Rolling Music
That's Whitey Morgan and the '78s doing a Dale Watson tune called "Where Do You Want It?", if you don't recognize it. The 'Billy Joe' is Billy Joe Shaver, who was a friend of his. It's apparently based on a true story.
DNC Host: Trump Right on Trade
That's... surprising. Not that he agrees with Trump, as Trump is to the left of Clinton on this issue (as on foreign policy). Just that he would say it out loud right now.
How Different Are The Male and Female Experiences of the World?
Take something very basic to the human experience -- pain. The ancients thought that pain and pleasure were the two biggest problems for ethics. To experience pleasure, or to avoid pain, human beings will often do terrible things. For the Epicureans, ethics was all about moderation because it provided the greatest pleasure and the least consequent pain (think of enjoying wine without the hangover; only perhaps you don't need the wine, either). For the hedonists, enjoying life as much as possible while experiencing the least pain was the whole purpose of ethics. Modern utilitarians explain things in roughly the same way, albeit with collective pleasure and pain as the measure.
So what if the experience men call "pain" and the one women call "pain" aren't actually the same thing at all? There's some evidence from lab rats that this might be true.
Well, that's one more reason not to be a utilitarian -- a matter already over-determined, in my book.
So what if the experience men call "pain" and the one women call "pain" aren't actually the same thing at all? There's some evidence from lab rats that this might be true.
A growing body of evidence—including a 2012 analysis of 11,000 patient records—indicates that women are more sensitive to pain. In fact, they may be hardwired to feel pain differently. Last year, Magil and a plethora of co-authors published a study showing that female lab mice actually used different cells to transmit pain signals through their spinal cord. And while no one has confirmed that this is also the case in human females (paging the ethics committee…), Magil says evidence in animals is both compelling and growing stronger.As the article says, it may not be true that humans differ in this way just because mice do. Considering the possibility, however, raises some really big epistemological and metaphysical questions. Maybe some ethical ones too, especially for the utilitarians.
Well, that's one more reason not to be a utilitarian -- a matter already over-determined, in my book.
OODA Loop Beats AK
A concealed carrier takes down a rifleman.
We often hear this can't be done. Of course it can be done. It just can't always be done. If the guy walks in with his rifle and lights you up first thing, you aren't going to have a chance to do anything. But if he's there for something else, and you're careful not to be observed bringing your own weapon to bear, you have the advantage provided that you can hit your target. He's going to have to observe you, orient to what he's observing, and decide to shoot you before he can do it. If you're decisive, it's possible.
We often hear this can't be done. Of course it can be done. It just can't always be done. If the guy walks in with his rifle and lights you up first thing, you aren't going to have a chance to do anything. But if he's there for something else, and you're careful not to be observed bringing your own weapon to bear, you have the advantage provided that you can hit your target. He's going to have to observe you, orient to what he's observing, and decide to shoot you before he can do it. If you're decisive, it's possible.
Wagner, Love, and the Loss of God
A piece in Prospect tries to untangle the lessons of the story:
So Wagner has a reply to Feuerbach, and to Feuerbach’s other great disciple, Karl Marx, namely: stop looking to politics for your salvation. But stop expecting from love anything more than it demands: which is sacrifice. It is a harsh moral, but a true one.The piece is worth reading.
Matter and Intelligence
A new study suggests fat people have less grey and white matter in a significant network of their brains -- though not in the brain overall -- than people who are not fat. The article suggests this means that they are less "intelligent" when it comes to making good food choices.
I'm not buying it, if only because the measure they used was BMI. Someone who has a high BMI because they are a weightlifter is all about smart food choices. It takes considerable attention to ensure you get enough protein to maintain large muscles. The suggestion that BMI correlates with weakened self-control over food choices isn't adequate. (I doubt that they really used only BMI, anyway. If they wanted to study 'fat people,' they doubtless used an informal visual evaluation to determine which high-BMI candidates to include.)
Nor am I ready to buy off on the claim that we know exactly what part of the brain always and everywhere handles this or that function of the mind.
However, a follow-on study might be interesting if the study were done over a period of years, especially tracking thin people of whom some became obese. I'd be interested to know if the weakening of this sector proceeded or followed the increase in weight.
I'm not buying it, if only because the measure they used was BMI. Someone who has a high BMI because they are a weightlifter is all about smart food choices. It takes considerable attention to ensure you get enough protein to maintain large muscles. The suggestion that BMI correlates with weakened self-control over food choices isn't adequate. (I doubt that they really used only BMI, anyway. If they wanted to study 'fat people,' they doubtless used an informal visual evaluation to determine which high-BMI candidates to include.)
Nor am I ready to buy off on the claim that we know exactly what part of the brain always and everywhere handles this or that function of the mind.
However, a follow-on study might be interesting if the study were done over a period of years, especially tracking thin people of whom some became obese. I'd be interested to know if the weakening of this sector proceeded or followed the increase in weight.
It Does Sound Like She's Trying Out for the Supreme Court
Loretta Lynch, prosecutor, won't say that you've broken the law by speeding.
Indeed, from this perspective, until the black robed Olympians have ruled, we cannot know what the law says -- or whether there is a law at all. The "real" law isn't the text passed by some legislature, but the set of precedents that fill out just how the law will actually be applied. Too, if the Supreme Court should rule that the law is void for some reason, the mere fact that some legislature and executive passed and signed a law means nothing whatsoever. No law has been broken if there was never a law to start with.
I think we know what Bill Clinton promised her on that plane.
UPDATE: FBI agents interviewed anonymously report that they believe there was a deal struck on that plane.
Well, probably there isn't anyone who doesn't believe it deep down. There are just some who feel obligated to deny it to soothe their own consciences about what they're going to do in November.
"I've got a question for you," said Collins. "Driving down the road, speed limit says 55, I'm doing 65. Have I broke the law?"This isn't the ordinary perspective of a prosecutor, who would stand up before a jury and tell them that they have proven a breach of the law if they have proven that you were going 65 in a 55. It's the perspective of a judge, even a Justice: until a court has issued its ruling, there is no fact of the matter about whether or not you are guilty of violating the law.
"You would have to ask the Highway Patrol," Lynch answered, as the chamber erupted in snickers. "He would likely write you a ticket," she added helpfully.
The dumbfounded Collins exclaimed, "I went to a small law school. We were taught the law!" He noted that he wasn't so sure about Harvard (Lynch's alma mater) though.
He repeated his question, "Did you break the law or not — 65 in a 55? My dad was a state trooper..."
"As I said before, you would get a ticket for that," Lynch answered.
"So you broke the law!" Collins exclaimed.
"You would be cited for that," Lynch offered. "That would be considered an offense."
Indeed, from this perspective, until the black robed Olympians have ruled, we cannot know what the law says -- or whether there is a law at all. The "real" law isn't the text passed by some legislature, but the set of precedents that fill out just how the law will actually be applied. Too, if the Supreme Court should rule that the law is void for some reason, the mere fact that some legislature and executive passed and signed a law means nothing whatsoever. No law has been broken if there was never a law to start with.
I think we know what Bill Clinton promised her on that plane.
UPDATE: FBI agents interviewed anonymously report that they believe there was a deal struck on that plane.
Well, probably there isn't anyone who doesn't believe it deep down. There are just some who feel obligated to deny it to soothe their own consciences about what they're going to do in November.
...And Replace Them With What?
A Chicago BLM activist names Jessica Disu calls for the police to be -- well, she isn't very clear about what she wants. She says she wants them "demilitarized," "disarmed," and "abolished." From my perspective, that's three options rather than one. FOX News took her to be insisting on abolishing the police outright, but one could merely demilitarize or merely disarm them. One of those solutions isn't terribly radical -- I've been advocating for years that the police be armed like citizens, rather than like a branch of the military or some other specialized force. The other two are more radical.
The problem is that, asked the inevitable question, she didn't have a clear answer. That's too bad, and it might be worth trying to find out if there's a better answer forthcoming on reflection.
I think that for maybe 90% of the country -- by land mass, not by population -- we really could shift to the model of having the police work like fire departments rather than operating as patrols. Especially given the prevalence of cell phones now, it's almost always going to be the case that you could call for help if you needed it. I think this would have a very positive effect on police/citizen relations, as I have written a couple of times lately. It's very close to how policing works where I live now, and would probably work fine for most parts of America where the population is not deeply dense and crime rates are quite low.
However, Ms. Disu is talking about the least plausible places for that model. Most of America continues to enjoy historic lows in violent crime. That is not true for certain parts of several cities, where there has been a sharp uptick in crime of late. These are all poor, densely-populated urban areas with criminal gangs and drug violence. There is a plausible argument that police withdrawal from these communities, out of fear of sparking a BLM protest, is what is behind these upticks in violence. It doesn't seem like fewer police patrols is helping these areas.
So this is the real question: is it possible to replace the police in these areas with some sort of community action? Like a local citizen militia, say? Or is the answer going to be a more robust police enforcement -- say of Project Exile laws that would raise the costs of criminals carrying guns high enough that they'd stop doing it?
Or why not both? You could organize local militias like volunteer fire departments, to operate with the professional fire-deparment-like police in most of the country. As with volunteer fire departments, the government would support the volunteers by helping to fund training exercises and limited facilities. In the urban areas, whether a militia's citizens' arrest or a peace officer's arrest was at work, the Feds would back them up by actually enforcing these robust Federal laws against felons and drug gang members who carry firearms.
It seems as if we could get this under control, while also improving citizen/police relations.
The problem is that, asked the inevitable question, she didn't have a clear answer. That's too bad, and it might be worth trying to find out if there's a better answer forthcoming on reflection.
I think that for maybe 90% of the country -- by land mass, not by population -- we really could shift to the model of having the police work like fire departments rather than operating as patrols. Especially given the prevalence of cell phones now, it's almost always going to be the case that you could call for help if you needed it. I think this would have a very positive effect on police/citizen relations, as I have written a couple of times lately. It's very close to how policing works where I live now, and would probably work fine for most parts of America where the population is not deeply dense and crime rates are quite low.
However, Ms. Disu is talking about the least plausible places for that model. Most of America continues to enjoy historic lows in violent crime. That is not true for certain parts of several cities, where there has been a sharp uptick in crime of late. These are all poor, densely-populated urban areas with criminal gangs and drug violence. There is a plausible argument that police withdrawal from these communities, out of fear of sparking a BLM protest, is what is behind these upticks in violence. It doesn't seem like fewer police patrols is helping these areas.
So this is the real question: is it possible to replace the police in these areas with some sort of community action? Like a local citizen militia, say? Or is the answer going to be a more robust police enforcement -- say of Project Exile laws that would raise the costs of criminals carrying guns high enough that they'd stop doing it?
Or why not both? You could organize local militias like volunteer fire departments, to operate with the professional fire-deparment-like police in most of the country. As with volunteer fire departments, the government would support the volunteers by helping to fund training exercises and limited facilities. In the urban areas, whether a militia's citizens' arrest or a peace officer's arrest was at work, the Feds would back them up by actually enforcing these robust Federal laws against felons and drug gang members who carry firearms.
It seems as if we could get this under control, while also improving citizen/police relations.
Self-government
I have been experimenting with subsidiarity lately: the devolution of organized political control to the smallest possible local level. I think I mentioned before that I joined the board of something called an "improvement district," which is a tax-funded state-sanctioned governmental entity that resembles a utility district on steroids. It covers a development, or perhaps several developments in a relatively small area, and is responsible not only for utilities but other public amenities such as (in my case) canals, piers, and bulkheads. The development that this district is currently responsible for (the others not yet having got going) has only a few homeowners so far. As soon as possible, when there are enough homeowners, they should run for spots on the board. For now, though, the developers essentially appoint board members.
On this small peninsula, there are a handful of companies supplying water--generally well water with an associated RO treatment plant, because our well water is brackish and pretty awful--but only one entity supplies the wastewater treatment, under contract with all the others. That entity is itself a government district, in this case an ordinary municipal utility district. Recently we had some heavy rains, which predictably infiltrated the MUD's leaky sewer lines. At the same time, a building contractor on my own district's property apparently used an insufficient sewer plug to protect an open sewer line at one of the building sites, and the extra pressure from the heavy rain blew it out, causing even more freshwater intrusion in the sewer lines. The wastewater plant shut down operations only for a few hours, but cut my district off from sewer services for months while we all argued about how big a check the contractor's insurance company should write for the damage that could be attributed to the sewer plug. (We paid a honey-dipper to truck out the relatively small amount of sewage from the few current residents.) Do our state utility laws and the wastewater service contract permit the MUD to cut off our sewer services for financial leverage, after it's clear there no longer is a safety/operations issue? I'd say no, but my district's counsel is not what you would call aggressive, or even energetic; they're terrific at complying with the open-meetings rules and shepherding us through bond offerings and tax issues, but not so inclined to jump into contract negotiations or litigation. All I know is, before the MUD gets another chance to deny us service for financial leverage, I'd like to have other options, especially when we have enough residents that honey-dipping is hardly practical. Our contract, however, appears to obligate us not only to stay with the MUD for our wastewater treatment, but even to finance a significant part of a scheduled upgrade and expansion of the current rather old and tattered plant. So for the next few years, we'll probably be looking for opportunities to renegotiate the contract's requirements and freedoms. It turns out not to be all that expensive or time-consuming to get an independent permit or build and operate an independent wastewater treatment plant, and it's something I'd love to learn about. It will irritate the MUD, though, and will be politically touchy. And of course it may never happen; we may mend all the fences and/or simply find the contract requires us to grin and bear it.
Sorting through all this stuff, which had a 10-year complicated history before I got involved, has proved engrossing. I attend not only my district's meetings, but increasingly the public meetings of other entities, such as the MUD, the County Commissioners Court, and a proposed new Groundwater Commission. While the infrastructure issues I have to get up to speed on are wildly interesting, I probably never will learn to like attending a lot of meetings regularly every month. I do it because I feel the only way to keep distant government at bay is to have strong local government that doesn't flub matters and leave a public mess. It turns out, though, that there are almost limitless meetings of this kind. As it is, I don't attend monthly meetings of the fire department or the Republican Party, let alone multi-county regional meetings addressing things like the groundwater situation. I've never attended a state political convention or an annual Diocesan meeting. It could eat up your whole life, going to these things: not the best choice for an introvert.
On this small peninsula, there are a handful of companies supplying water--generally well water with an associated RO treatment plant, because our well water is brackish and pretty awful--but only one entity supplies the wastewater treatment, under contract with all the others. That entity is itself a government district, in this case an ordinary municipal utility district. Recently we had some heavy rains, which predictably infiltrated the MUD's leaky sewer lines. At the same time, a building contractor on my own district's property apparently used an insufficient sewer plug to protect an open sewer line at one of the building sites, and the extra pressure from the heavy rain blew it out, causing even more freshwater intrusion in the sewer lines. The wastewater plant shut down operations only for a few hours, but cut my district off from sewer services for months while we all argued about how big a check the contractor's insurance company should write for the damage that could be attributed to the sewer plug. (We paid a honey-dipper to truck out the relatively small amount of sewage from the few current residents.) Do our state utility laws and the wastewater service contract permit the MUD to cut off our sewer services for financial leverage, after it's clear there no longer is a safety/operations issue? I'd say no, but my district's counsel is not what you would call aggressive, or even energetic; they're terrific at complying with the open-meetings rules and shepherding us through bond offerings and tax issues, but not so inclined to jump into contract negotiations or litigation. All I know is, before the MUD gets another chance to deny us service for financial leverage, I'd like to have other options, especially when we have enough residents that honey-dipping is hardly practical. Our contract, however, appears to obligate us not only to stay with the MUD for our wastewater treatment, but even to finance a significant part of a scheduled upgrade and expansion of the current rather old and tattered plant. So for the next few years, we'll probably be looking for opportunities to renegotiate the contract's requirements and freedoms. It turns out not to be all that expensive or time-consuming to get an independent permit or build and operate an independent wastewater treatment plant, and it's something I'd love to learn about. It will irritate the MUD, though, and will be politically touchy. And of course it may never happen; we may mend all the fences and/or simply find the contract requires us to grin and bear it.
Sorting through all this stuff, which had a 10-year complicated history before I got involved, has proved engrossing. I attend not only my district's meetings, but increasingly the public meetings of other entities, such as the MUD, the County Commissioners Court, and a proposed new Groundwater Commission. While the infrastructure issues I have to get up to speed on are wildly interesting, I probably never will learn to like attending a lot of meetings regularly every month. I do it because I feel the only way to keep distant government at bay is to have strong local government that doesn't flub matters and leave a public mess. It turns out, though, that there are almost limitless meetings of this kind. As it is, I don't attend monthly meetings of the fire department or the Republican Party, let alone multi-county regional meetings addressing things like the groundwater situation. I've never attended a state political convention or an annual Diocesan meeting. It could eat up your whole life, going to these things: not the best choice for an introvert.
Gowdy Buys Lynch's Defense
He sounds very argumentative, except at one moment where he agrees that he 'understands that' it is important to protect the confidentiality of Lynch's team.
Her argument is that it's very important that these decisions not be touched by politics. That is to say, in this case, that it is important that they not have to explain themselves to the American people. This is being presented as an interest in justice: that it is important to justice itself that these decisions not only be made out of the public square, but that the explanation for the decisions never be revealed to the public at all.
And that's the part that Gowdy buys.
Her argument is that it's very important that these decisions not be touched by politics. That is to say, in this case, that it is important that they not have to explain themselves to the American people. This is being presented as an interest in justice: that it is important to justice itself that these decisions not only be made out of the public square, but that the explanation for the decisions never be revealed to the public at all.
And that's the part that Gowdy buys.
Trump Has A Point Here
Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton doesn't make any sense. It is like Occupy endorsing Wall Street.
The Clintons' actual word is worthless, but they do carry out their threats and fulfill at least those promises for which they were paid large sums of money. I suppose some combination of threats and promises must have carried the day.
The Clintons' actual word is worthless, but they do carry out their threats and fulfill at least those promises for which they were paid large sums of money. I suppose some combination of threats and promises must have carried the day.
Republicans Adopt Very Pro-Israel Platform Plank
You can read it here. I certainly do support Israel, for a number of reasons, but I have some questions about this plank.
Of greatest interest to me is the commitment to help Israel maintain a qualitatively superior military force. Barack Obama has been fueling both sides of an arms race in the Middle East. On the one hand he has guttied provisions that restrained Iran's development of ballistic missile technology, while allowing them to purchase upgraded missiles from Russia, and heavy weapons from China and elsewhere. He's also provided them with a vast windfall from the end of sanctions, cutting free tons of money that Iran is now using in large part for military upgrades (and support to its network of proxy fighters like Hezbollah). On the other hand, he has been trying to buy support for this Iran policy from Sunni states by selling them advanced American weapons in much larger quantities than ever before.
Thus, maintaining a "qualitatively superior military" in Israel has gotten a lot harder. A cynical man might see this plank as a gift to the 'military-industrial complex' of which we've heard so much. Even a non-cynical man who is a true friend to Israel might wonder about what exactly this entails, given that we are already in back of a major escalation in the Middle East's arms race. Are we going to cut sales to other nations? Can we re-impose sanctions on Iran in a meaningful way, given that the UN Security Council ruling is going to prevent most other countries from going along with it even if we try? Or -- should this plank become America's foreign policy -- are we just committing to pumping even more weapons and technologies into Israel to try to keep them ahead of the flood?
Of greatest interest to me is the commitment to help Israel maintain a qualitatively superior military force. Barack Obama has been fueling both sides of an arms race in the Middle East. On the one hand he has guttied provisions that restrained Iran's development of ballistic missile technology, while allowing them to purchase upgraded missiles from Russia, and heavy weapons from China and elsewhere. He's also provided them with a vast windfall from the end of sanctions, cutting free tons of money that Iran is now using in large part for military upgrades (and support to its network of proxy fighters like Hezbollah). On the other hand, he has been trying to buy support for this Iran policy from Sunni states by selling them advanced American weapons in much larger quantities than ever before.
Thus, maintaining a "qualitatively superior military" in Israel has gotten a lot harder. A cynical man might see this plank as a gift to the 'military-industrial complex' of which we've heard so much. Even a non-cynical man who is a true friend to Israel might wonder about what exactly this entails, given that we are already in back of a major escalation in the Middle East's arms race. Are we going to cut sales to other nations? Can we re-impose sanctions on Iran in a meaningful way, given that the UN Security Council ruling is going to prevent most other countries from going along with it even if we try? Or -- should this plank become America's foreign policy -- are we just committing to pumping even more weapons and technologies into Israel to try to keep them ahead of the flood?
Not Getting It
The President fails to understand the shooting in Dallas, in two different and predictable ways.
The far more dangerous misunderstanding is the idea that this was a "hate crime." This was not a crime in the ordinary sense of the word. It was an act of war. It was not a terrorist attack either, but a guerrilla attack that was consonant with most of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions -- especially if you include Protocol I, which the United States has not ratified, but which intends to clarify the status of guerrillas in the laws of war. The only questionable provision is the one requiring them to be under the command of a central authority: this group may have had a commanding officer among them, but it does not appear to have been part of a larger movement. Their status is therefore unclear pending the resolution of that question, and whether a 'central' authority can be derived from such a small group.
The reason this is important is not to say that the shootings were morally better or worse than a terrorist attack or a hate crime. That's a debatable question at best, and one that can be set aside completely at the moment. The reason that it's important is that the solution set is different. If it's a terrorist attack, you kill the terrorists. Terrorists are hostis humani generis. They target civilians, destroy the infrastructure on which life depends, and so forth. This attack waited until civilians dispersed, and targeted only armed agents of the state.
If it's a hate crime, you can be satisfied with merely arresting and prosecuting the hateful criminals. That sets a standard of what is acceptable within the community that will be persuasive, such that even those who are hateful will mostly be motivated by the fear of punishment not to commit such crimes.
A guerrilla swims in a sea of popular support, however. A guerrilla movement cannot exist without such a sea, as Mao pointed out. If you are dealing with a guerrilla movement, you need to address the underlying problems that are giving rise to the support for the killers.
It should be clear from the reaction nationwide that there is a sea for these fish to swim in. Likewise, the fact that "20 to 30" people brought rifles to the BLM protest suggests that there is a strong message being sent to the government that it has reached the limits of patience, and that armed force is the next option. I support such armed, peaceful protests. It's true that armed protesters can confuse police in the case of an actual attack. In that case, the police are justified in treating armed protesters as shooters until they prove themselves otherwise. But it is important that the government recognize that this willingness to take that kind of risk onto one's self is an indicator that political legitimacy has become strained. Legitimacy derives from consent of the governed. A polity that brings rifles to confront the government is still consenting to be governed: they are lawfully protesting and not shooting. But they are an important warning siren that the limits of consent have been reached, and the government should reform itself.
Ultimately I think it would make more sense for the armed protesters from the III% movement and the ones from the BLM movement to get together, and present a unified challenge to a government that has grown accustomed to exceeding its authority. A shift to a more consensual model of government would benefit all of us. There is a common flaw in the approach that gives rise to BLM -- that's "Bureau of Land Management" -- abuses out West, and the shift by localities into using police to generate revenue through the constant extraction of fines.
Nor have I any patience for the liberal/progressive tendency to sing songs of love for BLM -- that's "Black Lives Matter" -- while suggesting that they should definitely disarm themselves and pursue only fully peaceful and nonviolent resistance. If you really respect what they're doing, have the decency to recognize their right to arms. Free citizens don't submit to tyranny, nor are they under any moral obligation to endure it peacefully while begging for relief. Martin Luther King, Jr., was as successful as he was in part because he could point to the crazy radicals like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. 'Deal with my movement of Christians adhering to ordinary middle-class morality,' he did not even have to say, 'or, if you will not work with us, deal with the radicals your resistance to change creates.' If you really want to see change, rich white progressives, you should be glad to see this dynamic emerging. Your attempt to marry gun control to loud public signalling of your support for BLM sounds to me like an attempt to slip in submission to your own preferred moral scheme -- a centralized, powerful government with authority to regulate all aspects of American life, and with the sole claim to the legitimate use of force. If you really care about this as you claim to do, progressives, have the courage to dare a potentially revolutionary conflict.
Sometimes violence is a good thing. Violent resistance to overbearing authority gave us Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. None of those things would have existed without men taking up arms to fight for liberty against powerful authority. Political violence also often leads to bad results. You should recognize, however, that this particular moment is not a moment of crime, or hate, or terrorism. Those solutions aren't adequate or appropriate to this situation.
The president met for nearly two hours with leaders of eight law enforcement groups Monday, informing them that he considered the killing of the five police officers in Dallas on Thursday “a hate crime” and that he would work actively to serve as an intermediary between minority activists and police.Once more, it's all about him and his unique and pivotal role in human history. I'm reminded of his comments at the time of the financial crisis that he was the 'only one between the banks and the pitchforks.'
“I’m your best hope,” Obama remarked at one point, according to the Fraternal Order of Police’s James O. Pasco, one of the meeting’s attendees.
The far more dangerous misunderstanding is the idea that this was a "hate crime." This was not a crime in the ordinary sense of the word. It was an act of war. It was not a terrorist attack either, but a guerrilla attack that was consonant with most of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions -- especially if you include Protocol I, which the United States has not ratified, but which intends to clarify the status of guerrillas in the laws of war. The only questionable provision is the one requiring them to be under the command of a central authority: this group may have had a commanding officer among them, but it does not appear to have been part of a larger movement. Their status is therefore unclear pending the resolution of that question, and whether a 'central' authority can be derived from such a small group.
The reason this is important is not to say that the shootings were morally better or worse than a terrorist attack or a hate crime. That's a debatable question at best, and one that can be set aside completely at the moment. The reason that it's important is that the solution set is different. If it's a terrorist attack, you kill the terrorists. Terrorists are hostis humani generis. They target civilians, destroy the infrastructure on which life depends, and so forth. This attack waited until civilians dispersed, and targeted only armed agents of the state.
If it's a hate crime, you can be satisfied with merely arresting and prosecuting the hateful criminals. That sets a standard of what is acceptable within the community that will be persuasive, such that even those who are hateful will mostly be motivated by the fear of punishment not to commit such crimes.
A guerrilla swims in a sea of popular support, however. A guerrilla movement cannot exist without such a sea, as Mao pointed out. If you are dealing with a guerrilla movement, you need to address the underlying problems that are giving rise to the support for the killers.
It should be clear from the reaction nationwide that there is a sea for these fish to swim in. Likewise, the fact that "20 to 30" people brought rifles to the BLM protest suggests that there is a strong message being sent to the government that it has reached the limits of patience, and that armed force is the next option. I support such armed, peaceful protests. It's true that armed protesters can confuse police in the case of an actual attack. In that case, the police are justified in treating armed protesters as shooters until they prove themselves otherwise. But it is important that the government recognize that this willingness to take that kind of risk onto one's self is an indicator that political legitimacy has become strained. Legitimacy derives from consent of the governed. A polity that brings rifles to confront the government is still consenting to be governed: they are lawfully protesting and not shooting. But they are an important warning siren that the limits of consent have been reached, and the government should reform itself.
Ultimately I think it would make more sense for the armed protesters from the III% movement and the ones from the BLM movement to get together, and present a unified challenge to a government that has grown accustomed to exceeding its authority. A shift to a more consensual model of government would benefit all of us. There is a common flaw in the approach that gives rise to BLM -- that's "Bureau of Land Management" -- abuses out West, and the shift by localities into using police to generate revenue through the constant extraction of fines.
Nor have I any patience for the liberal/progressive tendency to sing songs of love for BLM -- that's "Black Lives Matter" -- while suggesting that they should definitely disarm themselves and pursue only fully peaceful and nonviolent resistance. If you really respect what they're doing, have the decency to recognize their right to arms. Free citizens don't submit to tyranny, nor are they under any moral obligation to endure it peacefully while begging for relief. Martin Luther King, Jr., was as successful as he was in part because he could point to the crazy radicals like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. 'Deal with my movement of Christians adhering to ordinary middle-class morality,' he did not even have to say, 'or, if you will not work with us, deal with the radicals your resistance to change creates.' If you really want to see change, rich white progressives, you should be glad to see this dynamic emerging. Your attempt to marry gun control to loud public signalling of your support for BLM sounds to me like an attempt to slip in submission to your own preferred moral scheme -- a centralized, powerful government with authority to regulate all aspects of American life, and with the sole claim to the legitimate use of force. If you really care about this as you claim to do, progressives, have the courage to dare a potentially revolutionary conflict.
Sometimes violence is a good thing. Violent resistance to overbearing authority gave us Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. None of those things would have existed without men taking up arms to fight for liberty against powerful authority. Political violence also often leads to bad results. You should recognize, however, that this particular moment is not a moment of crime, or hate, or terrorism. Those solutions aren't adequate or appropriate to this situation.
Haidt on Globalism v. Nationalism
He has the rare insight, for a member of his class, that the debate is not about why a healthy and sane globalism is being overtaken by a virulent nationalism. Rather, he says, we have to explain why globalism is attractive to anyone -- it cuts against several very normal moral senses.
It's a good piece, although as usual Haidt strikes me as wrong about some important aspects of things. Still, he is wrong with an open mind that is trying to grasp the other side's position. That's worth something.
Rather than tell you what I think is wrong, though, I'll leave the matter open in case you want to discuss it in the comments.
It's a good piece, although as usual Haidt strikes me as wrong about some important aspects of things. Still, he is wrong with an open mind that is trying to grasp the other side's position. That's worth something.
Rather than tell you what I think is wrong, though, I'll leave the matter open in case you want to discuss it in the comments.
What'd They Need a Pilot For? They Found Canada Fine the First Time
Draken Harald Hårfagre, the Viking ship currently visiting the Americas, has been forced to withdraw from "the Tall Ships Challenge 2016," an event held on the Great Lakes. The reason is that Canada decided to slap them with a massive pilotage fee in spite of having promised them that they wouldn't.
Still, that's silly given that this is a Viking ship conducting a nonprofit educational mission and not a commercial freighter. You'd think some good-spirited pilot would volunteer his time, and Canada would have the decency to waive the fees. The only thing more rapacious than a boatload of Viking warriors is a Canadian tax collector, I suppose.
The ship was invited to participate in the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2016 and entered the waters of St Lawrence and the Great Lakes with information from the Great Lakes Pilotage Authorities that a ship of the size and variety of Draken Harald Hårfagre would be excepted the requirement of pilotage. “…Foreign ships of less than 35 meters in overall length are not subject to compulsory pilotage in the Great Lakes Region”Indeed not, though I think there's a decimal point missing in that fee. It looks like the charge is going to be closer to four thousand dollars than four hundred thousand.
The expedition relied on the information from the Pilotage Authorities and the possibility not to be a subject to compulsory pilotage. Unfortunately the project learned, when entering the St Lawrence Seaway, that the ship is required a pilot at all times while at sea with no possibility of reduction in cost. The cost for the pilotage, if the ship were to participate in the schedule for Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2016, is well over 400 000 USD.
The fees are not within reason for a non profit sail training vessel, it blocks the opportunity for any foreign tall ship to enter the Great Lakes and visit the ports.
Still, that's silly given that this is a Viking ship conducting a nonprofit educational mission and not a commercial freighter. You'd think some good-spirited pilot would volunteer his time, and Canada would have the decency to waive the fees. The only thing more rapacious than a boatload of Viking warriors is a Canadian tax collector, I suppose.
"My Biggest Flaw? I Just Work Too Darned Hard."
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)