obtain our consent!' The other was delivered when a character, disguised as a pirate, was singing a song that went, 'We say yo-ho-ho, but we don't say 'ho,' because that would be disrespect-ful.'
In spite of everything, it wasn't the worst 90 minutes of my life. I doubt I would take the opportunity to go see it again, but the actresses were clearly enjoying themselves so it was at least somewhat fun to watch. They played to and with the audience -- if you were in the front row of any of the seats, and they had seats on three sides of the stage, you would likely be involved in the play at some point. The performance was packed, too, at the Sunday afternoon matinee that was also its final performance. Clearly they had crafted something that was very popular for their intended audience.
This being 2016 in America, the opera will not be performed with the original music.Out of curiosity, I went to see the UGA production yesterday afternoon. I have the following to report:
“We’ve made them rap songs with lots of stomps and percussion type beats,” Marotta said.And this being 2016 on an American college campus, the opera will be cast in order to make a point about gender.
In order to change up the stereotypes and force the audience to ask deeper questions about power play and gender roles, all of the male roles will be played by women and all the women roles are to be played by puppets.
1) I am forced to conclude that the claim that their intention in selecting an all-female cast was to "force the audience to ask deeper questions about power play and gender roles" was a lie to protect the play from university censorship. The play was 90 minutes of intensely raunchy, bawdy humor. They stole the 'ongoing urination' joke from Austin Powers. They had a scene with disguises in which a priest was carrying walnuts in his mouth 'to disguise his voice,' which they turned into a three-minute long routine about one of the characters desiring 'nuts in my mouth' ("I have some," replied another character, "but they're a little bit salty").
My sense is that you couldn't have run the same play with the same jokes with a male/female cast on the contemporary university campus. Run the same jokes with an all-female cast, under the banner of 'forcing the audience' to do difficult conceptual work, and no censors even cast their eyes in its direction.
2) The "rap" music was a bad idea. Possibly this was because the cast, in addition to being all-female, was all-white-female. In addition to not being very good at writing hip-hop music, their voices lacked the strength and range to be intelligible over the stomping and clapping. Neither I nor my wife could actually understand anything they were saying during these routines.
3) It turns out that Machiavelli gave by far the strongest lines in the whole play to the young wife. The only time in the entire play that anyone stands up for what is right and invokes morality without any shade of self-interest is her monologue. It comes right after she submits to her (bribed) priest's advice that she go along with the plan. In the monologue, she says that she hopes that if his advice (which includes adultery that will lead to the death of an innocent) is coming from any sort of admixture of self-interest or faithlessness, then that she calls on all the demons of Hell to make sure that his soul is planted right beside hers so that she can watch him suffer for all eternity. It's really powerful stuff.
Because of their casting decisions, this speech -- the moral heart of the story -- was delivered by a one-and-a-half-foot tall puppet.
4) There were the expected number of jokes at the expense of Catholics and Republicans written into the play. FOX News and Donald Trump came in for special mention. The priest was supposedly bisexual and dissolute as well as corrupt. Just as you couldn't have run this play with a male/female cast without drawing university censorship, you couldn't have run the same jokes pointed at Islamic clergy without drawing down a university ban. Aimed at Catholic and conservative American targets, though, these jokes are perfectly safe.
5) Two jokes were aimed at the fear of giving offense in sexual matters on the university campus. These were both funny and well-received by the audience. The first involved the question of whether a meeting was properly described as a rendezvous -- no, said one character, 'because that sounds sexual, and you didn't obtain our consent!' The other was delivered when a character, disguised as a pirate, was singing a song that went, 'We say yo-ho-ho, but we don't say 'ho,' because that would be disrespect-ful.'
In spite of everything, it wasn't the worst 90 minutes of my life. I doubt I would take the opportunity to go see it again, but the actresses were clearly enjoying themselves so it was at least somewhat fun to watch. They played to and with the audience -- if you were in the front row of any of the seats, and they had seats on three sides of the stage, you would likely be involved in the play at some point. The performance was packed, too, at the Sunday afternoon matinee that was also its final performance. Clearly they had crafted something that was very popular for their intended audience.
Mad Max? Really?
It was a little startling to hear that Mad Max swept the B-level Academy Awards last night. Much as I love the series, the last episode was kind of dumb and forgettable. Well, at least no one was nuts enough to hand it any awards for things like directing, screenplay, or acting, and it's fair enough to say that its costumes and make-up and so on were well crafted. (But sound editing? Seriously? Do they throw darts for that award, simply treat it as a consolation prize, or are there judges who genuinely pay attention to the technical aspects of sound editing?)
On the other hand I have to admit it's the only movie on the entire Oscars roster I've actually seen, so it's not as though I had my finger on the pulse.
On the other hand I have to admit it's the only movie on the entire Oscars roster I've actually seen, so it's not as though I had my finger on the pulse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)