"...for Constantly Mentioning New Secretary's Sexual Orientation."
But how can you signal your virtue if you don't constantly signal?
From the article: "Meanwhile soldiers have expressed their support, or general indifference, towards Secretary Fanning."
That reminds me of a scene from Philip Caputo's A Rumor of War in which, as a Marine 2nd Lieutenant in Vietnam, he was challenged by a sentry.
Sanders Is Not 'Sabotaging Clinton,' He's Trying to Win
He well might win, if the superdelegates elect to abandon her and swing to him -- which they very well might, given his much stronger showing against Trump, her own terrible performance as a candidate, and her rapidly falling poll numbers.
Now, the superdelegates are chiefly loyal party organizers of just the sort who pulled the Nevada spectacle. Nevertheless, it's still two months to the DNC in Philly. If Clinton falls into a tie (or even below) Trump, and Sanders continues to show strong support, she'll be in a bad position to retain their loyalty.
So, no. This isn't sabotage. It's fair play for the prize.
Meanwhile, if it doesn't work, Trump has already moved to seize Sanders' line that the system is rigged. Every bit of rigging Clinton has to do to claw her way past the DNC is proof that Sanders was -- and, therefore, Trump is -- right about the state of American politics.
If I'm right that Sanders and Trump are aligned in the core logic of their campaigns, Trump could easily land a large part of the Sanders vote. Everybody is talking as if this were the usual left-v-right election. I think it is an 'America-First' v. Globalism election. The real driver is economics, but both Trump and Sanders play out the logic also in their foreign policy. Thus, the Trump campaign may seem like a more natural home for Sanders supporters than the Clinton campaign. Especially for the Sanders voters who are genuinely working class, the elitist, internationalist Clinton may seem like a symbol of everything they resent.
So if you don't want that, vote Sanders. Him getting past the DNC as the candidate is right now the #1 best shot for keeping Trump out of the White House -- just as it is the #1 best shot for keeping Clinton out of the White House.
Now, the superdelegates are chiefly loyal party organizers of just the sort who pulled the Nevada spectacle. Nevertheless, it's still two months to the DNC in Philly. If Clinton falls into a tie (or even below) Trump, and Sanders continues to show strong support, she'll be in a bad position to retain their loyalty.
So, no. This isn't sabotage. It's fair play for the prize.
Meanwhile, if it doesn't work, Trump has already moved to seize Sanders' line that the system is rigged. Every bit of rigging Clinton has to do to claw her way past the DNC is proof that Sanders was -- and, therefore, Trump is -- right about the state of American politics.
If I'm right that Sanders and Trump are aligned in the core logic of their campaigns, Trump could easily land a large part of the Sanders vote. Everybody is talking as if this were the usual left-v-right election. I think it is an 'America-First' v. Globalism election. The real driver is economics, but both Trump and Sanders play out the logic also in their foreign policy. Thus, the Trump campaign may seem like a more natural home for Sanders supporters than the Clinton campaign. Especially for the Sanders voters who are genuinely working class, the elitist, internationalist Clinton may seem like a symbol of everything they resent.
So if you don't want that, vote Sanders. Him getting past the DNC as the candidate is right now the #1 best shot for keeping Trump out of the White House -- just as it is the #1 best shot for keeping Clinton out of the White House.
Don't Bury the Lede
Headline: "Donald Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks."
How many paragraphs do you think the NYT needs to fulminate before it tells us even one of the names on that list?
Would you believe five paragraphs?
Here's the list, to spare you reading all about how nobody trusts Trump and the list is meaningless (which you get again in the paragraphs following the list):
How many paragraphs do you think the NYT needs to fulminate before it tells us even one of the names on that list?
Would you believe five paragraphs?
Here's the list, to spare you reading all about how nobody trusts Trump and the list is meaningless (which you get again in the paragraphs following the list):
According to a list released by the campaign, Mr. Trump’s potential nominees include several federal judges: Steven M. Colloton of Iowa; Raymond W. Gruender of Missouri; Thomas M. Hardiman of Pennsylvania; William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin; and Raymond M. Kethledge of Michigan; and several state Supreme Court justices: Allison H. Eid of Colorado; Joan Larsen of Michigan; Thomas Lee of Utah; David Stras of Minnesota; and Don Willett of Texas.It's possibly the most consequential issue of the election. What do you think?
Happy 100th Birthday, Sykes-Picot
On the talking point blaming all the ills of the Middle East on a smoke-filled room that produced Iraq's borders.
Two Small Questions
So there's this article about an Oregon Baptist Church with a sign described as "anti-Muslim."
1) What is the difference between bigotry and orthodoxy? This is the official position of the Baptist church. There's nothing in the sign that isn't completely accurate as a statement of church doctrine.
2) What's the difference between Baptist orthodoxy and Islamic orthodoxy as regards what constitutes bigotry? Muslims officially believe the inverse of this doctrine: that there is no God but Allah, that Muhammad is greater than Jesus (who is merely another prophet, and a lesser one, according to Islamic orthodoxy), and that only the Koran is the direct word of God.
It seems the complaint here is either one of aesthetics or one of etiquette. Maybe it's just rude, or ugly, to point this out. But the only way believing in Baptist orthodoxy is "anti-Muslim" is if being a Baptist is anti-Muslim. If that's the case, than any expression of religious sentiment is a form of bigotry, for 'being a Muslim' is anti-Christian by an exactly similar argument.
Is the only way to be fair to everyone to be an atheist? Or is the argument just that it's fine to believe what you want provided you don't say it out loud?
Pastor Michael Harrington placed the words on the reader board outside Belmont Drive Missionary Baptist Church. On one side it reads, “Wake up Christians, Allah is not our God, Muhammad not greater than Jesus.” On the other side, it says, “Only the Bible is God’s word, ‘holy book,’ Koran is just another book.” ...I have just two questions.
But locals, including the mayor, don’t want to see the signs.
“I was really annoyed and sad,” Hood River mayor, Paul Blackburn, told KATU. “I am annoyed that in this political season there’s a solid case of ugly going on. I think it norms up this kind of behavior like ‘oh it’s okay to be a bigot now.'”
1) What is the difference between bigotry and orthodoxy? This is the official position of the Baptist church. There's nothing in the sign that isn't completely accurate as a statement of church doctrine.
2) What's the difference between Baptist orthodoxy and Islamic orthodoxy as regards what constitutes bigotry? Muslims officially believe the inverse of this doctrine: that there is no God but Allah, that Muhammad is greater than Jesus (who is merely another prophet, and a lesser one, according to Islamic orthodoxy), and that only the Koran is the direct word of God.
It seems the complaint here is either one of aesthetics or one of etiquette. Maybe it's just rude, or ugly, to point this out. But the only way believing in Baptist orthodoxy is "anti-Muslim" is if being a Baptist is anti-Muslim. If that's the case, than any expression of religious sentiment is a form of bigotry, for 'being a Muslim' is anti-Christian by an exactly similar argument.
Is the only way to be fair to everyone to be an atheist? Or is the argument just that it's fine to believe what you want provided you don't say it out loud?
'Crybullies' and the Democratic Party
So, last weekend in Nevada Hillary Clinton supporters used a 'voice vote' to ram through a set of rules and a delegate count out of order with what the majority really wanted, and then refused to pause to actually count the votes. Instead, they declared the results final, gaveled down the session, fled the building, and then called in hotel security and then state police to drive the Sanders supporters away from the scene.
That's bullying. Shout them down, refuse to listen, call in big guys with sticks and guns to shut them up and force them to accept it.
Now comes the crying.
Yet while the charge is audacious enough to come from Clinton and her "unexpected!" allies in the media, it's not plausible. Bernie Sanders hasn't even been rude to Hillary Clinton. His supporters are outraged because they ought to be.
That's bullying. Shout them down, refuse to listen, call in big guys with sticks and guns to shut them up and force them to accept it.
Now comes the crying.
A lot of Democrats don’t want to admit it, but Donald Trump isn’t the only presidential candidate playing with fire and recklessly courting an angry mob.Even if Ms. Lange is reporting honestly, which would be out of line with the history of these 'crybully' movements, who's to say that these threats were from "Sanders supporters" and not Clinton proxies? Clinton's people have a long history here. Her oppo people and astroturf people started the Birther movement, for example. Why not start a "Bernie Sanders is a thug" movement?
For the latest round of curse-word hurling, chair throwing, social-media stalking and conspiracy-theory swapping, look no further than the supporters of Bernie Sanders.
Over the weekend, dozens of Sanders devotees lost their minds after the Nevada Democratic Party, meeting for its convention in Las Vegas, awarded a majority of delegates to front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Convinced that the establishment had rigged the rules and that Sanders delegates had been excluded for unfair reasons, they booed and traded barbs with people on stage, including Clinton surrogate and keynote speaker U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
The convention ended abruptly, descending into chaos that was captured for the world to relive on Facebook and YouTube.
Death threats and vandalism followed, prompting Nevada Democratic Party offices to close on Monday and its chairwoman, Roberta Lange, to release some downright disgusting voicemails and text messages she had received from Sanders supporters. She also reported threats against her grandchildren.
Yet while the charge is audacious enough to come from Clinton and her "unexpected!" allies in the media, it's not plausible. Bernie Sanders hasn't even been rude to Hillary Clinton. His supporters are outraged because they ought to be.
It's Not Easy Being Green
Speaking to reporters, the practitioner of ancient South American religious rituals involving the hallucinogenic ayahuasca plant explained that, while he was ordinarily happy to share his culture’s spiritual wisdom with others, the constant stream of wealthy Silicon Valley executives seeking transcendental enlightenment had become an increasingly loathsome and disheartening part of his occupation.I have to admit that I first heard about it through the Onion.
“These days, I can’t even look at my calendar without cringing—it’s pretty much all tech execs,” said Salazar, adding that he had thought the developed world’s interest in the ayahuasca tea ceremony was generally a positive until it became his full-time job to provide celestial guidance to Bay Area venture capitalists and app founders who had learned about the practice through a Viceland special.
Island Steel Guitar
Starting with the British isles:
But of course the guitar really originates in Hawaii:
But of course the guitar really originates in Hawaii:
There's Almost No Reason for Sanders Supporters to Back Clinton
Salon is worried about the exit polls.
Sanders is a socialist, and Trump is not -- Trump thinks he's going to negotiate a better deal for American capitalists and workers. But neither of them is even a little bit like Clinton. She called the TPP deal "the gold standard," and although she's now trying to walk that back it's clear she's only doing so for electoral reasons. Her real economic policy is to pursue the ends set at Davos. Her foreign policy, likewise, is one of international engagement in pursuit of ends set in Turtle Bay, or at Davos, or by wealthy Persian Gulf sheikhs with money to donate to the Clinton Global Foundation.
Sanders voters are not blind. They can see that, in the essence of political views, Trump is far more like them than Clinton is. Those like Salon who see her as the candidate of compromise are missing the boat. When it comes to this essential core of the campaigns, Trump is the candidate of compromise between Sanders and Clinton. This basic failure to grasp the ground of the campaign suggests that Clinton's people -- and Obama's -- badly misunderstand what is going on before their eyes.
UPDATE: Centrist Democrats sense the coming earthquake, begin talking about being ready to work with President Trump.
UPDATE: Bernie fans put together this video of the fix being in at the Nevada convention.
CBS News reported 44 percent said they’d vote for Trump, 23 percent for Hillary Clinton, and 32 percent for neither. These findings—especially Sanders’ supporters shifting to Trump—seem like a stretch, but maybe they’re not.Trump and Sanders' candidacies are much more alike than different. Both are insurgents, as Salon understands. But Trump and Sanders are also both isolationists on foreign policy. Foreign policy usually doesn't matter much in Presidential elections, but this time the foreign policy views are just outgrowths of the candidates' economic views. Both candidates believe that foreign free trade deals have been too costly to American workers compared with the benefits they spread abroad. Now economic views are usually hugely important in Presidential elections. That their foreign policy lines up with their economic worldviews means that there is a core logic to both of these campaigns that is closely aligned.
Sanders is a socialist, and Trump is not -- Trump thinks he's going to negotiate a better deal for American capitalists and workers. But neither of them is even a little bit like Clinton. She called the TPP deal "the gold standard," and although she's now trying to walk that back it's clear she's only doing so for electoral reasons. Her real economic policy is to pursue the ends set at Davos. Her foreign policy, likewise, is one of international engagement in pursuit of ends set in Turtle Bay, or at Davos, or by wealthy Persian Gulf sheikhs with money to donate to the Clinton Global Foundation.
Sanders voters are not blind. They can see that, in the essence of political views, Trump is far more like them than Clinton is. Those like Salon who see her as the candidate of compromise are missing the boat. When it comes to this essential core of the campaigns, Trump is the candidate of compromise between Sanders and Clinton. This basic failure to grasp the ground of the campaign suggests that Clinton's people -- and Obama's -- badly misunderstand what is going on before their eyes.
UPDATE: Centrist Democrats sense the coming earthquake, begin talking about being ready to work with President Trump.
UPDATE: Bernie fans put together this video of the fix being in at the Nevada convention.
11 Principles For After Blue States Secede
Here's a fellow who is thinking in the right direction, assuming there is any possibility that the blue states will actually secede. Their real interest is in winning a Clinton Presidency, securing a durable Supreme Court majority, and imposing their will on the rest of us forever.
Still, it could happen. If it does, it sounds to me like he's got the right principles for a new America.
And, of course, secession could go the other way too.
Still, it could happen. If it does, it sounds to me like he's got the right principles for a new America.
And, of course, secession could go the other way too.
The governor of Texas sent a harsh letter to US President Barack Obama on Monday, announcing that his state would not only maintain its sanctions on Iran, but strengthen them...That sounds like another Federal lawsuit against another US State is in the offing. Ordinarily I'd say that Texas was in the wrong -- not about the advisability of the Iran Deal, about which Abbott is quite right, but about Texas' power to conduct an independent foreign policy. However, if we're entering the first phases of dissolving the Union, the testing of those boundaries is going to occur. North Carolina is testing them from a place where the Federal government is clearly overreaching its duties. Texas is testing them from a place in which the Federal government is failing its duties. So too were Arizona and the other states involved in the immigration lawsuit, demanding the Federal government enforce its laws and stop preventing them from enforcing the laws as well.
Governor Greg Abbott explained that the letter was in response to a written appeal made by Obama on April 8, requesting that Texas “review” its economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic – as was promised to Tehran in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers reached in July.
“I strongly oppose the Iran deal because it undermines the national security of the United States and its strategic allies abroad – especially our most important Middle East ally, Israel,” Abbott wrote to Obama. “Entering into an agreement with a country that consistently calls for ‘death to America,’ and repeatedly articulates antisemitic policies is short-sighted and ignores geopolitical realities.”
Violence in American Politics
Nevada:
Adryenn Ashley posted several live videos (below) from inside the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas, where arcane secondary rounds of the delegate selection process of Nevada's Democratic caucus erupted into chaos Saturday night. Bernie Sanders supporters demanded 64 rejected pro-Sanders delegates listed in a "minority report" prepared by their campaign be allowed to participate in selecting delegates for the national convention.Atlanta:
State party chair and DNC executive committee member Roberta Lange refused to reconsider their decision not to allow this, adjourned, and fled the building amid a chorus of boos; leaving hotel security and local police officers to handle the angry Sanders supporters.
A casual conversation with other two hotel guests reportedly turned tense when the subject of the Democratic presidential primary was broached. [Hollywood actor Wendell Pierce], an ardent supporter of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, allegedly assaulted a woman and her boyfriend at the midtown Loews Hotel around 3:30 a.m. The alleged incident took place in The Lobby, an open bar sandwiched between the guest check-in desk and a restaurant, and a go-to venue for private receptions and after-work cocktails for Atlanta’s business and entertainment class.Quite a weekend.
The couple, said to be supporters of Bernie Sanders, said Pierce became enraged when the unknown woman declared her support for the Vermont senator. Pierce, who most recently co-starred in the HBO drama Confirmation in the role of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, allegedly pushed a male victim and then “went after his girlfriend… grabbing her hair and smacking her in the head,” according to TMZ.
Ignorance is Not a Virtue, but It Can Be A Defense
President Obama has decided that he is going to take a very active hand in campaigning for his preferred successor.
UPDATE: "[W]atch this 20 second clip from Charlie Rose this week. In it you’ll see two former Obama administration staffers, Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau, laughing hysterically about the “if you like your insurance you can keep it” Obamacare lie they helped perpetrate. This comes on the heels of last week’s New York Times Magazine brutal profile of ‘Obama’s brain’ Ben Rhodes, who masterminded the journalist-spinning tactics that sold the Iran deal, among others."
"In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about. That's not keeping it real, or telling it like it is. That's not challenging political correctness. That's just not knowing what you're talking about. And yet, we've become confused about this."However...
"When our leaders express a disdain for facts, when they’re not held accountable for repeating falsehoods and just making stuff up, while actual experts are dismissed as elitists, then we’ve got a problem."
UPDATE: "[W]atch this 20 second clip from Charlie Rose this week. In it you’ll see two former Obama administration staffers, Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau, laughing hysterically about the “if you like your insurance you can keep it” Obamacare lie they helped perpetrate. This comes on the heels of last week’s New York Times Magazine brutal profile of ‘Obama’s brain’ Ben Rhodes, who masterminded the journalist-spinning tactics that sold the Iran deal, among others."
The High Feast of Pentecost
WHEN Arthur held his Round Table most plenour, it fortuned that he commanded that the high feast of Pentecost should be holden at a city and a castle, the which in those days was called Kynke Kenadonne, upon the sands that marched nigh Wales. So ever the king had a custom that at the feast of Pentecost in especial, afore other feasts in the year, he would not go that day to meat until he had heard or seen of a great marvel. And for that custom all manner of strange adventures came before Arthur as at that feast before all other feasts. And so Sir Gawaine, a little tofore noon of the day of Pentecost, espied at a window three men upon horseback, and a dwarf on foot, and so the three men alighted, and the dwarf kept their horses, and one of the three men was higher than the other twain by a foot and an half. Then Sir Gawaine went unto the king and said, Sir, go to your meat, for here at the hand come strange adventures.
Donald Trump Really Must Not Be President
We have to come up with a way around this, because of course Hillary Clinton also really must not be President -- she is deeply corrupt, and unrestrained by either law or custom. Neither of these figures is even a little bit fit for the office.
Still, these remarks (h/t: Hot Air) remind me of why I turned against Trump back in September. While I am very much not a feminist, I am a gentleman and I cannot abide men who do not respect women. I think it ought to be disqualifying for an office as powerful and important as the Presidency. Of course, I think the Presidency should become much less powerful and important, in which case it would not matter so much. But for now it is, and it does.
May God open a road for us, I pray this Pentecost, and may we be again a nation worthy of such providence.
Still, these remarks (h/t: Hot Air) remind me of why I turned against Trump back in September. While I am very much not a feminist, I am a gentleman and I cannot abide men who do not respect women. I think it ought to be disqualifying for an office as powerful and important as the Presidency. Of course, I think the Presidency should become much less powerful and important, in which case it would not matter so much. But for now it is, and it does.
May God open a road for us, I pray this Pentecost, and may we be again a nation worthy of such providence.
An Analysis
It opens with a metaphysical claim about politics:
Perhaps the most evident sign of civilizational devolution is the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge reality, to come to terms with things as they are, and to oppose the suppression of objectivity and its substitution by fantasy, illusion and wish-fulfillment. The resonating dictum of the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides from his fragmentary poem On Nature—variously translated as what is, is, and what is not, is not!—sounds like an empty tautology. But it has relevance for our present historical moment, with respect to the cultural and lexical inversions of contemporary thought and discourse. Apart from its metaphysical implications, which we won’t go into here, the Parmenidean maxim expresses the criterion for survival, the need to separate truth (aletheia) from opinion (doxa) and to recognize things as they are if an individual, a culture, a people is to transact successfully with the existing world. But when thought and action come to be governed by the anarchic principle that what is, is not and what is not, is, a process of social, political and epistemological disintegration invariably sets in. This is the condition in which the West finds itself today.Best read alongside this.
Australians
I assume this has something to do with the ready availability of decent drink.
Honestly, all of nature is pretty much about sex. That doesn't mean that you're meant to have sex with it.
Honestly, all of nature is pretty much about sex. That doesn't mean that you're meant to have sex with it.
Statin fail
I've never seen the point in statins and never have taken them. The causal link between cholesterol and heart disease is fuzzy at best. Friends and family have had very unpleasant effects from statins. The science has been too confused to satisfy my medical BS meter.
An Evening Out
I just spent last evening with a British immigrant who has just bought a home here in America, which -- along with his job -- he thinks will establish himself well enough here that he shall remain forever. "Good," I said, "and what are you going to do about Donald Trump?"
"Well, if I must leave again I suppose I shall," he said. "I could probably get you out too."
I answered, "I'm not going anywhere. This is my country, and that is the whole reason I own a rifle."
A third party to our discussion, an American from Omaha, jumped in enthusiastically at this point. He missed, in his enthusiasm, our British comrade wiping away tears.
They cannot see the danger from the left, though neither are even slight friends of Ms. Clinton. The danger from the right occupies all their thoughts, though it is perhaps rather less severe. I don't imagine Donald Trump would be trying to run out British émigrés, and I'm not sure how much I think he'll really turn on Hispanic or Muslim ones. I have a feeling it's all talk with him.
But how nice to see enthusiasm for the rifle. How nice to see even the romance of it. It is worth a few glorious tears. It is the final guarantee of liberty.
"Well, if I must leave again I suppose I shall," he said. "I could probably get you out too."
I answered, "I'm not going anywhere. This is my country, and that is the whole reason I own a rifle."
A third party to our discussion, an American from Omaha, jumped in enthusiastically at this point. He missed, in his enthusiasm, our British comrade wiping away tears.
They cannot see the danger from the left, though neither are even slight friends of Ms. Clinton. The danger from the right occupies all their thoughts, though it is perhaps rather less severe. I don't imagine Donald Trump would be trying to run out British émigrés, and I'm not sure how much I think he'll really turn on Hispanic or Muslim ones. I have a feeling it's all talk with him.
But how nice to see enthusiasm for the rifle. How nice to see even the romance of it. It is worth a few glorious tears. It is the final guarantee of liberty.
Election polling
Michael Barone is one of the few poll analysts I can read with any patience. It's going to be a long season.
I have noticed something else that may be significant in the some recent polls: The number of undecided voters seems to be increasing, rather than decreasing as it tends to do when nominees are determined.
This could result from cross-pressures. Majorities of voters have unfavorable feelings toward both candidates, and probably a record share, about 25 percent, has unfavorable feelings toward both. Apparently some voters are having trouble deciding which repellent candidate to vote for.Bingo. Well, not to exaggerate: I'm not having trouble deciding, just trouble stomaching my decision.
$15 an Hour? How About "You're Fired"?
Carl's Jr. has a plan: automated machines to take your order, and a ten percent discount for using them.
Taco Bell had automated ordering kiosks at the 1996 Olympics. They were awesome, actually, because your order was never wrong. They were simple to operate touch-screens, and you could customize your orders to do all sorts of things without worrying about trying to explain what you wanted to a deaf 16-year-old. Since much of Taco Bell's menu is just different ways of putting together the same basic ingredients, the customization aspect worked very well.
I remember that I was very sad when they removed the kiosks after the Games were over. They represented a real improvement on the Taco Bell experience.
Automation is going to make most human labor obsolete.
Taco Bell had automated ordering kiosks at the 1996 Olympics. They were awesome, actually, because your order was never wrong. They were simple to operate touch-screens, and you could customize your orders to do all sorts of things without worrying about trying to explain what you wanted to a deaf 16-year-old. Since much of Taco Bell's menu is just different ways of putting together the same basic ingredients, the customization aspect worked very well.
I remember that I was very sad when they removed the kiosks after the Games were over. They represented a real improvement on the Taco Bell experience.
Automation is going to make most human labor obsolete.
Eric Blair, Call Your Office
A comment on why World War I games are too hot for the gaming industry, though WWII is one of its staples.
Well, except for flying games. Snoopy and the Red Baron is fun for everyone.
Well, except for flying games. Snoopy and the Red Baron is fun for everyone.
Divergent Interests
The invocation of Trump is just a means of making people excited about reading the article, which is ironic: the real critique is much more interesting than the lazy headline suggests.
This graphic gives a sense of it.
On the one hand, it's difficult to sympathize too much given that tenured academia is deeply insulated from competition compared to almost anyone, anywhere. On the other hand, competition for tenured positions has become very fierce in recent years. That seems to be what is driving this kind of thing.
There's another aspect, too, which is implied by the need to publish unlikely novel results before getting 'scooped.' If you're hanging your hopes on them, it's also necessary to defend their plausibility so you continue to be important as the discoverer of them. Thus, science becomes deformed not only because scientists are inclined no longer to carefully check unlikely results, but also because they have an interest in using anti-scientific strategies to defend implausible results long after they should be rejected. They might use rhetoric to try to silence criticism ("You're just opposed to my results because I'm [insert protected category]!"). Or, as the Michael Mann case suggests, they might even resort to legal strategies to defend highly questionable science.
After all, one's career is at stake. Or one's hope of ever having a career.
This graphic gives a sense of it.
On the one hand, it's difficult to sympathize too much given that tenured academia is deeply insulated from competition compared to almost anyone, anywhere. On the other hand, competition for tenured positions has become very fierce in recent years. That seems to be what is driving this kind of thing.
There's another aspect, too, which is implied by the need to publish unlikely novel results before getting 'scooped.' If you're hanging your hopes on them, it's also necessary to defend their plausibility so you continue to be important as the discoverer of them. Thus, science becomes deformed not only because scientists are inclined no longer to carefully check unlikely results, but also because they have an interest in using anti-scientific strategies to defend implausible results long after they should be rejected. They might use rhetoric to try to silence criticism ("You're just opposed to my results because I'm [insert protected category]!"). Or, as the Michael Mann case suggests, they might even resort to legal strategies to defend highly questionable science.
After all, one's career is at stake. Or one's hope of ever having a career.
Zimmerman Trolls the World
George Zimmerman is auctioning off the gun he shot Trayvon Martin with. Why, you ask?
Is this troll year in American politics? It must be troll year.
Proceeds from the sale, Zimmerman wrote, will be used to “fight [Black Lives Matter] violence against Law Enforcement officers, ensure the demise of [Zimmerman’s prosecuting attorney] Angela Correy’s [sic] persecution career and Hillary Clinton’s anti-firearm rhetoric.”I imagine he'll get a fair amount of money for that piece of junk he was carrying, given how much people will enjoy pulling those particular chains.
Is this troll year in American politics? It must be troll year.
Neutrality
Harvard women's groups claim that gender-neutral rule should be altered to only ban activities by men's groups.
At Harvard University, women are protesting the school's recent move to ban single-sex "final clubs," because the school didn't limit the ban to male clubs...
The Harvard women say that women's groups should be exempted from the new rule, because it was adopted as a response to claims that men-only groups foster rape.
The Citadel: No Hijabs
Needless to say, the decision appears to be leading to a lawsuit.
The woman's family is now considering legal action, citing the fact the Citadel is a public university, said Ibrahim Hooper with the Council on American-Islamic Relations.Not 'better than,' 'different from.' The US military has offered various accommodations. The Citadel never has.
"We believe that it's a constitutional obligation for a public institution to offer religious accommodation to students," he said.
Hooper says precedents for religious accommodation in the U.S. military contradict the Citadel's decision.
"Our U.S. military allows hijabs, beards, turbans, yarmulkes," he said. "It makes you wonder why the Citadel thinks they're somehow better than our nation's military."
Benghazi Again
F-16 pilots: "We were on standby." Turns out there was not the refueling issue that the administration has been claiming prevented sending them, either.
Brazil Says "Bye" To Socialist President
Brazil's Senate has voted to suspend its President from office. She is allegedly planning to step down given the vote.
It turns out this is actually business as usual in Brazil, where almost no Presidents finish their term in office. I have a certain jealousy for their capacity to remove corrupt officials, although not for the apparent surplus of corrupt officials they have to remove. Still, it's not as if we're lacking for them here. We just have less recourse.
It turns out this is actually business as usual in Brazil, where almost no Presidents finish their term in office. I have a certain jealousy for their capacity to remove corrupt officials, although not for the apparent surplus of corrupt officials they have to remove. Still, it's not as if we're lacking for them here. We just have less recourse.
What Are You Talking About?
This guy. I don't know what to say about him.
"All of the men, we're petrified to speak to women anymore.... There is nobody who respects women more than I do."Yeah, that's not true. No part of that is true.
Texas Independence Resolution to Get a Vote
Mother Jones reports.
The Texas Nationalist Movement, once considered a quixotic fringe group, has added hundreds of members in the years since the election of Barack Obama. According to the Houston Chronicle's Dylan Baddour, at least 10 county GOP chapters are coming to the convention supporting independence resolutions. But this will be the first time in the state's 171-year history that they will actually vote on one. It's very unlikely to win. Then again, that's what people said about Donald Trump.
Choctaw Bingo
Speaking of badass Hebrews, if you missed it this week was Holocaust Memorial Day, Israel's version of Memorial Day, and now their celebration of national independence. If you know any badass Hebrews, wish them well.
All Right, Fine
I can see where this is going.
But fine. Rule him not guilty by reason of failure of the government to prove its case. Turn him loose in Georgia. It'll sort itself out.
Attorneys for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are calling on the judge and the entire prosecution team in Mohammed’s military commission at Guantánamo Bay to step down from the long-running case over what a member of the defense team called “at least the appearance of collusion” that led to the government apparently secretly destroying information relevant to the premier post-9/11 tribunal.These trials were always a stupid idea. All the Geneva Conventions required of us was a status hearing, and then we could shoot him as an unlawful combatant.
But fine. Rule him not guilty by reason of failure of the government to prove its case. Turn him loose in Georgia. It'll sort itself out.
Playboy's Guide for Voters
People keep sending me this, so I suppose I'll post it. Appropriate warnings: (a) It's from Playboy, so while there's no nudes there's plenty of profanity. (b) It may make some of you consider becoming Libertarians, though it reminds us that only the Republicans ever even talked about the problem of unconstrained immigration or the morality of abortion.
FBI Director: Yeah, "Security Inquiry" is Not A Thing
Today's good news: Director Comey confirms that this is a criminal investigation.
Yesterday's bad news: The Department of Justice's top employees have donated $75,000 to Hillary Clinton for this year's election.
That's quite an investment in her future.
An independent counsel would seem to be indicated as the only reasonable course of action.
Yesterday's bad news: The Department of Justice's top employees have donated $75,000 to Hillary Clinton for this year's election.
That's quite an investment in her future.
An independent counsel would seem to be indicated as the only reasonable course of action.
A Periodic Table of Mathematicals
Interesting stuff in this article on 'exploring the mathematical universe.'
Taranto on the Race
One of the few things Hillary Clinton has going for her is that she’s inevitable. But for how long? She will win the Democratic presidential nomination barring the unlikely event that we still live in a country governed by the rule of law.
"Justice" in Obama's America
The Department of Same.
In a broader sense, the suit is symbolic of the federal government’s eight-year crusade to decimate any semblance of federalism and streamline progressive morality. The administration ignores state laws that conflict with federal policy when it approves and it sues states when it does not. States that pass law enforcement bills President Obama finds unsatisfactory will see the full force of the Justice Department come down on them. Those with drug legalization laws and immigration laws he does like, even if they conflict with federal law, have nothing to worry about.
Is It That They No Longer Know?
Or is it that they no longer believe in America as the Founders envisioned her?
But what if -- as I have come to suspect -- the problem isn't that they don't know but that they don't care? I suspect they've all heard of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What they want is a Federal government that will solve their problems. That implies a Federal government with all kinds of powers to 'do stuff' that is completely untethered from the Constitution.
The idea of restoring the 10th Amendment, which I think is the only way for an America that has become so morally diverse to survive, that's not important if what you want is a Federal government that will solve whatever problems you have.
Trump voters aren't conservatives because they are progressives. Oh, they're not aesthetically aligned with the progressives who want transgender bathrooms and racial diversity. They're aesthetically quite opposed to all that. But that is a difference about what constitutes a beautiful America. On the question of whether or not the government should have whatever powers it needs to make America beautiful, they're completely on the left.
The answer [to why the majority of Republican primary voters are no longer conservatives] lies in America's biggest -- and scariest -- problem: Most Americans no longer know what America stands for. For them, America has become just another country, a place located between Canada and Mexico.If it is just that they no longer know, then principles-based movements like the ones we've been seeing might fix the problem. The problem is a problem of education. Teach people what the principles were, and why they worked, and why losing them is related to grave tragedies. Then, they will be able to apply the principles themselves and we'll see a political shift toward proper political values.
But America was founded to be an idea, not another country. As former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher put it: "Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy."
But what if -- as I have come to suspect -- the problem isn't that they don't know but that they don't care? I suspect they've all heard of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What they want is a Federal government that will solve their problems. That implies a Federal government with all kinds of powers to 'do stuff' that is completely untethered from the Constitution.
The idea of restoring the 10th Amendment, which I think is the only way for an America that has become so morally diverse to survive, that's not important if what you want is a Federal government that will solve whatever problems you have.
Trump voters aren't conservatives because they are progressives. Oh, they're not aesthetically aligned with the progressives who want transgender bathrooms and racial diversity. They're aesthetically quite opposed to all that. But that is a difference about what constitutes a beautiful America. On the question of whether or not the government should have whatever powers it needs to make America beautiful, they're completely on the left.
That's A Minor Issue
Hot Air nails the Brady campaign:
The “criminals” earnestly advise against going to certain states with heavy handed gun control laws because it will be so hard for them to obtain weapons and carry out their crimes. With no apparent sarcasm intended, they go on to list California, Connecticut, Maryland and New York as places to avoid. Wait… what?It's as if criminals were getting their guns from black market sources that were never going to perform background checks anyway.
It was only a couple of weeks ago when we covered the five cities which account for a two year spike in gun murders here in a country where crime rates are otherwise decreasing. Two of them were Los Angeles and Baltimore. And New York City isn’t that far behind.
It's As If Strong Controls on Immigration Were Good
Vox explains that the reasons liberals want to move to Canada are the reasons they probably can't.
Canada uses a points system to figure out who qualifies for "Express Entry" — which is the pool employers can use to hire people, and from which the government accepts (some) skilled immigrants who don't yet have job offers. The points system is supposed to score how well you'll integrate in Canada (with factors like language and "adaptability") and how much you can contribute to the Canadian economy (via education, experience, employment, and age).Gee, if only we had some sort of system like that here.
Crucially, if you don't already have a job offer in Canada, it also looks at whether you have enough money saved up to support yourself until you find one. This is where I washed out. I don't have $9,199 US ($12,184 Canadian) in cash savings — and that's the bare minimum to qualify for Express Entry.
Make Them Consider Buying A Ford?
Mark Levin is on point when he criticizes Trump's hypocrisy on free trade. But he loses me here:
Remember, a tariff is really just a tax, the cost of which is imposed on the American people. The higher the tariff, the higher the tax. Imagine what a 45 percent increase in the price of goods made, say, in Japan would do to a middle class family shopping for a Toyota or Honda.Isn't this the whole point of tariffs -- to provide incentives to prefer domestic products? If I understand Levin, he thinks that the middle class family shopping for a Toyota or Honda is just going to pay the higher prices. That's the same sort of error that Congress makes when it assumes that raising taxes won't affect economic activity. Of course it will. In this case, the effect on economic activity is the whole point of the exercise.
Another Principled Argument
I have the same thing to say about it as before. Of course these are the right principles, but a politics of rational principles is the opposite of the direction in which our democracy is rushing.
So We Have That To Look Forward To
Hillary Clinton lays out some of her gun control agenda.
So, the future looks like an end to the gun manufacturing industry, an end to the legal right to keep and bear arms, and an unrestricted right for any ex-girlfriend to send the police to rob you of your arms.
Well, you should be careful whom you date anyway, I suppose: the most important quality in a potential mate is good moral character. Likewise, domestic violence really is a serious problem. Nevertheless, that's a tremendous weight to put on a wholly informal relationship, with no due process beyond her being willing to give a sworn statement against you.
Her proposals include extending the instant background checks indefinitely by changing the amount of time the FBI has on extended checks. She also wants to place new regulations on sales at gun shows and for guns sold online, and she wants to expand the definition of domestic violence to include dating relationships, then use that expanded definition to ban individuals from owning guns.This is just a start. The most important thing for her will be getting a Supreme Court Justice who will overturn Heller, and rule instead that the 2nd Amendment only protects state-run militias and nothing else.
Breitbart News previously reported that Clinton also wants to change our nation’s laws to allow shooting victims and their families to sue gun manufacturers... [t]his action alone would drive gun prices through the roof as gun manufacturers seek ways to raise money to cover court costs incurred via lawsuit after lawsuit when criminals misuse guns. It would eventually drive gun manufacturers into bankruptcy and, finally, into oblivion.
So, the future looks like an end to the gun manufacturing industry, an end to the legal right to keep and bear arms, and an unrestricted right for any ex-girlfriend to send the police to rob you of your arms.
Well, you should be careful whom you date anyway, I suppose: the most important quality in a potential mate is good moral character. Likewise, domestic violence really is a serious problem. Nevertheless, that's a tremendous weight to put on a wholly informal relationship, with no due process beyond her being willing to give a sworn statement against you.
A Female Junior Officer Writes on Military Gender Equality
She is targeting her remarks not at the less than one percent of military women who might enter combat roles -- the figure is her own estimate -- but at the 99% who will not. She has some interesting things to say. I think that, if her peers listened to her and adjusted themselves accordingly, much of this would be less contentious.
Opposition Leader in Venezuela Assassinated
The head of the UNT party was shot dead while traveling in one of Venezuela's western states. The UNT is a collection of labor unions that supported Hugo Chavez. It is not the only labor party in Venezuela, but one particularly tied to the communists.
DB: Congress Cuts Enlisted Pay to Fund F-35 Stereo System
Congress has passed a new law that will cut pay for all enlisted servicemembers by two percent. The money saved will fund a “wicked baller” speaker system for the F-35 Lightning II, according to program managers.
“We were really looking for something that would set the F-35 back another five years,” said program spokesman, Vice Adm. Tom Skazanski. “Now we’ll have to redesign the entire cockpit to fit the system in there, and even then I doubt it will work.”...
The contract was settled after a lengthy bidding war between “Fat Leonard” Francis and an eBay user based out of Azerbaijan. Still, the department does not know where it will get the stock it needs, as most of the technology involved has been obsolete for decades.
Six Principles
Jeff G. at Protein Wisdom -- there's a name that rings a bell, though it's been long enough since I last heard it that I can't remember why -- has a proposal for a unifying set of principles for a new political party. He has brief explanations of what he means by each of the six of them. It's not the worst set of suggestions I've ever heard.
I'll take the liberty of quoting his principles and explanations at length because, after all, he's trying to start a new party and probably wants you to read all of this more than he cares where you read it. Besides, it's a relatively small excerpt of a much longer post.
I don't think the American people want this anymore. We do, of course. But Trump voters don't. And Clinton voters don't. And Sanders voters don't. The Republican leadership in the House and Senate don't -- they're the ones floating the President on TPP and T-TIP, just to point to one way in which they oppose points 5 and 6. The Democrats certainly don't -- they're directly opposed to all of them. With a very few honorable exceptions, the whole elected government plus all the remaining candidates -- and all likely Supreme Court nominees from any of these candidates -- are against these principles. Large parts of the civil service are opposed to most of these principles.
That is not to say these aren't the right principles. It's just to say that there may no longer be any hope of defending them. Democracy has spoken, repeatedly, against everything we believe. It doesn't seem that we're heading down the road toward a new discussion of what principles ought to animate America, either. It seems as if we're headed down a road in which, like Brazil, American voters are chiefly divided by race, with the Republicans under Trump rushing to fulfill on the white side the strategy the Democrats have long leveraged with non-white voters. Clinton voters are cheerful and happy to accept a woman who is demonstrably on the take of what they call "the 1%," and who has clearly violated American law on numerous occasions, provided she'll keep the benefits flowing to their cliques.
American politics seems to be becoming less rational, in other words. It shows every sign of becoming more driven by irrational forces like racial identity -- which, like 'transgender identity,' doesn't even point to anything actually biologically real -- or by naked interest in extracting for one's own a bigger piece of the Federal pie. I doubt the efficacy of a new rationalist attempt to explain political principles and hope people will be persuaded by the arguments.
I wish it were otherwise.
I'll take the liberty of quoting his principles and explanations at length because, after all, he's trying to start a new party and probably wants you to read all of this more than he cares where you read it. Besides, it's a relatively small excerpt of a much longer post.
1) Individual libertyI of course agree with all of these principles. The only problem is that these are -- aren't they? -- the same principles we've been fighting for all along. In 2010, we were making these arguments. In 2004, we were making these arguments. In 1994, we were making these arguments. Today, no candidate for President represents any part of any of these arguments. The three remaining candidates and, I should add, all of the top vote-getting candidates from either party have stood for opposing principles across the board.
2) Federalism and representative republicanism
3) Constitutionalism
4) Judicial originalism
5) National sovereignty
6) Free-market capitalism
These are the foundations of a new and potentially revolutionary party, one that does not react defensively to being principled nor considers “purity” in defense of its core beliefs anything but solid earth upon which to pitch its tent. Anyone can join this party; but to do so they must accept as inviolable the 6 foundational platform items. The price of admission, in other words, is a belief in the social compact upon which this country was founded. Nothing more.
1) Individual liberty: the Constitution exists to constrain government and delineate its proper function. It is a physical realization of the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence, chief among which is the concept of natural rights that government exists to protect but can never remove. These are individual rights. And as such, the perversity of contemporary nationalism — which attempts to homogenize the state around a national government that claims to stand in for a supposed collective will — is rejected. We are a nation of individuals. Not of individuals subservient to a mythologized nation state.
2) Federalism and representative republicanism: Those powers not enumerated as belonging to the federal government belong to the several states. Period. No longer will the states be satellite clients of a federal government whose prime lawmaking function now flows from the Executive branch through an unelected and untouchable bureaucratic apparatus. States and the citizens of those states will choose representatives to speak to their interests. Direct democracy was considered a danger by our Founders and Framers. Our party will hold caucuses, not primaries. We will work to choose those we believe will reflect our interests most rigorously. We won’t be held hostage by open primaries or preference polls open to those swayed solely by name recognition, incumbency, or temporary emotional pique. One goal of the party will be the repeal of the 17th Amendment — a result of a prior populist push that rendered the current Senate redundant. Too, we will use the power of recall to thwart those who wish to run under our brand but then refuse to govern as it demands.
3) Constitutionalism: We are a nation of laws. Equality before the law is a central conceit of Constitutionalism and to the very idea of equality as we understand it. Equality of outcome is anathema to individual liberty as a social project. We are born of the American Revolution, not the French Revolution. We are a propositional nation, not a tribal one. Those beliefs that prove incompatible with the Constitution are to be rejected and never willingly imported: Fabian socialism, Marxism, communism, Maoism, Sharia — these are alien and destructive parasitic political philosophies seeking a host in our body politic, with the long-term hope of hollowing out the host to make of it a puppet disguised in Constitutional garb. Religious freedom is not freedom from religion; tolerance is not a right never to be offended; a well-regulated militia is not a delimiting descriptor but rather an all-encompassing one, etc.
4) Judicial originalism: long-time readers of protein wisdom will know instantly how this plank is perhaps the most crucial in the platform. In the absence of some metaphysical force that can arbitrate all disagreements in textual interpretation, the best we can do is embrace the very model that performs our Constitutionally prescribed lawmaking function: law is written and ratified by a legislature made up of corporate agency that intends; law is therefore to be conceived of as a fixed product of that intention — albeit within the conventional constructs we abide by when it comes to judicial interpretation. To that end, the role of the judiciary is to as closely as possible determine that intended meaning and appeal to it as the fixed meaning of any law. Laws are made by a specific collection of individuals in a specific spatio-temporal context. They mean what they mean, not what they can later be made to imply. Stare decisis is often the bane of judicial conservatism. No more. Deference is given to the Constitution, not to some faulty misrepresentation of its meaning by those inclined toward linguistically incoherent hermeneutics.
5) National sovereignty: We are a nation state. We can and must determine our own parameters for national autonomy. And that determination belongs to the people through their representatives, not a unitary Executive. Thus, we are entitled to control immigration, provide whatever obstacles to it we think in our best national interests, and remove those who have broken our laws — including secreting themselves into the country illegally, whether through border jumping or visa overstays. Our foreign policy will be designed to reflect our national interests. The Reagan model of Kirkpatrick/Weinberg will hold in check the impulse toward Wilsonian democracy projects and neoconservative nation building exercises. But it will also recognize the importance of allies and of American presence in international relations.
6) Free-market capitalism: Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. Ted Cruz at the FTC. This is to be vigorously juxtaposed against the destructive forces of corporatism and crony capitalism preferred by the two major parties, their lobbyists and donors, and influence buyers like Donald Trump. Such “capitalism” is the foundation of liberal fascism, which is the political stage nearly all proto-socialist countries eventually settle into, with government choosing winners and losers, rewarding friends, punishing foes, and using mere caprice to determine policy. It fights to quell competition at the behest of those already at the latter’s top. It is an attempt to kidnap and zip-tie to a radiator the Invisible hand. The idea that Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders might be allowed to dictate where a company settles or whether or not it qualifies for “punishment” is, to put it as clearly as I can, batshit crazy.
I don't think the American people want this anymore. We do, of course. But Trump voters don't. And Clinton voters don't. And Sanders voters don't. The Republican leadership in the House and Senate don't -- they're the ones floating the President on TPP and T-TIP, just to point to one way in which they oppose points 5 and 6. The Democrats certainly don't -- they're directly opposed to all of them. With a very few honorable exceptions, the whole elected government plus all the remaining candidates -- and all likely Supreme Court nominees from any of these candidates -- are against these principles. Large parts of the civil service are opposed to most of these principles.
That is not to say these aren't the right principles. It's just to say that there may no longer be any hope of defending them. Democracy has spoken, repeatedly, against everything we believe. It doesn't seem that we're heading down the road toward a new discussion of what principles ought to animate America, either. It seems as if we're headed down a road in which, like Brazil, American voters are chiefly divided by race, with the Republicans under Trump rushing to fulfill on the white side the strategy the Democrats have long leveraged with non-white voters. Clinton voters are cheerful and happy to accept a woman who is demonstrably on the take of what they call "the 1%," and who has clearly violated American law on numerous occasions, provided she'll keep the benefits flowing to their cliques.
American politics seems to be becoming less rational, in other words. It shows every sign of becoming more driven by irrational forces like racial identity -- which, like 'transgender identity,' doesn't even point to anything actually biologically real -- or by naked interest in extracting for one's own a bigger piece of the Federal pie. I doubt the efficacy of a new rationalist attempt to explain political principles and hope people will be persuaded by the arguments.
I wish it were otherwise.
To Undermine and Subvert
I've been back in graduate school for a while now, and this summer I'm taking an English literature course. The syllabus states that one of the course objectives is to "undermine and subvert" the traditional narratives of "American hegemony and mythology." In both the objectives and the description of the required research paper, it is made clear that we are to use post-structuralist approaches to the readings.
Post-structuralism, according to the All-Knowing Wikipedia, is associated with theorists such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith Butler, Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillard, and Julia Kristeva. Wikipedia continues:
This is apparently typical in English literature today.
Post-structuralism, according to the All-Knowing Wikipedia, is associated with theorists such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith Butler, Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillard, and Julia Kristeva. Wikipedia continues:
In the post-structuralist approach to textual analysis, the reader replaces the author as the primary subject of inquiry. This displacement is often referred to as the "destabilizing" or "decentering" of the author, though it has its greatest effect on the text itself. Without a central fixation on the author, post-structuralists examine other sources for meaning (e.g., readers, cultural norms, other literature, etc.). These alternative sources are never authoritative, and promise no consistency.
This is apparently typical in English literature today.
Redistribution that works
From Thomas Sowell remarks in 2012:
The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.
In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler’s Holocaust in the 1940s.
How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity. . . .
Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.
Sturgill Simpson in the News
He's got an ally in NPR, it looks like, as they've covered him several times. Good.
California Primary Takes New Importance
Bernie could win it all if Republicans cross over and vote for him in California, which some of you might want to do. He has his problems and downsides, but he is at least an honest man.
Anti-Racist?
No offense, but I'm not at all convinced this isn't backwards.
Lott was the Senate Majority Leader. There's no way that a Democrat of similar standing will ever resign for making bigoted remarks, and it's not because they don't make them. I'm not going to reprint the remarks at those links, but if you need proof of the claim, follow the links.
The Republican Party has been effectively more anti-racist than the Democratic Party by the standard of actually forcing its leaders to resign over racist remarks. They may do this because they think racism hurts them more -- as David French says, they're sensitive to the charge that they're shot through with xenophobia. Being 'on the right side' gives Democrats cover to act out without consequences. Joe Biden or Harry Reid can say things that would cause a Republican to wither on the vine, and nothing happens to them at all.
The reason that party leaders are not endorsing Trump right now is precisely because they are appalled by him. Some of it may be tactical, but some of it is not. It's also tactical to try to claim that Democrats are the anti-bigotry party. The evidence does not support this conviction.
The Democratic Party has become, to a significant extent, an anti-racist party. The Republican Party has not.So, which Democratic leaders have been forced to retire for having made racist remarks? Who's the Democratic Party's Trent Lott?
In an anti-racist party, politicians who demonize historically discriminated-against groups are either forced into retirement or, at the least, forced to apologize. Obviously, what constitutes bigotry is not always self-evident. But if many of the members of a historically discriminated-against group perceive something as bigoted, that’s usually a good hint.
Lott was the Senate Majority Leader. There's no way that a Democrat of similar standing will ever resign for making bigoted remarks, and it's not because they don't make them. I'm not going to reprint the remarks at those links, but if you need proof of the claim, follow the links.
The Republican Party has been effectively more anti-racist than the Democratic Party by the standard of actually forcing its leaders to resign over racist remarks. They may do this because they think racism hurts them more -- as David French says, they're sensitive to the charge that they're shot through with xenophobia. Being 'on the right side' gives Democrats cover to act out without consequences. Joe Biden or Harry Reid can say things that would cause a Republican to wither on the vine, and nothing happens to them at all.
The reason that party leaders are not endorsing Trump right now is precisely because they are appalled by him. Some of it may be tactical, but some of it is not. It's also tactical to try to claim that Democrats are the anti-bigotry party. The evidence does not support this conviction.
Governor Deal's Veto Statement
I have been harshly critical of Governor Deal for several years, for what I take to be good reasons. Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, I want to put his veto statement in front of you. It is thoughtful and rooted in the right way: in an understanding of the Founding and the traditions of our nation. I don't think he has understood the argument of his opponents, or else he is raising a straw man by suggesting that his opponents' position can be characterized as a demand for an absolutely unrestricted right to keep and bear arms. No one is proposing eliminating restrictions on violent felons keeping and bearing arms -- indeed, the NRA worked hard to help get Project Exile passed into law.
However, leaving the straw man fallacy aside, he has an argument that I will present for your consideration. It's a long piece, so I'll put it after the jump.
However, leaving the straw man fallacy aside, he has an argument that I will present for your consideration. It's a long piece, so I'll put it after the jump.
Bernie Sanders: Clinton Runs a Money-Laundering Scheme
Nice to see that the Senator from Vermont is still punching. Also nice to see that Vox can't quite explain the charge away.
Well, That's Encouraging
In an article on the lies around the Iran deal -- which were truly infuriating to behold -- an explanation of why they get away with it.
As Rhodes admits, it's not that hard to shape the narrative. "All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes said. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."
Are You Kidding Me?
Headline: "Spies Worry Candidate Trump Will Spill Secrets."
Oh, that's a great reason to consider voting for Hillary Clinton, who is currently under investigation for exposing thousands of classified documents through unsecured email on a ramshackle private server.
Oh, that's a great reason to consider voting for Hillary Clinton, who is currently under investigation for exposing thousands of classified documents through unsecured email on a ramshackle private server.
David French is Right
He is right about the problem, and also about the solutions.
First, it is absolutely vital that conservatives stay firm in their opposition to Trump. For at least a generation, the Left has been arguing that American conservatism is shot through with racism, sexism, and xenophobia. And now millions of Americans will face the difficult task of rebutting charges of hateful bigotry while supporting a man who gives aid and comfort to avowed racists, incites violence, and can’t even consistently disavow the Klan. Trump is the destroyer of conservatism, and he will taint all who take his side....I think conservatives can demand of our elected representatives a pledge to impeach and remove Trump, should he be elected, at the first sign of illegality or abuse. It would be healthy to formalize opposition to Trump in this way. For one thing, it would put him on notice that he will have no leeway as President. For another, it would help draw a distinction between Trump and those conservatives down-ballot that would minimize the damage to conservatism as a philosophy. It would be a firm expression of disapproval combined with a positive remedy. It would be a rejection of his viciousness, especially towards women, which I expect will only intensify in its ugliness as he campaigns against Ms. Clinton.
Fifth, the best solution for rolling back the extraordinary growth, power, and increasing corruption of the federal government is the convention of states, the Article V remedy for a runaway president and an out-of-control Congress. If two-thirds of states submit an application for a convention to propose constitutional amendments, then any proposed amendments can be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures — circumventing the federal government entirely.
Al vs. Marcy
Trump proved that many of the party’s moderates and establishmentarians hate the thought of a True Conservative nominee even more than they fear handing the nomination to a proto-fascist grotesque with zero political experience and poor impulse control. That goes for the prominent politicians who refused to endorse Cruz, the prominent donors who sat on their hands once the field narrowed and all the moderate-Republican voters in blue states who turned out to be #NeverCruz first and #NeverTrump less so or even not at all.This is the Nathan Deal lesson. What I think Douthat gets wrong is the idea that voters didn't notice. Trump's appeal was that he really wasn't one of the party elite. He really is someone they can't control. His wild, outrageous statements serve as proof that he isn't under anybody's control. No handlers would have let him say the things he's said.
Finally, Trump proved that many professional True Conservatives, many of the same people who flayed RINOs and demanded purity throughout the Obama era, were actually just playing a convenient part.
So the general election is set. If you're wanting a preview, here it is:
The Sea Rises Higher
For the White Horse knew England
When there was none to know;
He saw the first oar break or bend,
He saw heaven fall and the world end,
O God, how long ago.
For the end of the world was long ago,
And all we dwell to-day
As children of some second birth,
Like a strange people left on earth
After a judgment day.
For the end of the world was long ago,
When the ends of the world waxed free,
When Rome was sunk in a waste of slaves,
And the sun drowned in the sea.
When Caesar's sun fell out of the sky
And whoso hearkened right
Could only hear the plunging
Of the nations in the night.
End of the World
With Ted Cruz gone, there is no happy ending to this race. The best hope now is Trump plus impeachment of Trump. Otherwise, catastrophe.
Nathan Deal is 2 for 2
With today's veto of campus carry, Nathan Deal -- Republican Governor of Georgia -- reminds us of why the Republican Party is about to die nationwide. People turn to folks like Trump because the professionals have shown that they cannot be trusted. In this election, Governor Deal has personally betrayed the people who voted for him with vetoes on the two issues they cared most about: the Second Amendment, and religious freedom. The Legislature passed strong, considered legislation on both grounds. Nathan Deal personally killed them both.
When the party dies at the polls in November, and we face decades of a Supreme Court that simply rules conservative opinions unconstitutional, know that it was because of continual betrayals like this. Nathan Deal was once a good man, but his time in Washington with the Republican elite ruined him.
When the party dies at the polls in November, and we face decades of a Supreme Court that simply rules conservative opinions unconstitutional, know that it was because of continual betrayals like this. Nathan Deal was once a good man, but his time in Washington with the Republican elite ruined him.
Please Don't Do This
The American Family Association(!) has decided to send male activists into women's bathrooms at Target.
Don't do this. It's such a bad idea. It's completely out of order with the values you are supposed to represent, and it's wrong to violate your own values to make a point.
Don't do this. It's such a bad idea. It's completely out of order with the values you are supposed to represent, and it's wrong to violate your own values to make a point.
Snowden on Secrecy
He doesn't provide a convincing explanation of why he only leaked US secrets, and not those of America's enemies. However, it is possible to sever that question -- the one that suggests he is guilty of treason -- from the basic argument that constitutional freedom requires occasional unauthorized leaks. Especially where the government is engaged in unconstitutional behavior, sometimes (he argues) bringing the matter before the public is the only hope for correction.
"A Dark Time in America"
Dennis Prager writes:
Every distinctive value on which America was founded is in jeopardy.
According to Pew Research, more and more young Americans do not believe in freedom of speech for what they deem “hate speech.” Forty percent of respondents ages 18 to 34 said they agreed that offensive statements could be outlawed.
According to a series of Harvard polls, 47 percent of Americans between 18 and 29 believe that food, shelter, and health care “are a right that government should provide to those unable to afford them.” That means that nearly half of our young believe they have a legitimate claim on the labor and earnings of others for life’s basic necessities. More than half of young Americans do not support capitalism — the source of the prosperity they enjoy and the only economic system that has ever lifted mass numbers of people out of poverty.
When young Americans see pictures of the Founders, they do not see the great men that most Americans have seen throughout American history. They see white males who were affluent (now derisively labeled “privileged”) and owned slaves.
The belief that certain fundamental rights are God-based — a view held by every American Founder and nearly all Americans throughout its history — is reviled outside of conservative religious circles and held by fewer and fewer Americans. The view that male and female are distinctive identities — one of the few unquestioned foundational views of every society in history — is being obliterated. One is deemed “a hater” just for saying that one believes that, all things being equal, a child does best starting out life with a married father and mother.
The ideas that America should be a “melting pot” or that all Americans should identify as American are now unutterable in educated company....
In addition, virtually every major institution is in decay or disarray.
Masculinity Is Not About Women
I can see why, in a discussion led by Paglia and Althouse, women would be the focus. I don't object to women being the focus of a discussion between women. I just think this is the wrong way to think about the problem they're interested in thinking about.
Paglia: "[M]asculinity is constantly being eroded, diminished, and dissolved on university campuses because it allows women to be weak."
Althouse: "In my way of looking at it, "allows" is the wrong word. I think we need to consider whether masculinity is constantly being eroded because it serves the purpose of making women weak."
So, here's the problem with both of these statements: masculinity has nothing to do with whether or not women are weak. It can enable weakness in women. It can also enable and support strength in women. Or women can become strong on their own, or not.
Let me give you an example. Last week I was out riding my motorcycle, and I came across a bull calf who was out in the road. Naturally, I stopped and chased him out of the road -- loose cattle are a danger to cars as well as motorcycles, and I felt it was my civic duty to help resolve a danger to the community.
Protecting the community from a danger is only part of my duty in a case like this, though. There is also a 'Golden Rule' duty to try to help the livestock owner recover the animal. I would certainly want someone to help me if I had livestock who got out on the road, so I ought to help others.
So, I went to the nearest farmhouse and knocked on the door. A woman of about 85 appeared, and I explained the situation. She got her daughter -- a woman in her mid to late fifties, I should think -- and the two of them agreed it was certainly their young bull and that they needed to deal with it. Neither of them had any idea how.
"My husband's gone to Mississippi," the younger woman explained. "He won't be back until Friday."
Now, this is cattle country in rural Georgia. There's plenty of masculinity in the men who work livestock. Here are two women, though, who had allowed the men in their lives to do the hard work of dealing with the cattle to such a degree that they honestly didn't know how to move an animal in the direction they wanted it to go. If they had any rope, they didn't know where it was. It took an hour and a half to push that bull calf back into its fence with the rest of it herd, while trying to keep the herd from coming out through an open gate.
This is not necessary. Had my wife been there, she could have helped me move the animal and we'd have done it in a few minutes.
What's the point of this story? The strength of the man has little enough to do with the strength of the woman. I don't doubt that the cattlemen who were off in Mississippi are manly enough. But their manliness if anything supported the women not learning to do this sort of work, even though they were part-owners of a herd of cattle. They never developed the muscles or the skills because they never had to: their husbands did that sort of thing.
Would you get stronger women if you made the men weaker? I doubt it. Nor is strong masculinity a bar to strong women, as my wife proves. She was a tough girl when I met her, and our years riding along together have not weakened her any.
What I think is that the business of making strong women has nothing to do with men or masculinity one way or the other. A weak man might mean that a woman had to be stronger in order to carry the weight he wasn't carrying. Or it could do what Althouse and Paglia both think it does, which is allow for (or usefully produce) weak women.
But it's not really a question about the men. There's not necessarily a close relationship between masculinity and the strength of women. Masculinity is about the strength of men, which is a good in itself. It's worth pursuing even if it does nothing for women at all. Nor does attaining it excuse women from developing their own character, skills, and capacities. Strong women are not, as these two ladies argue, functions of the strength of the men. Strong women have to be built independently. For the most part, they have to decide to build themselves. Providing them with the right kind of man is not going to do any part of the work.
Paglia: "[M]asculinity is constantly being eroded, diminished, and dissolved on university campuses because it allows women to be weak."
Althouse: "In my way of looking at it, "allows" is the wrong word. I think we need to consider whether masculinity is constantly being eroded because it serves the purpose of making women weak."
So, here's the problem with both of these statements: masculinity has nothing to do with whether or not women are weak. It can enable weakness in women. It can also enable and support strength in women. Or women can become strong on their own, or not.
Let me give you an example. Last week I was out riding my motorcycle, and I came across a bull calf who was out in the road. Naturally, I stopped and chased him out of the road -- loose cattle are a danger to cars as well as motorcycles, and I felt it was my civic duty to help resolve a danger to the community.
Protecting the community from a danger is only part of my duty in a case like this, though. There is also a 'Golden Rule' duty to try to help the livestock owner recover the animal. I would certainly want someone to help me if I had livestock who got out on the road, so I ought to help others.
So, I went to the nearest farmhouse and knocked on the door. A woman of about 85 appeared, and I explained the situation. She got her daughter -- a woman in her mid to late fifties, I should think -- and the two of them agreed it was certainly their young bull and that they needed to deal with it. Neither of them had any idea how.
"My husband's gone to Mississippi," the younger woman explained. "He won't be back until Friday."
Now, this is cattle country in rural Georgia. There's plenty of masculinity in the men who work livestock. Here are two women, though, who had allowed the men in their lives to do the hard work of dealing with the cattle to such a degree that they honestly didn't know how to move an animal in the direction they wanted it to go. If they had any rope, they didn't know where it was. It took an hour and a half to push that bull calf back into its fence with the rest of it herd, while trying to keep the herd from coming out through an open gate.
This is not necessary. Had my wife been there, she could have helped me move the animal and we'd have done it in a few minutes.
What's the point of this story? The strength of the man has little enough to do with the strength of the woman. I don't doubt that the cattlemen who were off in Mississippi are manly enough. But their manliness if anything supported the women not learning to do this sort of work, even though they were part-owners of a herd of cattle. They never developed the muscles or the skills because they never had to: their husbands did that sort of thing.
Would you get stronger women if you made the men weaker? I doubt it. Nor is strong masculinity a bar to strong women, as my wife proves. She was a tough girl when I met her, and our years riding along together have not weakened her any.
What I think is that the business of making strong women has nothing to do with men or masculinity one way or the other. A weak man might mean that a woman had to be stronger in order to carry the weight he wasn't carrying. Or it could do what Althouse and Paglia both think it does, which is allow for (or usefully produce) weak women.
But it's not really a question about the men. There's not necessarily a close relationship between masculinity and the strength of women. Masculinity is about the strength of men, which is a good in itself. It's worth pursuing even if it does nothing for women at all. Nor does attaining it excuse women from developing their own character, skills, and capacities. Strong women are not, as these two ladies argue, functions of the strength of the men. Strong women have to be built independently. For the most part, they have to decide to build themselves. Providing them with the right kind of man is not going to do any part of the work.
Good News, Bad News
South America is looking a lot like it's going to need some sort of American intervention. That always goes well, and hardly ever produces generations of resentment.
Still, there is good news:
Still, there is good news:
The encouraging news from Latin America is that the leftist populists who for 15 years undermined the region’s democratic institutions and wrecked its economies are being pushed out — not by coups and juntas, but by democratic and constitutional means. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina is already gone, vanquished in a presidential election, and Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff is likely to be impeached in the coming days.
Government Makes Everything Worse
Via Wretchard, every industry touched by government gets worse. The graph points to one specific example, the massive increase in administrators in health care over the last decades. Like any other product, your health care gets more expensive the more salaries have to be paid to produce it. If you were just paying the doctor, the cost would be whatever the doctor thinks his time is worth, plus the cost of any medicines, tests, or supplies. If the doctor needs an assistant, her time has to be factored into the cost as well.
(An aside: I just employed that new academic standard of alternating the genders of pronouns to refer to nonspecific persons that Jason was asking about the other day. Notice how it looks exactly like an offensive assumption that a doctor would be male and his assistant a woman? But if you turn them around, the alternative construction will offend other people just as well. It's a terrible answer to the question of replacing 'he' as the universal standard for a person of unspecified gender. I think the old standard is better, but even the ungrammatical "they" for a singular individual of unspecified gender is better than this.)
So if the doctor needs four assistants to manage all the paperwork, now you're paying five salaries for however long the doctor is seeing you. Even if the other costs remained flat, your bill has to be several times higher than it was just to cover the needful salaries of the administrators.
Regulation does this across the board because there are always costs of compliance to regulations. Everything gets worse the more you regulate it.
(An aside: I just employed that new academic standard of alternating the genders of pronouns to refer to nonspecific persons that Jason was asking about the other day. Notice how it looks exactly like an offensive assumption that a doctor would be male and his assistant a woman? But if you turn them around, the alternative construction will offend other people just as well. It's a terrible answer to the question of replacing 'he' as the universal standard for a person of unspecified gender. I think the old standard is better, but even the ungrammatical "they" for a singular individual of unspecified gender is better than this.)
So if the doctor needs four assistants to manage all the paperwork, now you're paying five salaries for however long the doctor is seeing you. Even if the other costs remained flat, your bill has to be several times higher than it was just to cover the needful salaries of the administrators.
Regulation does this across the board because there are always costs of compliance to regulations. Everything gets worse the more you regulate it.
Take a Closer Look
Andrew Sullivan thinks this is a Platonic moment:
1) Being given over to pleasures and whims, especially food and sex.
2) Reveling in 'the nonjudgment that is democracy's civil religion.'
3) Attacks the rich and promises to fight for the poor, even though he (or she) is actually very much part of the wealthy class.
4) The wealthy elite seek a way to appease him or her.
5) Promises to cut through the paralysis and 'get things done.'
6) Offers a relief from democracy's choices.
7) Pledges to take on the elites above all.
Now I'll grant that (1) is a far better description of Trump than Clinton. But what of the rest? Is Trump "nonjudgmental"? That's not something I've heard before.
As for 3 and 4, who's the one who keeps promising to take on Wall Street even though she has grown quite wealthy? Who is the one who is paid off with massive speaking fees by the wealthy elite? By vast donations from oil-rich states who wanted to curry her favor as Secretary of State?
As for 5, who is the one who promises to be a "Progressive who Gets Things Done"? That was her big line from the first Democratic debate (that and being an enemy of Republicans).
Which of the two is promising to strip choices away from the democratic legislatures of the land? That's been the modus operandi of Clinton's faction since Roe v. Wade. It's how they've proceeded on all moral questions, in pursuit of this 'nonjudgment that is democracy's civil religion.' They have marched so far and so fast that whole sections of moral legislation are now declared to be unconstitutional, so that no democratic mechanisms can touch them.
As for the last one, which one is running as the candidate who will take on the 'one percent'? Which one is running as the candidate who will take on illegal aliens? They're not the elite.
Trump is a problem, but he's not the only problem. There's a demagogue in each of these races. Sullivan is clear on the danger Trump represents, but he is blind to the peril on the other front.
And it is when a democracy has ripened as fully as this, Plato argues, that a would-be tyrant will often seize his moment.Wait a second. Who better fits this description, Trump or Clinton? Let's break it down into its elements.
He is usually of the elite but has a nature in tune with the time — given over to random pleasures and whims, feasting on plenty of food and sex, and reveling in the nonjudgment that is democracy’s civil religion. He makes his move by “taking over a particularly obedient mob” and attacking his wealthy peers as corrupt. If not stopped quickly, his appetite for attacking the rich on behalf of the people swells further. He is a traitor to his class — and soon, his elite enemies, shorn of popular legitimacy, find a way to appease him or are forced to flee. Eventually, he stands alone, promising to cut through the paralysis of democratic incoherence. It’s as if he were offering the addled, distracted, and self-indulgent citizens a kind of relief from democracy’s endless choices and insecurities. He rides a backlash to excess—“too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery” — and offers himself as the personified answer to the internal conflicts of the democratic mess. He pledges, above all, to take on the increasingly despised elites. And as the people thrill to him as a kind of solution, a democracy willingly, even impetuously, repeals itself.
And so, as I chitchatted over cocktails at a Washington office Christmas party in December, and saw, looming above our heads, the pulsating, angry televised face of Donald Trump...
1) Being given over to pleasures and whims, especially food and sex.
2) Reveling in 'the nonjudgment that is democracy's civil religion.'
3) Attacks the rich and promises to fight for the poor, even though he (or she) is actually very much part of the wealthy class.
4) The wealthy elite seek a way to appease him or her.
5) Promises to cut through the paralysis and 'get things done.'
6) Offers a relief from democracy's choices.
7) Pledges to take on the elites above all.
Now I'll grant that (1) is a far better description of Trump than Clinton. But what of the rest? Is Trump "nonjudgmental"? That's not something I've heard before.
As for 3 and 4, who's the one who keeps promising to take on Wall Street even though she has grown quite wealthy? Who is the one who is paid off with massive speaking fees by the wealthy elite? By vast donations from oil-rich states who wanted to curry her favor as Secretary of State?
As for 5, who is the one who promises to be a "Progressive who Gets Things Done"? That was her big line from the first Democratic debate (that and being an enemy of Republicans).
Which of the two is promising to strip choices away from the democratic legislatures of the land? That's been the modus operandi of Clinton's faction since Roe v. Wade. It's how they've proceeded on all moral questions, in pursuit of this 'nonjudgment that is democracy's civil religion.' They have marched so far and so fast that whole sections of moral legislation are now declared to be unconstitutional, so that no democratic mechanisms can touch them.
As for the last one, which one is running as the candidate who will take on the 'one percent'? Which one is running as the candidate who will take on illegal aliens? They're not the elite.
Trump is a problem, but he's not the only problem. There's a demagogue in each of these races. Sullivan is clear on the danger Trump represents, but he is blind to the peril on the other front.
A Very Good Question
H/t Instapundit, a question about eugenics:
So if it's legal, and the science showed that it worked, would it be moral? Not according to natural law theory, but today the left rejects that -- and it does so on what it takes to be scientific grounds. Specifically, natural law theory looks for purpose in nature, and the current leading theories in biology reject that things evolve for reasons. It's all random. There is thus nothing that is "unnatural" in the sense that it could be said to violate some sort of "natural law" -- not blinding the eyes, nor deafening the ears.
If the Constitution and the law do not protect you, and the science is on the other side, should we simply accept the morality of such practices? The Church says no, but a religious moral law cannot be the foundation for any American laws under the current reading of the anti-establishment clause. What protection remains? Merely the fact that science hasn't quite worked out how to do it yet?
[Author Adam] Cohen takes [Catholic] opposition for granted, never exploring the meaning or roots of natural law and why it drove the church to quash sterilization in states such as Louisiana and New Jersey. Rather than confront sterilization on moral or philosophical grounds, Cohen bases his opposition on scientific grounds: Carrie Buck had a sixth grade education, sterilization alone couldn’t eliminate “feeblemindedness,” Jews, it turns out, are pretty smart (they just didn’t know English when the eugenicists gave them IQ tests). It is convenient that eugenics makes for crappy science, but what if it had checked out?What if it turned out to be true that you could substantially improve humanity by forcibly sterilizing large groups of people? According to US Supreme Court precedent, it's totally constitutional for the government to forcibly sterilize you.
So if it's legal, and the science showed that it worked, would it be moral? Not according to natural law theory, but today the left rejects that -- and it does so on what it takes to be scientific grounds. Specifically, natural law theory looks for purpose in nature, and the current leading theories in biology reject that things evolve for reasons. It's all random. There is thus nothing that is "unnatural" in the sense that it could be said to violate some sort of "natural law" -- not blinding the eyes, nor deafening the ears.
If the Constitution and the law do not protect you, and the science is on the other side, should we simply accept the morality of such practices? The Church says no, but a religious moral law cannot be the foundation for any American laws under the current reading of the anti-establishment clause. What protection remains? Merely the fact that science hasn't quite worked out how to do it yet?
The Gov't Hates Transparency
Over at Real Clear Markets, Tara Helfman writes of how the government fought tooth and nail to avoid discovery in a Fanny/Freddie case.
Wanna Go See a Movie?
Update: Looks like no one's interested, so I'm making other plans. Maybe next time.
The team that put together Range 15 is having one last push to fund their soundtrack before the movie is released on June 15. As an incentive, there are a number of perks for different levels of donation, from $10 on up, but the one I'm interested in is a private screening at Ft. Hood (bottom of the sidebar) with Mat Best, Nick & Tom from Ranger Up, Rocco, Tim Kennedy, Jarred (I should probably know who he is, but I don't) and some other cast members they didn't name but whom we should all assume will be awesome. Plus, it would be a real pleasure to meet and hang out with folks from the Hall.
That donation is $150.The date is just given as "May," so I assume if anyone wants to do it, we should probably decide sooner rather than later. UPDATE: Reading through their blog, it looks like May 14 at 8:30.
If you're up for it, let me know in the comments and we'll work out the details.
Trailer:
Update 2: If you can't go to this, it will be in theaters June 15th.
The team that put together Range 15 is having one last push to fund their soundtrack before the movie is released on June 15. As an incentive, there are a number of perks for different levels of donation, from $10 on up, but the one I'm interested in is a private screening at Ft. Hood (bottom of the sidebar) with Mat Best, Nick & Tom from Ranger Up, Rocco, Tim Kennedy, Jarred (I should probably know who he is, but I don't) and some other cast members they didn't name but whom we should all assume will be awesome. Plus, it would be a real pleasure to meet and hang out with folks from the Hall.
That donation is $150.
If you're up for it, let me know in the comments and we'll work out the details.
Trailer:
Update 2: If you can't go to this, it will be in theaters June 15th.
The Cathedral of May
A day celebrated here each year, as the fullest glory of springtime. The long and painful summer is coming, and fast, but for now there remain some good days ahead.
I've only seen one hummingbird this year, so far. The wife is worried that they might have had some sort of die-off event. I wonder if the truth isn't just that the flowers are so rich this year that so far they have seen no need to approach the feeders.
UPDATE: Many people are reminding me that today is also the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death. Another thing to celebrate!
The Most Honest Speech of the Year
According to Vox, the only time Obama's really honest with us is when he pretends to be joking.
Self-Defense is Not the Issue
A blogger called Justin Curmi is writing about the Bill of Rights. He proposes an interesting lens: that controversies about the Constitution be re-evaluated in the light of the Preamble's "Five Aims." The blogger apparently has dyslexia, so let us excuse minor errors in spelling and grammar. He says that we should ask of any proposed reading the following questions:
Nevertheless, self-defense is not the real point of the 2nd Amendment at all. The real point of the 2nd Amendment is just what it says -- the security of a free state. A distributed defensive capacity among the citizenry is the best guarantee of a free state, and the state of freedom, against several common threats. It represents a better defense against many forms of terrorism than other options, such as massive surveillance of the population or a vast increase in police controls, because it better respects the state of freedom. It also means that terrorists (to include mass shooters of any stripe) have a harder time predicting where they will encounter resistance.
Thus, the carrying and use of arms defensively ensures all five of the "Five Aims." It promotes justice by reducing the incidence of violations of justice like murder and assault. It helps to ensure domestic Tranquility by making crime more dangerous and costly, which reduces crime rates. It is all about the common defense. The reduction in crime and increase in justice promotes the general welfare. And, compared with increased government control of our lives, it protects our free state against common dangers in a manner more consistent with securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
When you stop your own murderer, it's only by-the-way that you're defending yourself. What you're really defending is the common peace and lawful order. You're doing a just and good thing that will improve the whole society. It is always right to defend a citizen from being murdered, after all. It's merely incidental that the citizen happens to be yourself.
Does is promote Justice?So when he gets to the 2nd Amendment, he finds that there is clearly a right to keep and bear arms. However, he says, these arms should be kept only for the purpose of revolution. Self-defense should be illegal.
Does it ensure domestic Tranquility?
Does it ensure the common defence?
Does it promote the general Welfare?
Does it secure the Blessings of our Liberty and Posterity?
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm.This is not a terribly-well considered position. First of all, the right to defend one's self is fundamental to the first of the five aims -- the promotion of justice. How can it be just to ask someone to suffer assault, rape, or murder so that they do not deny their murderer or rapist the right to a fair trial? In fact, the right not to be murdered or assaulted is more basic than the right to a fair trial before being punished for one's murders or assaults. This can be seen by a simple thought experiment: in an ideally just world, no one would receive a fair trial for murder because no one would commit murder. However, in the same ideally just world, everyone would have their right not to be murdered actively respected. Thus, the right to a fair trial only comes into play when something has gone wrong. The right not to be murdered is merely a statement of what the ideally just condition would be.
Nevertheless, self-defense is not the real point of the 2nd Amendment at all. The real point of the 2nd Amendment is just what it says -- the security of a free state. A distributed defensive capacity among the citizenry is the best guarantee of a free state, and the state of freedom, against several common threats. It represents a better defense against many forms of terrorism than other options, such as massive surveillance of the population or a vast increase in police controls, because it better respects the state of freedom. It also means that terrorists (to include mass shooters of any stripe) have a harder time predicting where they will encounter resistance.
Thus, the carrying and use of arms defensively ensures all five of the "Five Aims." It promotes justice by reducing the incidence of violations of justice like murder and assault. It helps to ensure domestic Tranquility by making crime more dangerous and costly, which reduces crime rates. It is all about the common defense. The reduction in crime and increase in justice promotes the general welfare. And, compared with increased government control of our lives, it protects our free state against common dangers in a manner more consistent with securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
When you stop your own murderer, it's only by-the-way that you're defending yourself. What you're really defending is the common peace and lawful order. You're doing a just and good thing that will improve the whole society. It is always right to defend a citizen from being murdered, after all. It's merely incidental that the citizen happens to be yourself.
A Brutal Assessment
A book review of a new history of Clinton and Obama's time together is not complimentary. Well, not to the subjects of the history. The review is quite complimentary of the book.
The irony is that, in fact, history will remember Obama as the president who unraveled the world and left it on fire. And the drone president, of course.
There are many in-depth books dealing with individual aspects of U.S. foreign policy in recent years, but for a single work encompassing the Obama administration’s engagement with the world, it is hard to imagine one better. From the Arab Spring to the resurgence of Russia to the Iran nuclear deal, Landler reveals a president obsessed with making history, and a secretary of state weighing every move in light of her personal advancement. Really, “Alter Egos” could just be called “Egos.”Obama's disastrous legacy in foreign policy has grown more and more clear as we have neared the end of his presidency. It's easy to see why. If one's motivating foreign policy principle is self-aggrandizement, everything else is to be sacrificed so that you can have a complimentary footnote in the books to be written after you die.
...
The president liked running foreign policy out of the West Wing, Landler explains, and “Clinton had trouble penetrating Obama’s clannish inner circle.” That inner circle was devoted to finding symbolic, legacy-building opportunities for the boss. Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy whisperer, regarded outreach to closed societies such as Cuba as “exactly what a history-making president like Obama should be doing,” Landler writes, and threw himself into secret negotiations with Havana. Obama saw the Iran nuclear agreement as a once-in-a-generation achievement and pursued it accordingly. And he fretted that historians would remember him for the wrong thing. “I don’t want to be just remembered as the drone president,” he said to a top adviser in 2012.
The irony is that, in fact, history will remember Obama as the president who unraveled the world and left it on fire. And the drone president, of course.
Another CAS Option: Erik Prince's "Thrush"
War is Boring describes it as a "fighting crop-duster." But if the enemy has no air force -- and no MANPADS, as Eric Blair notes -- why wouldn't this be a smart idea?
Friday Night AMV
A State Alchemist has to be hardcore.
This series was interesting in that its' magic had a real cost.
This series was interesting in that its' magic had a real cost.
Motherhood is Service
In response to this foolishness about 'me-ternity leave,' I just want to link to a post from 2009. That's why we do it this way, and not some other way.
SFC Martland Update
Good to see the Army do the right thing by Green Beret Charles Martland. Spreading core American values like not raping children is well within the mission of the US Special Forces.
I say "core American values" rather than "universal human values" because, while you'd think this was the sort of thing people would just understand, Afghanistan proves that it isn't quite.
I say "core American values" rather than "universal human values" because, while you'd think this was the sort of thing people would just understand, Afghanistan proves that it isn't quite.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)