The coverage of Hillary Clinton at Vox is shamefully in-the-tank, and never moreso than when Ezra Klein is writing it. He sounds like one of those too-clever job interviewees, except he's making the case for her getting the job instead of himself.
My favorite example remains his piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Doesn't Trust You." It purports to be a criticism of Hillary Clinton for not trusting the voters, but it is really a criticism of the voters for not really meriting her trust. The idea is to immunize her for a real flaw by admitting the flaw's existence, but then casting it as a strength. You're supposed to come away with a new respect for her wisdom in not trusting the American people, and maybe even a sense of guilt for not being worthy of her.
Today, he has a longer and more in depth version of the same rhetorical trick. Why is it that people inside Hillary's circle describe her in such different terms, adoring and glorious, when the average person doesn't trust her? Once again, he admits the problem exists, and pretends that he is going to criticize her faults as a candidate. But the real answer? "Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns.... Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens."
Oh, yeah. That's why I don't trust her. Because she listens.
Or maybe, you know, it could be this.
Scots Wha Hae
A small poem on the occasion of the Highland Games.
"Lay the proud usurpers low,
Tyrants fall in every foe,
Liberty is in every blow,
Let us do or die!"
"Lay the proud usurpers low,
Tyrants fall in every foe,
Liberty is in every blow,
Let us do or die!"
Was Off to the Wild
I spent the weekend in the Pisgah National Forest, and at the Grandfather Mountain Scottish Highland Games.
Plenty of time for hiking and camping. If you get up early enough, you'll find yourself completely alone in the Linville Gorge. It is named after a Long Hunter who was killed by the Shawnee, along with his son. Those "Long" hunts for furs could go on for as much as a year, during which time you might amass quite a store of hides. Of course, this made you an ever-more tempting target.
Saw a black bear again this weekend, a charming young male who pause and stood up to look me in the eye before continuing on his way. No aggression at all, just curiosity. I also saw a double rainbow after an evening rainstorm, the first one I've ever seen that you could fully see both of the two bows from horizon to horizon. It was especially intense in its color.
They did "Britannia Rules the Waves" at the games, as well as all the military service songs. People who had served stood up while their service's song played. Turns out bagpipes can't play the Air Force song because it features "chromatics," whatever that means.
A bit of appropriate music for the Celtic Carolina homeland. This instrument is the Appalachian Dulcimer, a simplified version of a very old instrument -- and, in its hammered form, a much more capable one. You see the Appalachian form throughout Western North Carolina. You see the hammered form more rarely.
The national animal of Scotland, by the way, is the unicorn.
The Grandfather Games
Linville Gorge
Saw a black bear again this weekend, a charming young male who pause and stood up to look me in the eye before continuing on his way. No aggression at all, just curiosity. I also saw a double rainbow after an evening rainstorm, the first one I've ever seen that you could fully see both of the two bows from horizon to horizon. It was especially intense in its color.
They did "Britannia Rules the Waves" at the games, as well as all the military service songs. People who had served stood up while their service's song played. Turns out bagpipes can't play the Air Force song because it features "chromatics," whatever that means.
A bit of appropriate music for the Celtic Carolina homeland. This instrument is the Appalachian Dulcimer, a simplified version of a very old instrument -- and, in its hammered form, a much more capable one. You see the Appalachian form throughout Western North Carolina. You see the hammered form more rarely.
The national animal of Scotland, by the way, is the unicorn.
A Little Bit of Craig Morgan
I recently got the chance to see him live over the long 4th holiday.
Morgan spent nearly a decade on active duty with the 82nd and 101st, and another six in the reserves, before releasing his first country album in 2000. In the GWOT, he toured Iraq & Afghanistan with the USO.
Morgan spent nearly a decade on active duty with the 82nd and 101st, and another six in the reserves, before releasing his first country album in 2000. In the GWOT, he toured Iraq & Afghanistan with the USO.
Keeper of Antiquities: Irish Sacrificed their Kings Horribly if Things Turned Bad in the Kingdom
A kind of early 'checks and balances,' if you will.
"The king had great power but also great responsibility to ensure the prosperity of his people. Through his marriage on his inauguration to the goddess of the land, he was meant to guarantee her benevolence. He had to ensure the land was productive, so if the weather turned bad, or there was plague, cattle disease or losses in war, he was held personally responsible."There's a famous similar argument made by Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker in the Heimskringla. The pagan mythos has been bleached out, but the 'checks and balances' sentiment remains.
[Our king] wants to have the Norway kingdom laid under him, which no Swedish king before him ever desired, and therewith brings war and distress on many a man. Now it is our will, we bondes, that thou King Olaf make peace with the Norway king, Olaf the Thick, and marry thy daughter Ingegerd to him. Wilt thou, however, reconquer the kingdoms in the east countries which thy relations and forefathers had there, we will all for that purpose follow thee to the war. But if thou wilt not do as we desire, we will now attack thee, and put thee to death; for we will no longer suffer law and peace to be disturbed. So our forefathers went to work when they drowned five kings in a morass at the Mula-thing, and they were filled with the same insupportable pride thou hast shown towards us. Now tell us [king], in all haste, what resolution thou wilt take.
3 Dead Police in Dallas, 10 Injured
So I hear. More of the injured are in critical condition.
The point at which they started shooting cops was the point at which the police will no longer listen to arguments about adjusting their training to adopt a less-aggressive posture. The window for fixing the problem just closed, at least for quite a while. Nothing good will come from this.
Requiescat in pace.
According to the live feed at this link (local NBC), it was 11 officers shot of 100 total.
The point at which they started shooting cops was the point at which the police will no longer listen to arguments about adjusting their training to adopt a less-aggressive posture. The window for fixing the problem just closed, at least for quite a while. Nothing good will come from this.
Requiescat in pace.
According to the live feed at this link (local NBC), it was 11 officers shot of 100 total.
Regarding the Intellectual Arguments in Captain America: Civil War
Yes, this post is all of the horrifying things that title implies.
However, before I tear it apart, I'd like to say I really enjoyed this movie. I've gone to see it twice, now. Also, despite what I am about to say about it, I think it is about as balanced as a left-wing studio echo chamber can be expected to create. That said, I have some issues with it.
But first, the trailer:
Since this is kinda long, the rest is below the fold. Mild spoiler alert, mostly if you consider the intellectual side of an Avengers movie a spoiler.
However, before I tear it apart, I'd like to say I really enjoyed this movie. I've gone to see it twice, now. Also, despite what I am about to say about it, I think it is about as balanced as a left-wing studio echo chamber can be expected to create. That said, I have some issues with it.
But first, the trailer:
Since this is kinda long, the rest is below the fold. Mild spoiler alert, mostly if you consider the intellectual side of an Avengers movie a spoiler.
A Point Worth Making Right Now
How to restore oversight, checks and balances? Vote Trump.
The smaller point, but also important, is that Trump's likely foolishness will give Congress, the media, and the courts a chance to rebuild their atrophied muscles. By the end of Trump's term (which I still think would highly likely end in impeachment and removal from office, especially if he picks a VP that people like better than him), the next President will come into office with a clear example of the dangers of transgressing boundaries in front of their eyes.
With Clinton, if we even get to a President after her, the lesson would be that there no limits. Only power.
Think of it. A Congress that finally finds a spine in the face of the president. And that’s not just Democrats – even the posing goofs on the Republican side of the aisle would be falling over themselves to take a whack at the orange executive. What court would shrug and defer to El Presidente Little Digits? Even the mainstream media would rediscover the curiosity about West Wing wrongdoing that disappeared back in January 2009. Imagine their delight to once again be able to preen and strut while babbling about how they speak truth to power instead of groveling and bussing the rear of their White House master.Actually, that's two points worth making. The bigger point is that a Hillary Clinton administration would be the end of the Constitution, via her hand-picked SCOTUS, as well as the rule of law by her actively abetted acts of fiat.
America will have never seen checking and balancing like President Trump would experience. And that is exactly, precisely what America must have right now.
Hillary Clinton will roll into office unhindered and unaccountable. We know what Clintons do when there is oversight; any sane person should shudder at the thought of them not merely unaccountable, but actively abetted by the entire elite.
The smaller point, but also important, is that Trump's likely foolishness will give Congress, the media, and the courts a chance to rebuild their atrophied muscles. By the end of Trump's term (which I still think would highly likely end in impeachment and removal from office, especially if he picks a VP that people like better than him), the next President will come into office with a clear example of the dangers of transgressing boundaries in front of their eyes.
With Clinton, if we even get to a President after her, the lesson would be that there no limits. Only power.
Reason: "Where's the NRA on Philando Castile?"
A fair question, although a fair answer might be, "Waiting until more facts come in before committing to a public position."
Still, the NRA could come out with a statement that doesn't take a position on the facts of the case, but that does reassert that police training should embrace the reality that there are millions more Americans lawfully carrying arms. The presence of a weapon should not be taken to indicate that the officer's life is in immediate jeopardy. Some new mode of training needs to be developed that doesn't go to DEFCON 1 at the first sign of a weapon.
Still, the NRA could come out with a statement that doesn't take a position on the facts of the case, but that does reassert that police training should embrace the reality that there are millions more Americans lawfully carrying arms. The presence of a weapon should not be taken to indicate that the officer's life is in immediate jeopardy. Some new mode of training needs to be developed that doesn't go to DEFCON 1 at the first sign of a weapon.
An Old Man From Britain Has Some Harsh Words For "Generation Snowflake"
Here in the US, "Generation Snowflake" has borne the brunt of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- though plenty of my own generation made it out there too. Let's make sure to remember to carve out an exception for that element of the generation.
With that said, let's proceed with the verbal beatdown.
Hopefully he's right that, someday, they'll appreciate what has been saved for them.
With that said, let's proceed with the verbal beatdown.
Hopefully he's right that, someday, they'll appreciate what has been saved for them.
Interesting
James Comey was asked directly about whether there was an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Comey responded: “I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existince of any other investigations.”
But when they asked if he had investigated whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath in her testimony to Congress -- committed perjury, in other words -- he specifically denied the existence of that investigation, and told Congress they'd have to request one. (They are going to do so.)
The other big news is that the FBI did not record Clinton's testimony, nor place her under oath. "Still a crime to lie to us," Comey noted, but now no one can prove that she did.
But when they asked if he had investigated whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath in her testimony to Congress -- committed perjury, in other words -- he specifically denied the existence of that investigation, and told Congress they'd have to request one. (They are going to do so.)
The other big news is that the FBI did not record Clinton's testimony, nor place her under oath. "Still a crime to lie to us," Comey noted, but now no one can prove that she did.
Captain's Journal: Cf. Hillary and the New SCOTUS Ruling on Guns
It's been a while since I looked at Herschel Smith's page. I should drop by more often.
That's just a matter of your fundamental rights as a citizen, the protection of which is the whole and only purpose of the government of the United States according to the Declaration of Independence. This was a much more important question of preserving Hillary Clinton's power.Whereas Hillary can skate on perceived reckless conduct when Comey himself acknowledges it is “a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,” gun owners also deemed guilty of recklessness now face a “terrifying new precedent,” per a Conservative Review analysis of the Supreme Court’s 6 -2 decision in the Voisine case.But it gets even worse than that. As we’ve seen, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, “… the word “use” does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.”
“[T]he court ruled that crimes of recklessness rise to the same level as ‘misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence’ which preclude individuals convicted of such a crime from firearm ownership by federal law,” the article explains...
Notice the words intention, substantial likelihood, and recklessness.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis: Comey, You Didn't Even Talk About These Other Crimes
Representative Lummis of Wyoming goes after Comey on Clinton's use of uncleared attorneys to review and destroy public records -- some of them classified.
Waiting for Backup
The pair of police shootings this week will make the upcoming DNC much more interesting, I don't doubt. By far the more disturbing case was that of Philando Castile, who had a concealed weapons permit and had informed the officer of that fact. The officer shot him while he reached for his wallet to produce it, as well as his driver's license. What makes the case most disturbing is that the officer then held him at gunpoint while he bled out, making no effort to render aid or assistance to the dying man, nor to verify his story by calling in his IDs, nor to do anything except wait for backup.
For me, this underlines the point I've made about these shootings in the past: they are about the way we train police officers, and teach incoming officers to think about their relationship to the public. The incident makes perfect sense if you follow the logic of the training. If the most important thing is to protect the officer's life, then you shoot as soon as hands go for something unseen. You don't render aid or assistance until you have full and complete control of the situation. That cannot happen until all the other parties are secured, i.e., handcuffed or locked in police cars. When there are multiple other parties (here there was a girlfriend and a 4 year old), the only thing you can do is maintain watch with your weapon covering the unsecured members of the public while you wait for backup to arrive.
Only then can you take steps to save the life of the man you shot.
If you watch the video, you can hear the upset and tension in the officer's voice. He's very highly strung on adrenaline and fear of what he's just done. He's not thinking straight under these circumstances. He's going to follow his training, and this is how he's been trained.
Which means that he, like other police in these cases, will walk. He will be found to have acted appropriately, because he will have done just what he was trained to do.
For me, this underlines the point I've made about these shootings in the past: they are about the way we train police officers, and teach incoming officers to think about their relationship to the public. The incident makes perfect sense if you follow the logic of the training. If the most important thing is to protect the officer's life, then you shoot as soon as hands go for something unseen. You don't render aid or assistance until you have full and complete control of the situation. That cannot happen until all the other parties are secured, i.e., handcuffed or locked in police cars. When there are multiple other parties (here there was a girlfriend and a 4 year old), the only thing you can do is maintain watch with your weapon covering the unsecured members of the public while you wait for backup to arrive.
Only then can you take steps to save the life of the man you shot.
If you watch the video, you can hear the upset and tension in the officer's voice. He's very highly strung on adrenaline and fear of what he's just done. He's not thinking straight under these circumstances. He's going to follow his training, and this is how he's been trained.
Which means that he, like other police in these cases, will walk. He will be found to have acted appropriately, because he will have done just what he was trained to do.
FBI Lets Us Down
After spending several minutes explaining that they had found clear evidence that Hillary Clinton met the legal standard for gross negligence, that she endangered Top Secret and Secret information, and that it is highly likely that our enemies gained access to her server...
...Director Comey recommends no charges. He says "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring them.
His conclusion does not follow from his premises, nor from the plain law.
This is a sad day for our nation.
UPDATE:
The relevant law is 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). Gross negligence is the standard, and the FBI investigation proved it robustly by Comey's own statement. The shift to any other standard is a refusal to enforce the law. Those doing this for political reasons are asking us to entrust the enforcement of the law to someone whose continued freedom from prison depends solely on that refusal to enforce the law.
Clinton and her machine must be stopped.
That machine apparently includes the law enforcement apparatus of the Federal government.
James Comey: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."
Indeed, I now have no choice but to expect to see the full weight of your organization brought down on her political enemies for much less.
...Director Comey recommends no charges. He says "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring them.
His conclusion does not follow from his premises, nor from the plain law.
This is a sad day for our nation.
UPDATE:
The relevant law is 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). Gross negligence is the standard, and the FBI investigation proved it robustly by Comey's own statement. The shift to any other standard is a refusal to enforce the law. Those doing this for political reasons are asking us to entrust the enforcement of the law to someone whose continued freedom from prison depends solely on that refusal to enforce the law.
Clinton and her machine must be stopped.
That machine apparently includes the law enforcement apparatus of the Federal government.
James Comey: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."
Indeed, I now have no choice but to expect to see the full weight of your organization brought down on her political enemies for much less.
Some Independence Day Thoughts Along the Right Line
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -- Edward Abbey
A writer named Kurt Schlichter has some similar thoughts. I still think there is an outside chance that the fix isn't in, and that Clinton might be indicted as she manifestly deserves. But if not, it will be hard to argue against this logic.
He's right about the judges, though. Clarence Thomas' recent dissent establishes that clearly.
A writer named Kurt Schlichter has some similar thoughts. I still think there is an outside chance that the fix isn't in, and that Clinton might be indicted as she manifestly deserves. But if not, it will be hard to argue against this logic.
There is one law for them, and another for us. Sanctuary cities? Obama’s immigration orders? If you conservatives can play by the rules and pass your laws, then we liberals will just not enforce them. You don’t get the benefit of the laws you like. We get the benefit of the ones we do, though. Not you. Too bad, rubes....Indeed, I would go further. I think anyone who believes that government workers with guns are going to be able to force compliance had better think again.
Who is standing against this? Not the judges. The Constitution? Meh. Why should their personal agendas be constrained by some sort of foundational document? Judges find rights that don’t appear in the text and gut ones that do. Just ask a married gay guy in Los Angeles who can’t carry a concealed weapons to protect himself from [OMITTED] radicals.
The politicians won’t stand against this. The Democrats support allowing the government to jail people for criticizing politicians and clamor to take away citizens’ rights merely because some government flunky has put their name on a list....
It’s not a social contract anymore – American society today is a suicide pact we never agreed to and yet we’re expected to go first.
I say “No.”
We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. Nothing.
We make it easy for them by going along. We make it simple by defaulting to the old rules. But there are no rules anymore, certainly none that morally bind us once we are outside the presence of some government worker with a gun to force our compliance.
He's right about the judges, though. Clarence Thomas' recent dissent establishes that clearly.
More Talking About the Queen on Independence Day
From Vox, an article actually titled "3 Reasons the American Revolution Was A Mistake." The first two reasons are slavery and Native Americans, but the third reason is -- I kid you not -- that it would have avoided the horrible Constitution, or as they put it, "We'd have had a better system of government."
AVI was saying the other day something to the effect that members of the global elite -- journalists seem to believe that they qualify -- think of themselves as belonging to an international tribe of each other, rather than to the nations of which they are actually citizens.
I may have to make re-watching Unforgiven a regular Independence Day tradition.
AVI was saying the other day something to the effect that members of the global elite -- journalists seem to believe that they qualify -- think of themselves as belonging to an international tribe of each other, rather than to the nations of which they are actually citizens.
I may have to make re-watching Unforgiven a regular Independence Day tradition.
Contemplate This on The Tree of Woe
Yesterday I did about 12 hours in the motorcycle saddle, crossing Neel's Gap across the shoulders of Blood Mountain, then up to the Tail of the Dragon in North Carolina, then back over Unicoi Gap. I did the last one in the dark, which was a real experience. It was on the way up Blood Mountain, though, that I happened to reflect on a whole field of crosses in the elbow of one particular curve. How strange that we seek to chance death. I know why I do it, and I know the different reason why young men who haven't proven themselves do it. Still, what a strange feature of human nature.
During the ride I encountered more than one Tree of Woe. The first one I came across is at Neel's Gap. The Appalachian Trail crosses the highway there, as it also does at Unicoi Gap. Northbound hikers frequently abandon the quest after Blood Mountain. Others, though, abandon their gear -- an outfitter has set up shop in a early 20th century stone building up there, and does land office business selling ultra-expensive, ultra-lightweight alternatives to all that stuff you brought. They will even ship your old gear home for you. Many too-heavy pairs of boots have been abandoned there.
Southbound hikers, coming from Maine, often abandon their boots for a new pair too. These boots are frequently held together mostly with duck tape.
UPDATE: Below the fold, another shot of the dragon sculpture for Douglas.
During the ride I encountered more than one Tree of Woe. The first one I came across is at Neel's Gap. The Appalachian Trail crosses the highway there, as it also does at Unicoi Gap. Northbound hikers frequently abandon the quest after Blood Mountain. Others, though, abandon their gear -- an outfitter has set up shop in a early 20th century stone building up there, and does land office business selling ultra-expensive, ultra-lightweight alternatives to all that stuff you brought. They will even ship your old gear home for you. Many too-heavy pairs of boots have been abandoned there.
Southbound hikers, coming from Maine, often abandon their boots for a new pair too. These boots are frequently held together mostly with duck tape.
Boots at Neel's Gap
The second Tree of Woe is actually called "the Tree of Shame," and it stands at the Dragon. It is covered in motorcycle parts from bikes destroyed on the road. The "Tail of the Dragon" has 318 curves in its 11 miles, some of them quite extreme. The rugged and difficult passage over this arm of the Great Smoky Mountains has an interesting history. I've done it three or four times, and it never gets old.
"The Tree of Shame"
Independence Day weekend is a big occasion at the Dragon. Lots of motorcycle riders are veterans, and the General Store was all decked out for the occasion. They closed early yesterday so their employees could get over to see the fireworks show.
Independence Weekend at the Dragon.
UPDATE: Below the fold, another shot of the dragon sculpture for Douglas.
Independence Weekend: The Most Wonderful Time of the Year
Ranger Up warning. Most of you have been around here long enough to know what that means.
Are You Talking About the Queen Again? On Independence Day?
Our new least favorite columnist, Gersh Kuntzman, has decided to go after "God Bless America" on Independence Day weekend.
Part of my outrage stems from ponderous Mussolini-esque introduction of the song, when fans are asked to rise, remove their caps and place them over their hearts.Nice to hear that you're willing to stand for "The Star Spangled Banner," Mr. Kuntzman. I assumed from your last column that the mere mention of rockets and bombs would send you ducking for cover.
Reality check, friends: “God Bless America” is not the National Anthem. The only songs Americans should stand for are “The Star Spangled Banner” and “Here Comes the Bride.”
Lynch Claims She WIll Not Make the Call
The plane meeting has created enough of a furor that the Attorney General is repeating her earlier claims that she won't be the one making the decision.
Meanwhile, it turns out the FBI was present at the plane meeting, and ordered journalists not to record it.
Is it possible that the FBI is going to drop the hammer on Clinton, and the real purpose of the meeting was to give Bill Clinton a 'professional courtesy' heads up so they could have time to prepare? I would love to believe that was the case.
A Justice Department official said the attorney general will accept the “determinations and findings of career prosecutors and lawyers as well as FBI investigators and director [James B.] Comey.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of Lynch’s remarks.It's that "as well as" that's the problem. She'd already said that the decision would be made by Justice Department officials. The problem is that top Justice Department officials are just as unreliable, having donated $75,000 to Clinton's campaign in this cycle.
Meanwhile, it turns out the FBI was present at the plane meeting, and ordered journalists not to record it.
Is it possible that the FBI is going to drop the hammer on Clinton, and the real purpose of the meeting was to give Bill Clinton a 'professional courtesy' heads up so they could have time to prepare? I would love to believe that was the case.
We Will Live Forever
Independence Day's weekend is upon us.
Via SSI.
It's a known sentiment.
The outlawing of the tunes and pipes doesn't date to the Medievals, but to the Jacobite rebellions some hundreds of years later. But the Scots were free, eventually, in Georgia and southern Appalachians if not in Scotland. Aye, and shall be again, when they are ready to be. And so shall we.
Via SSI.
It's a known sentiment.
The outlawing of the tunes and pipes doesn't date to the Medievals, but to the Jacobite rebellions some hundreds of years later. But the Scots were free, eventually, in Georgia and southern Appalachians if not in Scotland. Aye, and shall be again, when they are ready to be. And so shall we.
Department of Injustice, Continued
After yesterday's mysterious meeting on the tarmac inside a private plane, "Attorney General" Loretta Lynch moves to shield the Clinton Foundation from public scrutiny until nearly two years from now.
Grandchildren. Right.
UPDATE: Armed Liberal is right. It's worth reading the comments from the NPR listeners reacting to this story.
Grandchildren. Right.
UPDATE: Armed Liberal is right. It's worth reading the comments from the NPR listeners reacting to this story.
Are You Kidding Me?
This election season remains like a bad dream:
Still, what a nightmare.
[J]ust last week, yet another “Jane Doe” filed a suit in New York accusing Epstein and Donald Trump of raping her at a series of sex parties when she was only 13. Trump has denied Jane Doe’s claims and his reps have said he barely knew Epstein—even though New York media in the ’90s regularly chronicled his comings-and-goings at Epstein’s Upper East Side palace, and even though Epstein had 14 private numbers for Trump and his family in his little black book. Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary Clinton have remained mum about their ties to the Palm Beach pedophile—despite evidence that shows Bill was one of the most famous and frequent passengers on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” and that Epstein donated money to the Clinton Foundation even after his conviction.Naturally, the accusation does not prove guilt. Association does not prove guilt.
Still, what a nightmare.
Social Class at Yale
Yale isn't the bad guy here -- they have generous programs to try to recruit poorer kids like this writer. However, when so much of your student body is from a narrow social class, it's hard.
Even though my experiences were unique, I never felt like a foreigner in Middletown. Most people’s parents had never gone to college. My closest friends had all seen some kind of domestic strife in their life—divorces, remarriages, legal separations, or fathers who spent some time in jail. A few parents worked as lawyers, engineers, or teachers. They were “rich people” to Mamaw, but they were never so rich that I thought of them as fundamentally different. They still lived within walking distance of my house, sent their kids to the same high school, and generally did the same things the rest of us did. It never occurred to me that I didn’t belong, even in the homes of some of my relatively wealthy friends.I had a similar experience, switching high schools halway from the rural public schools I'd always been in to an elite public school in Atlanta. I didn't even apply to elite universities, though doubtless I could have gotten in and gotten good financial aid for the same reasons he did. It was just utterly clear that I did not belong.
At Yale Law School, I felt like my spaceship had crashed in Oz.
Proof that Cultural Difference is Real
The Kerala, India government has issued a new rule: bikers without helmets are to be refused gasoline by filling station managers.
I imagine that works out better in India than it would in some other places.
I imagine that works out better in India than it would in some other places.
If They Make That Connection, It's Only Because They Are Right
Hillary Clinton looks across the pond, and must loathe what she sees. Average English people have acted out, voting for Brexit like naughty children pulling a prank on the school principal. Despite apocalyptic warnings from business and political elites, they decided to leave the EU.
UK’s leaders were punished for neglecting middle class wages and hopes and instead pursuing grander ambitions – tighter bonds with Europe. Hillary must wonder, will we be next? Will Americans blame stagnant incomes on President Obama who was so busy "fundamentally transforming the United States of America” that he forgot about the people who elected him?
DB: Early Indicators Women Settling Into Infantry Just Fine
Slaughter, who graduated from the School of Infantry (SOI) last month, also claims that the infantry community isn’t what it was “back in the old Corps,” and she’s now worried about a “POGification” of the service.
Her comments were in keeping with the infantry tradition of hatred and contempt towards just about everyone and everything else.
“It’s not just POGs, but all of our pencil-pushing officers, too,” said Slaughter after downing a protein shake mixed with Wild Turkey and putting a coworker in a rear-naked choke.
A Pretty Strong Speech by Donald Trump
Not according to me... according to The Atlantic.
If he can control his public remarks this well, and give speeches this strong on these issues, he'll have a chance. I think Scott Adams is right, though, that he will still lose unless he can convince Americans that he loves them.
But these are the right ideas for helping out that blue-collar American working class whose analog, the old Labour voters, won Brexit. Would Trump implement these ideas if elected? It's the same problem with the SCOTUS nominee list he put out. They're the right people: would he follow through if elected?
We certainly know Clinton won't.
If he can control his public remarks this well, and give speeches this strong on these issues, he'll have a chance. I think Scott Adams is right, though, that he will still lose unless he can convince Americans that he loves them.
But these are the right ideas for helping out that blue-collar American working class whose analog, the old Labour voters, won Brexit. Would Trump implement these ideas if elected? It's the same problem with the SCOTUS nominee list he put out. They're the right people: would he follow through if elected?
We certainly know Clinton won't.
Well, Yes, That's What We've Been Saying All Along
They're ready to admit that there's no real difference between babies and fetuses now because they think they can win the debate on killing babies.
The whole trick depends on the shift from "it is wrong to kill an innocent human being" to "it is wrong to kill an innocent person." We can say without any scientific doubt whatsoever that a baby is a human being, and by nearly any ethical standard it is an innocent one. But is it a person? Well, now we can play with words!
Beware, of course, who else gets defined out of "personhood." But more than that, we should just refuse to make the shift. We don't need the ambiguous category given that we have the obvious and clear one. Humanity is easy to establish. The whole appeal of "personhood" is that it isn't, and thus can allow for immoral acts to be slid in where convenient.
The whole trick depends on the shift from "it is wrong to kill an innocent human being" to "it is wrong to kill an innocent person." We can say without any scientific doubt whatsoever that a baby is a human being, and by nearly any ethical standard it is an innocent one. But is it a person? Well, now we can play with words!
Beware, of course, who else gets defined out of "personhood." But more than that, we should just refuse to make the shift. We don't need the ambiguous category given that we have the obvious and clear one. Humanity is easy to establish. The whole appeal of "personhood" is that it isn't, and thus can allow for immoral acts to be slid in where convenient.
So, What's Up With That Brexit Vote?
Stathis Kouvelakis was a member of the Syriza central committee, a Greek political party. He was asked about Brexit.
The first thing to note is that the European Union loses all referendums over proposals emanating from the EU or which concern EU authority. The unconditional defenders of the European project have to ask themselves why that is the case. But this is the first time that the question of remaining or leaving has been posed directly. And in my view the fact that one of the three big European countries has chosen to break away from the EU marks the end of the current European project. This result definitively reveals something we knew already, namely that this was a project built by and for elites, and which did not enjoy popular support.Emphasis added.
7th Circuit Federal Judge: Studying Constitution is a Waste of Time
He has a good point about the SCOTUS being too uniform in background, but his remarks about the Constitution ought to be grounds for removal from office. They ought to be seen, in other words, as disqualifying for the office he holds.
Perhaps the most destabilizing American political factor of all in my lifetime has been the transformation of the Supreme Court into a rolling committee on amending the Constitution. Perhaps not: there are several other candidates, such as the vast increase in executive branch legislation-by-regulation, or the success by the global financial/corporate sector in capturing Congress (and certain Presidents) to serve their interests instead of the American people's interests. This sway by the Federal courts toward thinking of themselves as superior to the Constitution, of their will as having priority in determining the content of the Constitution, is at least one of the major factors in destroying the American republic.
“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),” he wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”Sounds like a remedial course in Aristotle's Politics would be helpful. There's a reason constitutions -- not just ours -- are an important feature in keeping a government from turning toxic. To whit, they restrain the class that exercises power from pursuing its own interests instead of the common good. Constitutions represent a permanent statement about the will of the people. They can be altered but not easily, and only with widespread consent.
He added, “let’s not let the dead bury the living.”
Perhaps the most destabilizing American political factor of all in my lifetime has been the transformation of the Supreme Court into a rolling committee on amending the Constitution. Perhaps not: there are several other candidates, such as the vast increase in executive branch legislation-by-regulation, or the success by the global financial/corporate sector in capturing Congress (and certain Presidents) to serve their interests instead of the American people's interests. This sway by the Federal courts toward thinking of themselves as superior to the Constitution, of their will as having priority in determining the content of the Constitution, is at least one of the major factors in destroying the American republic.
NIgel Farage visits the European Parliament
"Now, I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives..."
I Survived, Mostly Intact
Back in early May I wrote about taking a graduate literature course, about which I had some anxiety as the syllabus declared that (to quote myself quoting the syllabus):
I was fearful; I would have to quickly read up on all this post-structuralism and fake it, and I had no idea what the class discussions would be like. (Okay, so I had studied post-structuralism in history, but literature is a whole other animal. They do some crazy stuff there.)
Well, I'm done, and in the end, my fears were much ado about little. The professor hardly brought any of that up in the discussions, focusing mostly on the literature itself. There were some biased questions we were expected to write about, but not many, to be honest. I employed the tactic of using the authors' words to undermine American hegemony, reporting that author X criticized America for this, and author Y felt disenfranchised for that, and never talked about my opinions on it. And I got an A, so, there we are.
Granted, I could have produced much more creative work if I had not felt constrained by the BS in the syllabus, but on the other hand, the professor did me a favor by declaring his political allegiances up front, so I knew what to avoid.
I'd like to thank everyone who weighed in with advice in the comments to that earlier post: Eric Hines, Eric Blair, Ymar, Grim, AVI, ColoComment, Raven, and douglas. (I hope I haven't forgotten anyone! If so, my apologies, and my thanks!)
It was helpful, and it's good to know I'm not alone. Thanks!
... 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.
I was fearful; I would have to quickly read up on all this post-structuralism and fake it, and I had no idea what the class discussions would be like. (Okay, so I had studied post-structuralism in history, but literature is a whole other animal. They do some crazy stuff there.)
Well, I'm done, and in the end, my fears were much ado about little. The professor hardly brought any of that up in the discussions, focusing mostly on the literature itself. There were some biased questions we were expected to write about, but not many, to be honest. I employed the tactic of using the authors' words to undermine American hegemony, reporting that author X criticized America for this, and author Y felt disenfranchised for that, and never talked about my opinions on it. And I got an A, so, there we are.
Granted, I could have produced much more creative work if I had not felt constrained by the BS in the syllabus, but on the other hand, the professor did me a favor by declaring his political allegiances up front, so I knew what to avoid.
I'd like to thank everyone who weighed in with advice in the comments to that earlier post: Eric Hines, Eric Blair, Ymar, Grim, AVI, ColoComment, Raven, and douglas. (I hope I haven't forgotten anyone! If so, my apologies, and my thanks!)
It was helpful, and it's good to know I'm not alone. Thanks!
Trump Swinging for the Fences
Now if he only had the money to put out fifty ads telling these fifty stories. Or even the best dozen or so.
The Anti-Nazi Rally Will Be Held at the Nazi Rally
In what is becoming a regular feature of American life, left-wing radicals showed up at a right-wing radical event and attacked it. Much like what happened here in Georgia at Stone Mountain not long ago, the counterprotesters greatly outnumbered the protesters.
I don't care for Nazis or Klansmen, so I can't really bring myself to shed many tears over this. On the other hand, we see the same sort of behavior being pointed at Donald Trump rallies -- and he's twice now faced a potential assassin coming after him personally. It seems as if the right to a dissenting opinion is not being undermined only for the Klan and their ilk. Rather, the strategy seems to be to paint a large part of Americans' views as deserving of physical silencing.
I don't care for Nazis or Klansmen, so I can't really bring myself to shed many tears over this. On the other hand, we see the same sort of behavior being pointed at Donald Trump rallies -- and he's twice now faced a potential assassin coming after him personally. It seems as if the right to a dissenting opinion is not being undermined only for the Klan and their ilk. Rather, the strategy seems to be to paint a large part of Americans' views as deserving of physical silencing.
Althouse: NYT Readers Not Playing Along
They're supposed to be moved to tears by the injustice of enforcing the laws against illegal immigration, she says, but somehow reader comments don't seem to suggest that they are.
On Following Orders and Media Coverage
In the case of the two US Navy boats captured by the Iranian navy in January, Fox News reports that the helmsman of one of the boats refused an order to take evasive action.
That sounds pretty bad to me. My first reaction was disbelief and thoughts of a firing squad.
However, one of the commenters there, JeffGauch, brought up an interesting point:
Oddly, this fits with my experience as a rower. We often have both a coach, in a separate motorboat, and a coxswain in our own boat talking to us. The coach is in charge, but when it comes to maneuver we oar-pullers should only follow the orders of the coxswain.
New rowers often get confused by this: We can hear the coach giving maneuver orders to the coxswain, and newbs on their first or second time out will immediately start to follow them, which produces splashing, crossed oars and confusion as the more experienced rowers correctly wait for the coxswain's commands.
The Fox report does explain that the crew was inexperienced. Maybe something similar to this happened to them.
These kinds of details seem highly relevant to the story. Maybe the LT broke the rules by failing to give orders in the proper way. Maybe the helmsman broke the rules by disobeying a proper order. Either way, we need better reporters.
While a young lieutenant was the highest-ranking individual on either of the two 50-foot boats, when the order was given to evade the Iranian forces, the helmsman refused the order.
That sounds pretty bad to me. My first reaction was disbelief and thoughts of a firing squad.
However, one of the commenters there, JeffGauch, brought up an interesting point:
... if that Lieutenant wasn't the coxswain of the lead boat in the formation the helmsman was absolutely correct in disregarding the order. Far more information than what is presented here is necessary to make an intelligent judgment.
Oddly, this fits with my experience as a rower. We often have both a coach, in a separate motorboat, and a coxswain in our own boat talking to us. The coach is in charge, but when it comes to maneuver we oar-pullers should only follow the orders of the coxswain.
New rowers often get confused by this: We can hear the coach giving maneuver orders to the coxswain, and newbs on their first or second time out will immediately start to follow them, which produces splashing, crossed oars and confusion as the more experienced rowers correctly wait for the coxswain's commands.
The Fox report does explain that the crew was inexperienced. Maybe something similar to this happened to them.
These kinds of details seem highly relevant to the story. Maybe the LT broke the rules by failing to give orders in the proper way. Maybe the helmsman broke the rules by disobeying a proper order. Either way, we need better reporters.
The Killer at the Star Club
If we're having a dance party, you can't do better than this.
Trouble may come tomorrow, but we get few enough chances to celebrate cleanly. Here's some music for a weekend of it. If you've got the energy for it, Jerry Lee has the energy for you.
Trouble may come tomorrow, but we get few enough chances to celebrate cleanly. Here's some music for a weekend of it. If you've got the energy for it, Jerry Lee has the energy for you.
Brexit poll fail
You do have to wonder how all the smart people could keep getting so gobsmacked by popular votes:
Although most polls showed roughly equal numbers voting for each side, very different results emerged when the Independent newspaper asked people how the results would make them feel. Forty-four percent said they would be "delighted" with a Leave vote and only 28 percent would be delighted with Remain. Only 33 percent said they would be "disappointed" with an exit from the EU, versus 44 percent who said they would be disappointed staying in. The referendum resembled many such mimetic phenomena in which a people tries to work up its gumption against its elites. It is possible that two-thirds of the country wanted to leave the EU. They just didn't know whether they had elites' permission to want it.Passion counts for so much in relative turnout. Talk is cheap.
Dads in Parks
I used to get some very hostile looks from young mothers when I would take my boy to the park, O these long years ago. So I get where this series is coming from.
But here's one with a member of the Range 15 crew.
It's good.
But here's one with a member of the Range 15 crew.
It's good.
When the states start to go
As my FB feed noted, "Texit" is obvious, but here are the handy nicknames for each of the rest of the states when they decided to hold their referenda.
Tom Cotton for VP?
Joel and I disagree about this, but I still think Trump will last like a week and a half before impeachment proceedings start -- I mean, as he says, he's gotta be himself.
I could be wrong, but if I'm right about that, his VP choice is especially important. Today he's talking Tom Cotton. Opinion of the Hall?
I could be wrong, but if I'm right about that, his VP choice is especially important. Today he's talking Tom Cotton. Opinion of the Hall?
The Future of the Anglo-American Relationship
It appears to depend on our elections as much as their recent one. Donald Trump:
The Havamal says not to praise a day until evening, but -- recognizing that it still has time to go bad -- this has sure been a great day so far.
The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.No statement from Hillary Clinton yet, but she is deeply tied to the international banks and globalist EU that will want to punish the UK harshly to avoid others taking the same path. There is no reason to doubt she'd live up to President Obama's promise:
President Barack Obama said Britain would be at “the back of the queue” to negotiate a trade agreement with the U.S. if it votes to leave the European Union, in a direct assault on the arguments of those who say the U.K. could win better deals outside the bloc. “Some of the folks on the other side have been ascribing to the United States certain actions we will take if the U.K. does leave the EU,” Obama said at a joint press conference in London Friday with Prime Minister David Cameron. “For example, that, well, we’ll just cut our own trade deals” with the U.S. “Maybe at some point down the line there might be a U.K.-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon.”Meanwhile, Obama's preferred trade deal with the EU looks to be dead. That's great news in and of itself. We've talked about the anti-democratic and anti-sovereign nature of the T-TIP several times here. Killing it was high on my list of things to do anyway.
The Havamal says not to praise a day until evening, but -- recognizing that it still has time to go bad -- this has sure been a great day so far.
A Free Britain
They have the chance, at least, now. This vote was in their best traditions. May they make the most of it.
UPDATE: "Some who voted for Leave believe it may be possible to win further concessions from Brussels over freedom of movement. Nothing like that will happen immediately.
Europe's leaders will want to send a signal that there will be no further deal for the UK. Their keenest instincts will be to prevent contagion, to deter other countries from holding their own referendums."
UPDATE:
UPDATE: "We are witnessing nothing less than the creeping break-up of Europe. It will go out with a whimper rather than a bang, and it was set in motion a decade ago by Labour politicians who saw the English working class as a superfluous force who had nowhere else electorally to go. They pushed and pushed and pushed them and today, finally, the great unwanted have pushed back. The salt of the earth were treated as the scum of the earth and, unsurprisingly, they wouldn't stand for it. The dark consequences will be felt for generations to come."
UPDATE: A cartoon, below the fold because of one profane word given that many of you may be in offices. Meanwhile, complaining that this speaks of a strain of anarchism rather than good English muddling through, the Economist says that proper Englishmen aren't in favor of any sort of "purism."
For example, religion: "The Church of England is more like agnosticism with tea."
They meant that as a compliment.
UPDATE: "Some who voted for Leave believe it may be possible to win further concessions from Brussels over freedom of movement. Nothing like that will happen immediately.
Europe's leaders will want to send a signal that there will be no further deal for the UK. Their keenest instincts will be to prevent contagion, to deter other countries from holding their own referendums."
UPDATE:
“The dawn is breaking over an independent United Kingdom,” Farage declared. “This will be a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people. We have fought against the multinationals. We have fought against the big merchant banks. We have fought against the big parties.” Turning to the E.U., the object of his loathing, Farage went on, “I hope this victory brings down this failed project.”If this vote were to bring about the independence of Scotland and the reunification of Ireland as well as the breakup of the European Union and the restoration of a sovereign England, I should think it heaven-sent.
Much of what Farage says can’t be trusted. On this occasion, though, the thrust of his remarks was accurate. In a vote that stunned the entire world, an obdurate British public rejected the advice of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the governor of the Bank of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the Labour Party, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, U.S. President Barack Obama, the head of the International Monetary Fund, and a long list of prominent economists and business leaders....
It is even possible that the U.K. could break up before the E.U. does. On Thursday, Scotland, which rejected the option of independence from the U.K., in 2014, voted firmly in favor of staying in the E.U.: the result was “Remain” earning sixty-two per cent of the vote and “Leave” getting thirty-eight per cent. Rather than acceding to the wishes of the English, who voted decisively in favor of “Leave,” it seems perfectly possible that the Scots will now (or soon) demand another independence referendum, and the result of this one could be different. “The people of Scotland see their future as part of the European Union,” Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister and the leader of the Scottish National Party, said as the Brexit results came in. She went on, “Scotland has spoken—and spoken decisively.”
"The status of Northern Ireland, which likewise voted to stay in Europe, has also been called into question. On Friday morning, Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party, which has representatives in the parliaments in both Belfast and Dublin, called for a referendum on a united Ireland. “English votes have overturned the democratic will of Northern Ireland,” the Party said in a statement. “This was a cross community vote in favour of remaining in the E.U. … This British Government has forfeited any mandate to represent the economic or political interests of people in Northern Ireland.”
UPDATE: "We are witnessing nothing less than the creeping break-up of Europe. It will go out with a whimper rather than a bang, and it was set in motion a decade ago by Labour politicians who saw the English working class as a superfluous force who had nowhere else electorally to go. They pushed and pushed and pushed them and today, finally, the great unwanted have pushed back. The salt of the earth were treated as the scum of the earth and, unsurprisingly, they wouldn't stand for it. The dark consequences will be felt for generations to come."
UPDATE: A cartoon, below the fold because of one profane word given that many of you may be in offices. Meanwhile, complaining that this speaks of a strain of anarchism rather than good English muddling through, the Economist says that proper Englishmen aren't in favor of any sort of "purism."
For example, religion: "The Church of England is more like agnosticism with tea."
They meant that as a compliment.
Photo finish
Bannockburn
Today and tomorrow are the anniversaries of the Bannockburn, 702 years ago.
'Scots, wha hae wi Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome tae yer gory bed,
Or tae victorie.
Bruce, whilst surveying the English army, wore his crown and this sparked an idea in the mind of one young English knight. With Bruce so easy for him to identify, the young Sir Henry de Bohun realised that if he killed him the Scots would suffer a most crushing blow, and that he himself would gain unrivalled admiration from his English king. The next thing Bruce knew, de Bohun was charging towards him with his 12 foot long lance ready for action. Bruce was on his Highland pony, and saw the attack coming. He waited until the last possible moment, then violently wrenched his pony to one side. The keen de Bohen went speeding past, and Bruce swung his battle-axe, crushing the armour worn by de Bohun and splitting open his skull. The eager de Bohun fell dead on the spot with the one mighty blow, which broke the shaft of the axe wielded by Bruce. His army saw their king and his act of courage, and their hearts were filled with admiration and inspiration. If any of his men had doubted his courage, surely their fears were now at rest. Bruce had shown that he was indeed a warrior king. When his commanders reflected on the risk that Bruce took, the king of the Scots pointed out that he was more dismayed that he had broken the shaft of his axe!
'Scots, wha hae wi Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome tae yer gory bed,
Or tae victorie.
Range 15 Grosses $600K+
Only one other indie movie has ever done this well, and it had a more traditional distribution. Range 15 did it with tickets only available in the middle of the week, plus you couldn't buy them at the theater -- you had to buy them online in advance.
Oh, and we had terrorist threats.
Oh, and we had terrorist threats.
Range 15 opened nationwide three days after the Orlando ISIS attack. Following this tragedy, credible terrorist threats were made toward the makers of the movie, prompting TUGG theaters to add additional security to many of its venues. Detective Kyle Costa and Police Chief Robert Szala were interviewed by the Herald News surrounding concerns at Dartmouth’s AMC Theater specifically. Despite theaters being on high alert, Range 15 fans were unflinching, and theaters remained packed. Two of the movie's veteran stars including Green Beret, Special Forces Sniper, Army Ranger and Professional MMA Fighter Tim Kennedy, and U.S. Army Infantry Officer Nick Palmisciano are current targets on the ISIS "Kill List," so these warnings came with extra precaution. Kennedy began publicly speaking on the subject in Army Times and Fox News Insider back in January 2016. Palmisciano more recently was identified as a high risk target and too, shared statements as of late in JDNews.I notice no actual terrorists showed up at any of these things.
“This isn’t a community that you can rule with fear,” Palmisciano states. “Our core fans are troops, cops, firefighters and EMS. The average person hears that threat and assigns it a certain amount of gravitas. However, our fans think of it as just another Wednesday. We’re always ready, so the threat was almost a friendly heads up.” “I’ve never felt safer anywhere in my entire life than in theaters right now,” agrees Range 15 Hollywood Director Ross Patterson.
What Country Would That Be?
The Supreme Court has deadlocked on immigration, resulting in a sort-of defeat for President Obama. No precedent is set by the ruling, but the lower court is considered upheld.
I aspire towards a country in which our Constitution and its traditions are upheld, and one in which the government at least is required to abide by such laws as are properly Constitutional. My sense, governed by the fact that they keep writing books proclaiming that this is in fact the case, is that the move towards unfettered immigration is favored by establishment Democrats precisely because the immigrants favor a different form of government than the one we inherited.
If America is really a philosophical project, they aspire to being a country that is no longer America. I don't have a problem with immigration at any level, provided that the immigrants are devoted to the American project. When the point of favoring high immigration is precisely to make it possible to rewrite the Constitution and change the basic project, of course I am opposed -- no matter where the immigrants might come from originally, or what they might look like. It's their philosophy I care about.
Obama said Thursday's impasse "takes us further from the country we aspire to be."What country would that be?
I aspire towards a country in which our Constitution and its traditions are upheld, and one in which the government at least is required to abide by such laws as are properly Constitutional. My sense, governed by the fact that they keep writing books proclaiming that this is in fact the case, is that the move towards unfettered immigration is favored by establishment Democrats precisely because the immigrants favor a different form of government than the one we inherited.
If America is really a philosophical project, they aspire to being a country that is no longer America. I don't have a problem with immigration at any level, provided that the immigrants are devoted to the American project. When the point of favoring high immigration is precisely to make it possible to rewrite the Constitution and change the basic project, of course I am opposed -- no matter where the immigrants might come from originally, or what they might look like. It's their philosophy I care about.
The 2nd Amendment as Palladium of Liberty
Some words from our Founders.
They were serious about this. They were also right about it. We need to figure out how to restore the local, neighbor-and-family militia function as a part of the defense of the common peace and lawful order. We've gone too far to professional police and professional armies as a defense, not that I'm suggesting disbanding the police or the Army. I mean that we'll be freer when we are more actively involved in the defense of our communities, rather than turning things over to secret lists maintained by distant agencies, or secret courts with secret evidence against us.
They were serious about this. They were also right about it. We need to figure out how to restore the local, neighbor-and-family militia function as a part of the defense of the common peace and lawful order. We've gone too far to professional police and professional armies as a defense, not that I'm suggesting disbanding the police or the Army. I mean that we'll be freer when we are more actively involved in the defense of our communities, rather than turning things over to secret lists maintained by distant agencies, or secret courts with secret evidence against us.
Guns and Domestic Violence
In general and with some exceptions, I think this author is on to something. The one thing that would have stopped the Orlando shooting, maybe, is if he had been convicted of his domestic abuse. His wife might have come forward, or the FBI might have uncovered it during its two investigations of him. Either would have prohibited him from buying or possessing firearms under Federal law. He might have obtained guns illegally -- criminals usually skip legal gun sales entirely, and obtain guns from friends or family. But it's the only law-oriented suggestion I've seen that might have stopped him.
She's right that domestic violence is often (not always) tied to mass shootings, but even more, that it's often tied to later murder of the person being abused. She's also right that close family, the ones licensed by law to apply for restraining orders, often know well before anyone else that someone is likely to commit irrational violence. That adheres to my principle of thinking of citizens as performing that key militia function in the defense of the common good and lawful order. Just like the Rangers have peer reviews, sometimes citizens' militia members might need to say, "Not this guy, though -- he's going to kill somebody for no good reason." We can't make that a general power of citizens, because some would use it as a backdoor to disarming everyone. But it might make sense to do it in a way restricted to those most vulnerable to domestic violence, who are also therefore in the best place to know when someone is violent in this way.
There's room for something here that I think reasonable people could agree to doing, even if she hasn't got the specifics mapped out yet.
She's right that domestic violence is often (not always) tied to mass shootings, but even more, that it's often tied to later murder of the person being abused. She's also right that close family, the ones licensed by law to apply for restraining orders, often know well before anyone else that someone is likely to commit irrational violence. That adheres to my principle of thinking of citizens as performing that key militia function in the defense of the common good and lawful order. Just like the Rangers have peer reviews, sometimes citizens' militia members might need to say, "Not this guy, though -- he's going to kill somebody for no good reason." We can't make that a general power of citizens, because some would use it as a backdoor to disarming everyone. But it might make sense to do it in a way restricted to those most vulnerable to domestic violence, who are also therefore in the best place to know when someone is violent in this way.
There's room for something here that I think reasonable people could agree to doing, even if she hasn't got the specifics mapped out yet.
Provincialism
One thing that caught my eye in Grim's post yesterday about what Northerners secretly think was the idea that New Yorkers don't have to go anywhere, because everyone comes to them eventually. That was probably fairly true for a long time, when New York was still on the make. After a while, it becomes an attitude of decay; the rest of the world does eventually start building alternatives when you act like you can sit around waiting for them to come acknowledge your awesomeness.
Google links if that's a paywall: South Carolina boost from Panama Canal expansion; New York not ready. Too busy working on those sugary drinks and salty restaurant offerings.
Google links if that's a paywall: South Carolina boost from Panama Canal expansion; New York not ready. Too busy working on those sugary drinks and salty restaurant offerings.
Congress is Protesting Itself
So, following a filibuster, Republicans agreed to votes on four gun bills earlier this week. All four lost, as all four deserved to lose.
Now, bill supporters in the House are staging a sit-in.
Clearly they think they've got a winning issue, even though they keep coming up with ideas like Feinstein's 'Americans must prove their innocence.' On any other subject, these same people would lose their minds if someone suggested policies like this. Feinstein's bill would have a vastly disproportionate effect on Muslims, and a somewhat disproportionate effect on other minorities. It would deny them their civil rights based on mere suspicion. It would continue to deny them their rights for five years after they'd been cleared of suspicion. Why? Because they're so suspicious we can't be too careful. But if they can prove their innocence -- in spite of having no access to the charges against them, nor an opportunity to confront their accuser, nor the power to be heard in the secret courts -- we will restore their rights, presuming they can also stay off our secret lists for five years.
These same people sitting on the floor in protest would be the very ones leading the charge against any other proposal that did those things. It violates every principle of justice that they ordinarily claim.
Now, bill supporters in the House are staging a sit-in.
Clearly they think they've got a winning issue, even though they keep coming up with ideas like Feinstein's 'Americans must prove their innocence.' On any other subject, these same people would lose their minds if someone suggested policies like this. Feinstein's bill would have a vastly disproportionate effect on Muslims, and a somewhat disproportionate effect on other minorities. It would deny them their civil rights based on mere suspicion. It would continue to deny them their rights for five years after they'd been cleared of suspicion. Why? Because they're so suspicious we can't be too careful. But if they can prove their innocence -- in spite of having no access to the charges against them, nor an opportunity to confront their accuser, nor the power to be heard in the secret courts -- we will restore their rights, presuming they can also stay off our secret lists for five years.
These same people sitting on the floor in protest would be the very ones leading the charge against any other proposal that did those things. It violates every principle of justice that they ordinarily claim.
Russians Firebombing Whole Neighborhoods in Aleppo
Funker530 has the video. It's the sort of thing you probably thought you'd only ever see in movies about WWII, but it's happening right now.
If only someone had enforced his red line like he said he would, Russia wouldn't even be in Syria right now.
If only someone had enforced his red line like he said he would, Russia wouldn't even be in Syria right now.
Things Northerners Think
Every culture has its prejudices, and here are some Yankee ones.
I actually think the South would have fewer hick towns if it had won the Civil War, because it was the war and its aftermath that destroyed the South's wealth. It was a very rich place before the war, with all that implies for education and civilization. It's been the poorest region of the nation ever since.
Thanks for ending slavery, though. Actually, two of my ancestors were in Sherman's army, too.
I actually think the South would have fewer hick towns if it had won the Civil War, because it was the war and its aftermath that destroyed the South's wealth. It was a very rich place before the war, with all that implies for education and civilization. It's been the poorest region of the nation ever since.
Thanks for ending slavery, though. Actually, two of my ancestors were in Sherman's army, too.
Foreign Service Officers
We were just discussing, in the comments to the "off the street" post below, the usefulness of the State Department Foreign Service officers (FSOs) and contractors who actually deployed to Iraq. Here is an article I wrote about State Department plans to reform itself to better support such embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams (ePRTs) based on a conversation we had at Foggy Bottom one afternoon when Jimbo and I dropped in for a visit. (Really, that happened. Under Secretary Clinton, even.)
In addition to that part praising the ePRT model, I also wrote another post sharply critical of the culture at State. The two things should be read together, because they paint what I believe is a fair picture of what is good and what is flawed with the State Department.
As the second, more critical post anticipated, Secretary Clinton's tenure did not result in fixes to the problems identified. Nor has John F. Kerry managed to fix the problems. The Obama administration's political appointees at State have been tremendous embarrassments.
Nevertheless, it's important to remember that core of career FSOs who aren't political appointees and who do take their duty seriously. Think about them when you read this story about the State Department revolt against Obama's foreign policy.
In addition to that part praising the ePRT model, I also wrote another post sharply critical of the culture at State. The two things should be read together, because they paint what I believe is a fair picture of what is good and what is flawed with the State Department.
As the second, more critical post anticipated, Secretary Clinton's tenure did not result in fixes to the problems identified. Nor has John F. Kerry managed to fix the problems. The Obama administration's political appointees at State have been tremendous embarrassments.
Nevertheless, it's important to remember that core of career FSOs who aren't political appointees and who do take their duty seriously. Think about them when you read this story about the State Department revolt against Obama's foreign policy.
51 dissident State Department Foreign Service Officers (FSOs), the Dissent 51, signed a Dissent Channel cable savaging the Obama Administration’s Syria policy and implicitly attacking the Obama Administration’s inept diplomatic and military strategy for eliminating the anti-Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).Then go read their memo.
Usually one FSO (or at most a handful) sign a dissent cable. 51 is an unprecedented number of government line officers signing a dissident document which—Obama Administration denials to the contrary—could put their careers at risk.
Violence and Sympathy
The Washington Post asks why the media hasn't covered the attempted assassination of Donald Trump as a major story. Indeed, it's arguably the second assassination attempt -- that one guy jumped the stage and Secret Service had to stop him.
It may be because we don't worry that much about criminals who are morons. This guy built his plan around stealing a cop's gun, which might have worked if he'd had a plan for dealing with the cop. As it was, he apparently believed that (a) he'd be able to get a cop's gun away from him while the cop was free to fight back, and (b) that he'd be able to do so in such a way that he'd still have time to get some shots off. Clearly, this is not a professional we're talking about. The Post article makes a similar point: perhaps we don't think this guy was a serious threat.
Instapundit suggests it's because some wish the attempt had succeeded. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air points out how obviously different the narrative would be if another politician had been the target.
Brexit polling shows that the "Leave" camp suffered a significant hit when a neo-Nazi killed a British politician on the "Remain" side. This is, in point of fact, completely irrational. Whatever your reasons for thinking Britain should stay or go aren't in any way touched by the fact that some psychopath happens to kill an innocent third party: it is the sort of act that shouldn't have any impact at all on your political judgment on this entirely unrelated question.
But humans aren't fully rational beings, and sympathy plays a huge role for some people in deciding what they take to be right and wrong. The thought that you might be on the side of a neo-Nazi, or have been against that nice young woman who was brutally killed, will sway some voters. The fact that the "Leave" camp is really mostly not neo-Nazis, or that the "Remain" camp has some deeply anti-democratic ideas and imperils the future of British common law and self government, is lost at least for a while in the emotional imagery.
In the case of Trump particularly, the narrative building around him is that he's an entirely unsympathetic character. It's not hard to build that narrative, since large parts of it are true. He's disrespectful, heedless of the truth, careless with his language, and apparently shameless. But he is human, and therefore he is vulnerable. If people came to see him that way -- if he actually got shot, for example -- it would pierce that image and make him a more sympathetic character.
If that happens, people might become more inclined to do what Byron York did last week: give Trump's proposals a sympathetic hearing. That can only happen if you are inclined to think well enough of the guy to look past what he actually said (which is often careless and poorly constructed) and try to find the best possible interpretation of his point. Still, when York did it, he found a core to the argument that isn't absurd, and in fact is pretty well-supported by the evidence.
My guess is that the press understands this at some level, and -- being almost exclusively Democrats -- the last thing they want is people giving Trump a sympathetic hearing. Play him as a strongman -- he's happy to play with you -- and he looks unsympathetic in the extreme. Play him as a vulnerable human being, and people might take a second look at what he's saying. If they do so in the spirit of sympathy, they might find what York found. And then he might win.
It may be because we don't worry that much about criminals who are morons. This guy built his plan around stealing a cop's gun, which might have worked if he'd had a plan for dealing with the cop. As it was, he apparently believed that (a) he'd be able to get a cop's gun away from him while the cop was free to fight back, and (b) that he'd be able to do so in such a way that he'd still have time to get some shots off. Clearly, this is not a professional we're talking about. The Post article makes a similar point: perhaps we don't think this guy was a serious threat.
Instapundit suggests it's because some wish the attempt had succeeded. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air points out how obviously different the narrative would be if another politician had been the target.
Can you imagine the coverage we’d be seeing if someone had attempted to shoot Hillary Clinton? The same could be said if it had happened with Barack Obama in the summer of 2008. Questions would be debated on air for weeks on end about the evil lurking in the hearts of men and why someone would be so desperate to prevent the election of the first black or female president. But when someone plots for more than a year to kill Trump, travels across the country to find an opportunity and then launches his attempt, it creates barely a ripple in the media pond.I'm going to give another reading. I think it's because seeing Trump as vulnerable to violence might create sympathy for him.
And what of the fact that Sandford is an illegal alien?
Brexit polling shows that the "Leave" camp suffered a significant hit when a neo-Nazi killed a British politician on the "Remain" side. This is, in point of fact, completely irrational. Whatever your reasons for thinking Britain should stay or go aren't in any way touched by the fact that some psychopath happens to kill an innocent third party: it is the sort of act that shouldn't have any impact at all on your political judgment on this entirely unrelated question.
But humans aren't fully rational beings, and sympathy plays a huge role for some people in deciding what they take to be right and wrong. The thought that you might be on the side of a neo-Nazi, or have been against that nice young woman who was brutally killed, will sway some voters. The fact that the "Leave" camp is really mostly not neo-Nazis, or that the "Remain" camp has some deeply anti-democratic ideas and imperils the future of British common law and self government, is lost at least for a while in the emotional imagery.
In the case of Trump particularly, the narrative building around him is that he's an entirely unsympathetic character. It's not hard to build that narrative, since large parts of it are true. He's disrespectful, heedless of the truth, careless with his language, and apparently shameless. But he is human, and therefore he is vulnerable. If people came to see him that way -- if he actually got shot, for example -- it would pierce that image and make him a more sympathetic character.
If that happens, people might become more inclined to do what Byron York did last week: give Trump's proposals a sympathetic hearing. That can only happen if you are inclined to think well enough of the guy to look past what he actually said (which is often careless and poorly constructed) and try to find the best possible interpretation of his point. Still, when York did it, he found a core to the argument that isn't absurd, and in fact is pretty well-supported by the evidence.
My guess is that the press understands this at some level, and -- being almost exclusively Democrats -- the last thing they want is people giving Trump a sympathetic hearing. Play him as a strongman -- he's happy to play with you -- and he looks unsympathetic in the extreme. Play him as a vulnerable human being, and people might take a second look at what he's saying. If they do so in the spirit of sympathy, they might find what York found. And then he might win.
Lord Patrick Devlin, Call Your Office
An important point buried at the end of a Reason article on why gun control wouldn't work better than Prohibition:
That's actually a fairly strict standard, since juries require unanimous consent to convict someone. It means that any minority large enough to regularly turn up as even a single member of a jury has to be considered as well. Thus, you could still have laws grounded on nothing more than 'common sense moral disapproval' of a practice. You'd just have to have a very wide consensus about what morality entails on the point.
Those defiant gun owners will also be included in the jury pools chosen to sit in judgement of unlucky violators scooped up by law enforcement. That situation will likely replicate the difficulty prosecutors had in getting convictions of Prohibition scofflaws in the 1920s and marijuana law resisters today. "[I]f juries consistently nullify certain types of criminal charges (charges for possession of a small amount of marijuana, for example), this can render an unpopular law ineffective," wrote John Richards at the LegalMatch blog after a jury couldn't even be seated in Montana.This argument is most famously made in Lord Patrick Devlin's The Enforcement of Morals. His point was that, in a country that accepts freedom of conscience where religion is concerned, religion can no longer ground moral laws (because everyone has a right to dissent from any religious view). Rather than do away with legislation that was meant to enforce moral codes, Devlin proposes an alternative justification. He called it 'man in the jury-box' or 'man on the Clapham omnibus' standard. Essentially the idea was that ordinary British citizens could be trusted to know right from wrong, or in any case to work it out over time, and thus that they should be free to pass moral laws grounded on their common sense. The test for whether a moral law was valid or not was whether or not the ordinary British citizen would enforce it if called to serve on a jury. A law they wouldn't enforce had no business being a law anyway.
"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem," Connecticut Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R-District 35), told the Hartford Courant when large numbers of state residents flipped the bird to lawmakers and defied the new gun law.
Well... yes, you do. And like their restriction-inclined predecessors, gun controllers will have quite a mess on their hands.
That's actually a fairly strict standard, since juries require unanimous consent to convict someone. It means that any minority large enough to regularly turn up as even a single member of a jury has to be considered as well. Thus, you could still have laws grounded on nothing more than 'common sense moral disapproval' of a practice. You'd just have to have a very wide consensus about what morality entails on the point.
"Benghazi without the Shame"
It’s a leap year, which means it’s even more important than usual for the Obama administration to deny the threat of Islamic terrorism. In September 2012, it fell to Susan Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., to make the rounds on the Sunday-morning talk shows and peddle the falsehood that the attack at Benghazi, Libya, was just a high-spirited reaction to an amateur video.
Yesterday—a week after the biggest terror attack on American soil since 9/11—the Rice role fell to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. This time, the administration didn’t even bother pretending it was going to tell the truth.
Political Officers
Maybe this is a partial answer to Raven's concern that he's sounding paranoid.
Without denying that a base commander has the right to control his installation, and recognizing that the USAF in particular has had issues with aggressive proselytizing, I still don't understand how this happened. This was a retirement ceremony, so even if he was the most annoying Jehovah's Witness in your command you'd think you'd let him have his party and then just go away forever.
I'm also not sure why the base commander would forbid the use of the word "God" in a retirement ceremony anyway, any more than at a wedding ceremony conducted on base.
Besides, the speech is nondenominational, just the ordinary linking of religion to boilerplate patriotism. "God bless our flag, God bless our troops, God bless America" is not exactly a call to join some particular church.
It'll be interesting to see how the Air Force explains just what happened here.
Without denying that a base commander has the right to control his installation, and recognizing that the USAF in particular has had issues with aggressive proselytizing, I still don't understand how this happened. This was a retirement ceremony, so even if he was the most annoying Jehovah's Witness in your command you'd think you'd let him have his party and then just go away forever.
I'm also not sure why the base commander would forbid the use of the word "God" in a retirement ceremony anyway, any more than at a wedding ceremony conducted on base.
Besides, the speech is nondenominational, just the ordinary linking of religion to boilerplate patriotism. "God bless our flag, God bless our troops, God bless America" is not exactly a call to join some particular church.
It'll be interesting to see how the Air Force explains just what happened here.
Hiring Military Officers Off the Street
Raven wrote to ask whether or not I could come up with a better way to subvert the military and introduce politically-preferred persons into it than Ash Carter's new plan. I can't, really, but there's more to be said about this than that.
Now, the way this works is that the actual orders don't come from staff officers. They're issued by the Operations officer in the name of the commander. These are usually set out as what are called "Fragmentary Orders" (FRAGOs) that supplement a larger, overarching order governing a whole military operation. So the staff officer puts together a part of the FRAGO that deals with his area of expertise. That draft part of the FRAGO is passed around to all the other relevant staff sections for comment or approval. Once you have buy-in, it's sent to the 3 section (the operations section) to be written up as a part of the FRAGO. Then, the finalized FRAGO is sent out under the commander's authority to subordinate units.
A civilian contractor can write these draft FRAGO parts as well as anyone else, since at no point is he personally ordering the troops to do anything. He's just advising the commander on what to order the troops to do. While working for a couple of brigade commanders in Iraq I wrote many, many orders for military forces deployed at war in just this way. I wrote orders for PSYOP detachments, for infantry and cavalry units who were doing things relevant to my area of expertise, and so forth. None of these orders were violations of the military's culture or chain of command, because they were all staffed around for approval and then sent to the 3 for inclusion in his latest FRAGO. I wrote the orders, but didn't issue them. He issued them in the name of his colonel.
Would it have been simpler if I'd been "laterally entered" into the force as a Major or LTC? Would that have been more of an affront to the military culture than having a civilian in a John B. Stetson hat writing orders for the troops?
Frankly, I think the contractor solution works better than the proposed resolution for several reasons.
1) You can readily fire contractors who don't adapt to the culture. Make Mr. Offa de Street into Major Offa de Street and you're stuck with him.
2) The troops aren't asked to think of you as a soldier or Marine just like them. The difference between who you are and who they are is clear.
3) There's no danger that a civilian contractor will someday be promoted to a position of actual authority over the troops. Major de Street might someday get promoted to a green tab position, especially if he's there for the reasons Raven worries about. He shouldn't be. Command of our soldiers or Marines should be entrusted only to those whom they have reason to regard as brothers.
Ultimately while the military regards contractors as pernicious and expensive, they solve this very problem without introducing new and undesirable features. Nor am I convinced that contractors are actually as expensive as they seem, since you only pay for them while they're working for you. The Congress is also working through a painful reassessment of military compensation and retirement, and the VA, and all the rest of it. With contractors, you just don't have that problem: the day they finish the job you hired them to do, you're done paying for them.
So yes, this is a bad idea because of the danger of allowing the insertion of politicized officers into military commands. But it's also a bad idea for several other reasons, and it's completely unnecessary because we have a reasonable workaround for the problem that's already in place.
Ash Carter has not been the most impressive SECDEF ever.
The idea is controversial, to say the very least. For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths....The thing is, we almost do this now. What we do now is that we hire civilian contractors and integrate them with existing military commands. The contractors are similarly disconnected from the culture in many cases, and they lack the authority to issue orders. But that doesn't really matter much, since they aren't hired to command military forces, but to bring special skill sets to bear on the kinds of problems that are handled by a commander's staff.
This is a key piece of Carter’s “Force of the Future” personnel reform. Unveiled June 9, it aims to help the military bring in more top talent, especially for high-tech career fields focused on cyber warfare and space. Advocates say it will help the military fill important manpower shortfalls with highly skilled professionals and, more broadly, create greater “permeability” between the active-duty military and the civilian sector.
At the same time, it suggests eroding the military’s tradition of growing its own leaders and cultivating a force with a distinct culture and tight social fabric, which many believe to be the heart of military effectiveness. Critics worry it will create a new subcaste of military service members who are fundamentally disconnected from the traditional career force.
“They will enter a culture they don’t know, understand or potentially appreciate,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and military expert at the Heritage Foundation. “The Marines around them will likely be challenged to appreciate them as they would a fellow Marine.”
Now, the way this works is that the actual orders don't come from staff officers. They're issued by the Operations officer in the name of the commander. These are usually set out as what are called "Fragmentary Orders" (FRAGOs) that supplement a larger, overarching order governing a whole military operation. So the staff officer puts together a part of the FRAGO that deals with his area of expertise. That draft part of the FRAGO is passed around to all the other relevant staff sections for comment or approval. Once you have buy-in, it's sent to the 3 section (the operations section) to be written up as a part of the FRAGO. Then, the finalized FRAGO is sent out under the commander's authority to subordinate units.
A civilian contractor can write these draft FRAGO parts as well as anyone else, since at no point is he personally ordering the troops to do anything. He's just advising the commander on what to order the troops to do. While working for a couple of brigade commanders in Iraq I wrote many, many orders for military forces deployed at war in just this way. I wrote orders for PSYOP detachments, for infantry and cavalry units who were doing things relevant to my area of expertise, and so forth. None of these orders were violations of the military's culture or chain of command, because they were all staffed around for approval and then sent to the 3 for inclusion in his latest FRAGO. I wrote the orders, but didn't issue them. He issued them in the name of his colonel.
Would it have been simpler if I'd been "laterally entered" into the force as a Major or LTC? Would that have been more of an affront to the military culture than having a civilian in a John B. Stetson hat writing orders for the troops?
Frankly, I think the contractor solution works better than the proposed resolution for several reasons.
1) You can readily fire contractors who don't adapt to the culture. Make Mr. Offa de Street into Major Offa de Street and you're stuck with him.
2) The troops aren't asked to think of you as a soldier or Marine just like them. The difference between who you are and who they are is clear.
3) There's no danger that a civilian contractor will someday be promoted to a position of actual authority over the troops. Major de Street might someday get promoted to a green tab position, especially if he's there for the reasons Raven worries about. He shouldn't be. Command of our soldiers or Marines should be entrusted only to those whom they have reason to regard as brothers.
Ultimately while the military regards contractors as pernicious and expensive, they solve this very problem without introducing new and undesirable features. Nor am I convinced that contractors are actually as expensive as they seem, since you only pay for them while they're working for you. The Congress is also working through a painful reassessment of military compensation and retirement, and the VA, and all the rest of it. With contractors, you just don't have that problem: the day they finish the job you hired them to do, you're done paying for them.
So yes, this is a bad idea because of the danger of allowing the insertion of politicized officers into military commands. But it's also a bad idea for several other reasons, and it's completely unnecessary because we have a reasonable workaround for the problem that's already in place.
Ash Carter has not been the most impressive SECDEF ever.
The Summer Solstice
Some appropriate music, although you're probably going to spend the whole thing wondering: "What's he going to do with that lamb?"
Nothing, I assure you, on camera.
Texit
Not the worst idea of all time.
I had a friend decades ago who was a big Texas Independence guy. He was a wonderful human being, but I had to suspect that as wonderful as he showed himself to be on every occasion, he must have some wires crossed internally even if I couldn't see them. I now realize that he was just an early adopter.
I had a friend decades ago who was a big Texas Independence guy. He was a wonderful human being, but I had to suspect that as wonderful as he showed himself to be on every occasion, he must have some wires crossed internally even if I couldn't see them. I now realize that he was just an early adopter.
Happy Father's Day
Today we honor fathers. Neo-neocon has posted a poem from the poet Robert Hayden:
That seems a good beginning. Does anyone else have a favorite poem about fathers?
Those Winter Sundays
Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.
I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,
Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?
That seems a good beginning. Does anyone else have a favorite poem about fathers?
A Genius Idea...
...by apparently a professional economics journalist whose understanding of how capitalism works is staggering.
What would happen if corporations acted on his advice? You'd be pouring money into both the firearms industry and the firearms market. What does that mean? New entrants to the market, of course. Smaller companies like Daniel Defense already exist, serving a niche market within the niche market that is modern sporting rifles. Since you'd be flooding the market with cash and then removing the major competitors, you'd open the floor for a whole new generation of arms makers -- not publicly traded firms but, like Daniel Defense, small businesses owned by people devoted to excellence in firearms production.
They'd have money to spend on setting up shop, too, because you'd have enriched them by purchasing up their products. People who have been in the gun sales business could enter the gun production business with the billions of bucks you'd just dropped in their laps. They'd have every reason to do so, knowing that their customers were being starved of a popular item (and having the reasonable expectation that you 'good guy' tech firms were going to try to buy up all of their production line too).
This is the way to turn the gun industry from what the author calls "a financial pipsqueak" into a powerhouse. Gun tech startups would prosper wildly across the fruited plain.
It's a great idea. Go for it.
What would happen if corporations acted on his advice? You'd be pouring money into both the firearms industry and the firearms market. What does that mean? New entrants to the market, of course. Smaller companies like Daniel Defense already exist, serving a niche market within the niche market that is modern sporting rifles. Since you'd be flooding the market with cash and then removing the major competitors, you'd open the floor for a whole new generation of arms makers -- not publicly traded firms but, like Daniel Defense, small businesses owned by people devoted to excellence in firearms production.
They'd have money to spend on setting up shop, too, because you'd have enriched them by purchasing up their products. People who have been in the gun sales business could enter the gun production business with the billions of bucks you'd just dropped in their laps. They'd have every reason to do so, knowing that their customers were being starved of a popular item (and having the reasonable expectation that you 'good guy' tech firms were going to try to buy up all of their production line too).
This is the way to turn the gun industry from what the author calls "a financial pipsqueak" into a powerhouse. Gun tech startups would prosper wildly across the fruited plain.
It's a great idea. Go for it.
The Meme as Political Commentary
As a rule, it's damaging to political discourse. Once in a while, though, they come up with a good one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)