Six Days on the Road
I got home after midnight, so it might even qualify as seven days -- I was just about five hours short of seven full days, in fact. I'm back home now.
The big lesson of the DNC is that it was exactly unlike the RNC on the question of real democracy. The RNC was chaotic in the hall, but eventually followed the will of the voters against the party elites, as you will remember.
The DNC ran exactly the other way. Everything that happened at the DNC was designed to create the greatest possible show of unity, in the face of a massive revolt by the rank and file voters.
There was a big walkout of Bernie delegates on Tuesday. It's not clear how big, because the media spent more time debunking numbers that were too big (in order to suggest that there was really nothing to the story at all). Reports of up to 700 walkouts are probably overstated. Reports of 150 -- which is around three times as many as the Dixiecrat walkout of 1948 -- might not be unreasonable. I met a number of delegates in the protest areas, and heard more of them speak. The cameras I saw didn't reflect the big number of empty seats.
Bernie Sanders himself was apparently pressed into trying to force his delegates to agree to electing Hillary Clinton by acclamation. That provoked a movement by the protesters to march on the convention on Tuesday afternoon, and was what apparently provoked the walkout -- after the delegates defeated that attempt, and had placed their votes against Hillary Clinton.
There were a lot of boos inside the building before the walkout on Tuesday, and fewer afterwards. In addition to just having fewer people to boo, though, I gather that the Democratic party installed noise machines designed to overwhelm the booers with fake applause. I didn't see that personally, but it would fit.
There were reports that the Democrats hired seat-fillers to fill the empty seats left by Bernie delegates. I saw a media report "debunking" that story too. OK. But I also met a rather drunk black man on the bus home Wednesday night who claimed, before I'd read any such stories or any purported debunking, to have spent the day in the convention hall in just that role, where he claimed to have met several leading Democrats during the course of the day. Now, he was trying to impress this girl he was hitting on at the time. Maybe he was making it up. Nevertheless, the stories he was telling lined up perfectly with the reports that the media was trying hard to debunk later.
I would just like to state that, in decades of being around many radical thinkers on both the left and the right, I have never heard such passionate profanity directed at Hillary Clinton as I heard from the progressives this week. I don't say that to condemn the progressives, who were badly cheated by this whole process. Their anger is righteous, even if it has indecent expression on occasion. (Another thing covered up by the media, I gather: you're supposed to think that hateful sexist language is the preserve of the right, but it was way more intense at the progressive protests this week than I've ever heard from a right-winger of any kind.)
Meanwhile, of course, the protests themselves were designed to erect another means of control that would prevent the DNC from being embarrassed on television. The protests were confined to 'free speech zones' at least some distance from the convention hall. The official protest groups bought access to the microphone by agreeing to be confined away from television cameras. Mostly, in return for submission to this system, they were left alone to say what they wanted to say. However, during the "Black Men for Bernie" protest -- which happened to occur the same afternoon that the last of the Freddie Gray charges were dropped -- the police invaded the "free speech zone" in force, with lots of zip cuffs at the ready.
It wasn't necessary. The Black Men for Bernie were furious, but they restricted their objections to the free speech they'd signed up to provide.
The only people who stormed the barricades were a band of anarchists on Wednesday night. There weren't enough of them to do more than create a spectacle, though, because every kind of cop in America was there in as large a number as could be provided.
The show of party unity you watched on television was just that: a show. The Democratic Party is going into this election divided like never before. They've brought it on themselves through corruption of their own electoral systems, as revealed by the DNC email leak as well as what is now multiple studies. The DNC chose to favor the interests of the powerful, rich, well-connected Clinton machine instead of obedience to a real democratic contest. They deserve to bear the consequences of that decision.
A Handmade Longbow
Neeman Tools, maker of hand-forged woodworking tools and knives, will soon be selling handmade longbows. Here's a great video they made of a bowyer crafting one.
H/t Popular Mechanics
The Birth Of A Weapon. Part I. English longbow making. from John Neeman Tools on Vimeo.
H/t Popular Mechanics
Chant & Polyphony
According to the All-Knowing Wikipedia:
In music, polyphony is one type of musical texture, where a texture is, generally speaking, the way that melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic aspects of a musical composition are combined to shape the overall sound and quality of the work. In particular, polyphony consists of two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody, as opposed to a musical texture with just one voice, monophony, or a texture with one dominant melodic voice accompanied by chords, which is called homophony.
Within the context of the Western musical tradition, the term polyphony is usually used to refer to music of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Baroque forms such as fugue, which might be called polyphonic, are usually described instead as contrapuntal. Also, as opposed to the species terminology of counterpoint [clarification needed], polyphony was generally either "pitch-against-pitch" / "point-against-point" or "sustained-pitch" in one part with melismas of varying lengths in another. In all cases the conception was probably what Margaret Bent (1999) calls "dyadic counterpoint", with each part being written generally against one other part, with all parts modified if needed in the end. This point-against-point conception is opposed to "successive composition", where voices were written in an order with each new voice fitting into the whole so far constructed, which was previously assumed.
The term polyphony is also sometimes used more broadly, to describe any musical texture that is not monophonic. Such a perspective considers homophony as a sub-type of polyphony.
Blue Bloods: A Mildly Inebriated Review
To begin, I should note that homemade sangria can be stronger than you might think. That said, I've been thoroughly enjoying this rather unique -- for today -- cop show. It features a family of career NYPD officers who are dedicated to their jobs and to each other.
Granddad is a retired police officer and former police commissioner who has plenty of "Back in my day, we just beat the crap out of them until they confessed" stories.
Dad is the current police commissioner who does an admirable balancing act between the various personalities in his family (see the following). And, you know, running the NYPD, dealing with politicians and the media, that sort of thing.
Older brother is a police detective who takes after Granddad; also, he spent two tours in Iraq with the Marines. He is married with two kids.
Younger brother is a Harvard Law grad who decided to make a career as a cop. He's so by-the-book that he probably writes the editors love letters. (You can imagine the sibling arguments with older brother.)
And, older sister is not quite in the family business: She's an assistant district attorney who always seems to be explaining to older brother why the DA won't press charges (yet). She is divorced and raising a teenage daughter who brings in the youth perspective.
What's unique?
The family is Irish Catholic. Religion doesn't play a big role in the series, but we do see the family praying together before meals, and at times Dad seeks advice from a priest or cardinal (it's NYC).
Granddad is a vet - Korean War. Dad is a vet - Vietnam. And, as mentioned, older brother is a vet.
Balance: Generally, there is a real balance of viewpoints. Not always: There are a few episodes where it's not quite balanced, and one where we get outright preached to (we heathens!). But generally, it's probably the most balanced series I've watched in a long time.
There are six seasons on Amazon Prime for free. I recommend it, if you like cop shows, or family shows.
Granddad is a retired police officer and former police commissioner who has plenty of "Back in my day, we just beat the crap out of them until they confessed" stories.
Dad is the current police commissioner who does an admirable balancing act between the various personalities in his family (see the following). And, you know, running the NYPD, dealing with politicians and the media, that sort of thing.
Older brother is a police detective who takes after Granddad; also, he spent two tours in Iraq with the Marines. He is married with two kids.
Younger brother is a Harvard Law grad who decided to make a career as a cop. He's so by-the-book that he probably writes the editors love letters. (You can imagine the sibling arguments with older brother.)
And, older sister is not quite in the family business: She's an assistant district attorney who always seems to be explaining to older brother why the DA won't press charges (yet). She is divorced and raising a teenage daughter who brings in the youth perspective.
What's unique?
The family is Irish Catholic. Religion doesn't play a big role in the series, but we do see the family praying together before meals, and at times Dad seeks advice from a priest or cardinal (it's NYC).
Granddad is a vet - Korean War. Dad is a vet - Vietnam. And, as mentioned, older brother is a vet.
Balance: Generally, there is a real balance of viewpoints. Not always: There are a few episodes where it's not quite balanced, and one where we get outright preached to (we heathens!). But generally, it's probably the most balanced series I've watched in a long time.
There are six seasons on Amazon Prime for free. I recommend it, if you like cop shows, or family shows.
A Rebuttal to Those Who Insist We Vote for Trump
David Harsanyi over at the Federalist has penned a good think-piece for those who insist Republicans have to vote for Trump now: If David Duke Won, Wouldn't Republicans Have to Vote for Him?
Beginning with the hypothetical of Duke winning the GOP presidential primary, he asks:
You get the idea. It's a thoughtful look at the issue.
UPDATE: I gave a taste of Harsanyi's opening above in the expectation that people would read his article for his conclusions. If you want his conclusions without clicking over to read the rest, I've discussed that a bit in the comments. It's the comment at 10:47 PM. Key point: Harsanyi is not claiming Trump is the same as Duke. He's just talking about the arguments often used against #NeverTrumpers.
AND ANOTHER THING: We've argued about who to vote for when both candidates are pretty sketchy, so this is intended to be part of that discussion. I will probably hold my nose and vote for Trump as the lesser evil. But that's me; my values push me in that direction.
Other people, whom I often agree with on the issues, have different values that push them in a different direction, and they can't vote for Trump. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think those people are bad or stupid for voting their own consciences instead of mine. So we vote differently this election; as far as I'm concerned, we're still on the same side.
But right now a lot of Republicans do seem to have a problem with the #NeverTrumpers, and I thought Harsanyi did a good job defending the #NeverTrump position from the conservative side.
Beginning with the hypothetical of Duke winning the GOP presidential primary, he asks:
What if Duke promised to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices? Let’s say he drew up an extensive list of Federalist Society-approved justices that conservatives simply loved? Would they then vote for him then? Sean Spicer says no. Please don’t tell me you’re willing to surrender the court to a progressive agenda for a generation. If you don’t vote for Duke, it would be tantamount to abandoning law and order. As pro-Trump Republicans often stress, national elections are a binary choice.
It’s not just about justices, either. Duke would almost certainly build an impenetrable wall along the Mexican border to stop the flow of illegal immigration. ...
Duke would also limit Islamic immigration to keep America safe again. ...
You know elitists would simply hate Duke. Probably because the Klansman refuses to be constrained by political correctness. ...
You get the idea. It's a thoughtful look at the issue.
UPDATE: I gave a taste of Harsanyi's opening above in the expectation that people would read his article for his conclusions. If you want his conclusions without clicking over to read the rest, I've discussed that a bit in the comments. It's the comment at 10:47 PM. Key point: Harsanyi is not claiming Trump is the same as Duke. He's just talking about the arguments often used against #NeverTrumpers.
AND ANOTHER THING: We've argued about who to vote for when both candidates are pretty sketchy, so this is intended to be part of that discussion. I will probably hold my nose and vote for Trump as the lesser evil. But that's me; my values push me in that direction.
Other people, whom I often agree with on the issues, have different values that push them in a different direction, and they can't vote for Trump. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think those people are bad or stupid for voting their own consciences instead of mine. So we vote differently this election; as far as I'm concerned, we're still on the same side.
But right now a lot of Republicans do seem to have a problem with the #NeverTrumpers, and I thought Harsanyi did a good job defending the #NeverTrump position from the conservative side.
Some Snarky Country to Get Your Wednesday Going
And just to chill out, "It's Time to Get a Gun"
Yep. When it's all said and done, someone's gotta walk into the night. That's actually an old Fred Eaglesmith tune. For comparison ...
Come Be PC
From Chris Ray Gun, the guy who brought us "Ain't No Rest for the Triggered." It's kinda like the Disney version of "Ain't No Rest," but not really for kids. Although, that may depend on your definition of kids. Maybe some "kids" need to hear this. I dunno.
Anyway:
Anyway:
A Dem for Trump
A gentleman named Adam Townsend has given his reasons for supporting Trump in some detail. Some of what he says sounds like he would fit in quite well here, but other parts ... well, the unhappy left has its own reasons for being disaffected by some of the same things we are. The whole thing is worth reading, but I've put some tasty tidbits below to whet your appetites. The original is full of links to supporting articles as well.
Hillary
When this presidential cycle began I was determined to vote for Hillary.But, I suffer from the double edge of an annoyingly inquisitive nature.
#NeverHillary
Hillary and her political enablers and courtiers argue that the Democratic party must come together to defeat the ‘evil’ of Trump, I disagree…
It is far more ‘evil’ and destructive to the United States to permit Hillary to be our president:
Foreign Policy. Hillary was a horrible Secretary of State that made very poor decisions in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Egypt.
Clinton Global (and its related entities) is a department store of political, multinational, corruption. The charity is under investigation, it was the middle man in weapons deals to foreign nations, it brokered a treasonous uranium deal to Russia, it stole money from Haiti and small contributors after the earthquake, it was deeply involved in a larcenous private college, Laureate University, it has allied with some of the worst dictators in the world and it may unravel slowly as the greatest charity fraud in history.
Emails: The email ‘issue’ is an open and shut conviction within the Espionage Act.
...
Free Speech
...
Free speech is a safety valve. Reducing our language of any possible offensive character is being engineered not to salve, but to create turmoil. Big state (your tax dollars) is manufacturing chaos and then big state (your tax dollars) is coming into legislate and police. Big state is setting the fire and then calls the fire department and becomes a hero.
...
Miscellany incomplete thoughts
...
The mechanics of propaganda are bombarding every channel of distribution with an untrue and anachronistic view of our remarkable history, our people and the achievement of our Constitution. There has never been anything like it and it is being eroded, purposefully, by both sides. Each take turns pushing its envelope and each uses the Supreme Court to legitimize the Federal overreach.
...
On the Road
I'm going to be gone for a week. I may post from the road, or not. Keep yourselves entertained.
Why Are Voters So Angry
Myron Magnet, of whom I've not heard before, has a piece in City Journal on the question. He's not wrong, but there is a strangeness about locating the problem as beginning in the Woodrow Wilson administration. If this has been acceptable since WWI, why are voters angry about it now?
It's a piece worth reading all the same. Nevertheless, something more is needed to explain why voters are so angry right at this moment.
What has now largely displaced the Founders’ government is what’s called the Administrative State—a transformation premeditated by its main architect, Woodrow Wilson. The thin-skinned, self-righteous college-professor president, who thought himself enlightened far beyond the citizenry, dismissed the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights as so much outmoded “nonsense,” and he rejected the Founders’ clunky constitutional machinery as obsolete. (See “It’s Not Your Founding Fathers’ Republic Any More,” Summer 2014.) What a modern country needed, he said, was a “living constitution” that would keep pace with the fast-changing times by continual, Darwinian adaptation, as he called it, effected by federal courts acting as a permanent constitutional convention.That's an argument readers of the Hall will find quite familiar. Still, that's a hundred years ago.
It's a piece worth reading all the same. Nevertheless, something more is needed to explain why voters are so angry right at this moment.
Of Course the Russians Are Helping Trump
I realize that the impulse is to doubt everything said by Clinton or one of her appointees, and that's a very healthy and good impulse. It will serve you well. But this time, the guy is right. Wikileaks is a Russian intelligence project. Russia Today, which has been leading the broadcasting of this story, is openly Russian propaganda.
Doubtless Putin takes Trump's outspoken pragmatism about NATO to be a good sign for Russian interests. No one really doubts that everyone would be pragmatic in fact, but the secret in diplomacy is you're supposed to pretend that you would be principled instead. This is an old story.
Hillary Clinton, being a former Secretary of State, understands the rules and is playing accordingly. This has led to the highly amusing spectacle of her supporters, many of whom would disband the nuclear forces entirely if they had their druthers, arguing for a week about how important it is to have a strong deterrent against Russian aggression. They are no more serious about nuking Russia than she is, but they're all pretending they are.
The fact is that President Obama has weakened the United States' global position so much that the next president will have no choice but retrenchment. Some concessions will have to be made to Russia, to China, and possibly even to Iran. Clinton will make those concessions if elected in terms of conceding American power to 'international' institutions that happen to favor Russian or Chinese interests -- things like the TPP, which she will of course resume supporting once she's elected (as her VP choice does as well, I notice). Trump, on the other hand, will negotiate some sort of deal directly.
Either way, America's standing in the world will diminish, at least for a time. Even the most hawkish president would have no choice but to drop back and try to figure out what new lines are tenable.
Doubtless Putin takes Trump's outspoken pragmatism about NATO to be a good sign for Russian interests. No one really doubts that everyone would be pragmatic in fact, but the secret in diplomacy is you're supposed to pretend that you would be principled instead. This is an old story.
Hillary Clinton, being a former Secretary of State, understands the rules and is playing accordingly. This has led to the highly amusing spectacle of her supporters, many of whom would disband the nuclear forces entirely if they had their druthers, arguing for a week about how important it is to have a strong deterrent against Russian aggression. They are no more serious about nuking Russia than she is, but they're all pretending they are.
The fact is that President Obama has weakened the United States' global position so much that the next president will have no choice but retrenchment. Some concessions will have to be made to Russia, to China, and possibly even to Iran. Clinton will make those concessions if elected in terms of conceding American power to 'international' institutions that happen to favor Russian or Chinese interests -- things like the TPP, which she will of course resume supporting once she's elected (as her VP choice does as well, I notice). Trump, on the other hand, will negotiate some sort of deal directly.
Either way, America's standing in the world will diminish, at least for a time. Even the most hawkish president would have no choice but to drop back and try to figure out what new lines are tenable.
Live Free or Die
I'll never flee my country, but will fight -- and die, if necessary -- to preserve our freedoms. However, if you were looking for a nice place that's reputedly willing to accept American refugees from Donald Trump, you could hardly beat Inishturk. Perhaps we could send our noncombatants there -- whoever wins.
An Even Worse Lexicon
The other day, we were talking about an attempt to provide a lexicon for terrorism both from Islam and the far right. It was really solid on the Islam question, but was very weak in providing an accurate name for "far right" actors. It was functional for part of its intended purpose, then, but not all of it.
The Lawfare Blog has proposed its own similar lexicon of violence, and it is even less useful. It has two major flaws, which I will explain once I give you the lexicon.
1) All of this is ultimately rooted on the definition of "Violent Extremist Ideology," which is unspecified. Thus, the whole thing is groundless. Specifying exactly what a Violent Extremist Ideology is -- so that it captures all and only the right kind of actors, leaving legitimate political actors alone -- is the real work to be done, and it's untouched.
2) This approach elides essential differences. By essential differences I mean things that make the other things necessary. The first lexicon accurately captured that a commitment to jihad was what was making all the violence necessary. The right wing groups are doing whatever they're doing for entirely different reasons. Violent Communist groups, like the Maoists in the Philippines, are necessarily committed to violence out of a different essential understanding of the world and their place in it. Since ultimately you have to get at the motivations of violent groups in order to make the violence go away, collapsing these essential distinctions is a terrible idea.
The motivation for all of this is to try to treat different kinds of radical groups "equally," I suppose. Yet equality isn't what we're interested in here: we don't have to be afraid of being unjust to people who run over children with big trucks. We need to retain an understanding of just what is moving them to do all these things, because it is that motivating force that we ultimately have to deal with.
The Lawfare Blog has proposed its own similar lexicon of violence, and it is even less useful. It has two major flaws, which I will explain once I give you the lexicon.
Violent Extremist Organization: An organization that takes action to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.There are two big issues here, as I mentioned.
Violent Extremist: An individual who take actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.
Resident Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who takes actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology in the same State in which they are considered a national under the operation of its law.
Non-Resident Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who takes actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology in a different State than that in which they are considered a national under the operation of its law.
Supported Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who receives support for their actions from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.
Unsupported Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who does not receive support for their actions from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.
Inspired Action: When a Violent Extremist takes action that is inspired by a Violent Extremist Ideology.
Directed Action: When a Violent Extremist takes action based upon direction they received from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.
Spontaneous Action: When an individual with no known previous plausible ties to a Violent Extremist Ideology, Violent Extremists, or a Violent Extremist Organization, suddenly takes action, with little planning or preparation, to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.
Opportunistic Claim: When an individual with no known previous plausible ties to a Violent Extremist Ideology, Violent Extremists, or a Violent Extremist Organization engages in violence, and a Violent Extremist or Violent Extremist Organization claims responsibility without providing proof that they inspired or directed the action.
1) All of this is ultimately rooted on the definition of "Violent Extremist Ideology," which is unspecified. Thus, the whole thing is groundless. Specifying exactly what a Violent Extremist Ideology is -- so that it captures all and only the right kind of actors, leaving legitimate political actors alone -- is the real work to be done, and it's untouched.
2) This approach elides essential differences. By essential differences I mean things that make the other things necessary. The first lexicon accurately captured that a commitment to jihad was what was making all the violence necessary. The right wing groups are doing whatever they're doing for entirely different reasons. Violent Communist groups, like the Maoists in the Philippines, are necessarily committed to violence out of a different essential understanding of the world and their place in it. Since ultimately you have to get at the motivations of violent groups in order to make the violence go away, collapsing these essential distinctions is a terrible idea.
The motivation for all of this is to try to treat different kinds of radical groups "equally," I suppose. Yet equality isn't what we're interested in here: we don't have to be afraid of being unjust to people who run over children with big trucks. We need to retain an understanding of just what is moving them to do all these things, because it is that motivating force that we ultimately have to deal with.
Friday Night Party Music
First, "Medieval Music - Hardcore Party Mix"
... then some Nathaniel Rateliff & the Night Sweats, "S.O.B."
Alright, gimme a drink!
... then some Nathaniel Rateliff & the Night Sweats, "S.O.B."
Alright, gimme a drink!
Is a "Trainwreck" Ever Good?
To answer Ed Morrisey's question, there is one really positive aspect to the trainwreck in Cleveland. It proves, again, that the Republican party is not rigged.
The Democratic Party really is. We've seen the fix in for Clinton from the DNC's own internal messaging, from the way in which they structured the debates to favor Clinton's interests, and especially from the handling of her criminal troubles by the Justice Department. The whole system, up to and including the criminal justice system, was rigged to deliver her as nominee. When a substantial number of Democratic voters said, "No, thank you, we'd really prefer Bernie," the DNC bent itself backwards to make sure that he failed. The voter fraud was so bad that even Snopes can't bring themselves to fully deny it.
So, democracy is messy. The RNC had a rules fight, a floor fight, Ted Cruz's excellent speech on principle, and then nominated Donald Trump. Donald Trump, I mean, and not Jeb Bush. If the Republican party were rigged like the Democratic party, Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee this morning.
Factor that in to the choice, I suppose. The Democratic system is rigged from stem to stern. The Republicans are really taking this democracy thing seriously, even at the cost of losing control of the party, even at the cost of public embarrassment. Even, possibly, at the cost of what should have been an easily-winnable election.
Maybe that commitment to democracy ought to mean something. I leave it for you to decide.
The Democratic Party really is. We've seen the fix in for Clinton from the DNC's own internal messaging, from the way in which they structured the debates to favor Clinton's interests, and especially from the handling of her criminal troubles by the Justice Department. The whole system, up to and including the criminal justice system, was rigged to deliver her as nominee. When a substantial number of Democratic voters said, "No, thank you, we'd really prefer Bernie," the DNC bent itself backwards to make sure that he failed. The voter fraud was so bad that even Snopes can't bring themselves to fully deny it.
WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.That's funny stuff -- 'OK, the part about the study proving widespread voter fraud is true, but it's not really a 'Stanford Study,' it was just done by students at Stanford... and, er, nobody's going to check their work, because nobody wants to know if they're right.'
WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.
So, democracy is messy. The RNC had a rules fight, a floor fight, Ted Cruz's excellent speech on principle, and then nominated Donald Trump. Donald Trump, I mean, and not Jeb Bush. If the Republican party were rigged like the Democratic party, Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee this morning.
Factor that in to the choice, I suppose. The Democratic system is rigged from stem to stern. The Republicans are really taking this democracy thing seriously, even at the cost of losing control of the party, even at the cost of public embarrassment. Even, possibly, at the cost of what should have been an easily-winnable election.
Maybe that commitment to democracy ought to mean something. I leave it for you to decide.
Great Ape Starts Fires, Cooks Own Food
So if this election does lead to Armageddon, at least our replacements are on deck.
That's Convenient Timing
The Fraternal Order of Police hit Hillary Clinton on her convention speakers:
It sure is good timing for Donald Trump, who apparently intends to say the following lines in his speech:
“The Fraternal Order of Police is insulted and will not soon forget that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton are excluding the widows and other family members of police officers killed in the line of duty who were victims of explicit and not implied racism,” Mr. McNesby said in a statement.In fairness, there's no evidence that it is possible.
He said it’s “sad that to win an election Mrs. Clinton must pander to the interests of people who do not know all the facts, while the men and women they seek to destroy are outside protecting the political institutions of this country.
“Mrs. Clinton, you should be ashamed of yourself, if that is possible.”
It sure is good timing for Donald Trump, who apparently intends to say the following lines in his speech:
I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th 2017, safety will be restored.I don't know who wrote this speech, but they earned their money.
The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.
It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation.
I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.
So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths the Democrats are holding their convention next week.
But here, at our convention, there will be no lies. We will honor the American people with the truth, and nothing else.
These are the facts:
Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement.
Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60% in nearby Baltimore.
In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.
The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year.... The problems we face now – poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them.
A Paradigm Example of the Problem With OODA-Loop Gun Training For Police
When a 23-year-old autistic man carrying a toy truck wandered from a mental health center out into the street Monday, a worker there named Charles Kinsey went to retrieve him.It makes perfect sense. You train for a stimulus/response reaction, you're training the officers to shoot without thinking. He doesn't know why he shot. It's an honest answer. Some stimulus triggered the response. He never thought about whether to shoot at all.
A few minutes later the autistic man was still sitting cross-legged blocking the roadway while playing with the small, rectangular white toy. And Kinsey was prone on the ground next to him — a bullet from an assault rifle fired by a police officer having struck his leg.
“He throws his hands up in the air and says, ‘Don’t shoot me.’ They say lie on the ground, so he does,” Kinsey’s attorney Hilton Napoleon said Wednesday. “He’s on his back with his hands in the air trying to convince the other guy to lie down. It doesn’t make any sense.”
...
Kinsey said when he asked the officer why he fired his weapon, the cop responded, “I don’t know.”
Here's A Concept
80 % Arms sells unfinished upper and lower receivers that are perfectly legal to buy without any kind of license. They also sell jigs for finishing them. Looks like for less than $300 you could have both the jig and an unfinished lower, which you could finish at your convenience.
You could then purchase or build any kind of upper for it, and have a working rifle that's completely legal and yet also completely off the books.
You could then purchase or build any kind of upper for it, and have a working rifle that's completely legal and yet also completely off the books.
Range 15 in the Washington Post
The 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' of the military community, they quote Nick Palmisciano as saying.
Since its mid-June debut in the U.S., the comedy has brought in close to $700,000 at the box office in fan-sponsored screenings across the country. One of those screenings was late last month at Ashburn’s Alamo Drafthouse, selling out a 135-seat theater in a day. It was at that Virginia theater that Nick Palmisciano, a West Point grad and one of the movie’s stars and producers, began to wonder if the movie had hit a nerve.I can see that. There's another round of shows scheduled in Georgia. I don't know if any of them will make, but if they do, I might like to go back and shout dialog at the screen with comrades.
Predictably, most of the audience had military ties but, to Palmisciano’s surprise, about a third of the crowd had already seen earlier screenings. As the jokes and gore ratcheted up, he sat stunned as fans began to shout out dialogue.
Doctrine Man Poll: Johnson the Troop Favorite
I don't know if any of you participated in this poll, but here's how it shook out. It was a web-based poll, so the findings aren't considered scientific.
Current, reserve and former members of the Army preferred Johnson at 35.4 percent. Trump, the Republican nominee, came in second at 31.4 percent, and Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, at 15.3 percent.Unfortunately, the category of "family members" is going to be much larger than any of the other categories. Though relatively fewer family members voted than service members, in a real election their slight preference for her would have big effects on the total vote. Still, it's striking that even with Johnson as the runaway favorite, Trump still pulled double the figure that Clinton did in the overall results of this poll.
Among the Marine community, an overwhelming 44.1 percent chose Johnson, while 27.1 percent chose Trump, and 12.7 percent chose Clinton.
The majority of the Air Force respondents chose Johnson at 39 percent, but Trump next at 29.9 percent and Clinton at 12.9 percent.
Trump ranked the top choice for the Navy community, at 32.4 percent, versus 31.7 percent for Johnson and 22.9 percent for Clinton.
Despite Clinton's underwhelming performance among active duty troops in the poll, their family members preferred Clinton at 29.4 percent to 27.5 percent for Trump. Johnson came in third, at 24.5 percent.
Trump came out on top among members of the military who retired after serving at least 20 years.
Retirees preferred Trump at 37.4 percent, compared to 32.2 percent for Johnson and only 11 percent for Hillary Clinton.
However, when former members of the military who served fewer than 20 years were included, Johnson came in first, at 36.1 percent, while Hillary Clinton garnered 12.6 percent.
Good Question from Raven
Raven asks if "interchangeable parts" with regard to MA's new assault weapons ban applies to things like detachable magazines and scopes. Does that mean anything with a Picatinny rail is now an assault weapon?
Watch out for that "assault" break-action shotgun.
Watch out for that "assault" break-action shotgun.
Just What Does My Conscience Say About Trump?
Ted Cruz's manful speech puts us in the difficult question of having to ask whether, in good conscience, one could vote for Donald Trump for President. I am convinced he is personally unfit for the office, and that he would make terrible decisions if elected, and that he is without the moral character that ought ideally to accompany one into such an awesome -- or perhaps awful, in its Biblical sense -- set of responsibilities.
Thus, I cannot in good conscience vote for him.
However, if his opponent should win, I am quite sure that things will be even worse. She will be able to effectively repeal any part of the Constitution she dislikes by replacing the late Justice Scalia with a fifth progressive vote. The "living Constitution" means no real Constitution at all: it just means whatever the left would like it to mean, even if it plainly says otherwise. One faces not merely political defeat of our understanding of the right view for a time, but a permanent end to the Constitution as a written document establishing hard limits on the government.
Likewise, she herself is corrupt and a corrupting influence. She is also completely without decent character, and not the least bit shy about lying through her smile to the American people whenever it is even slightly convenient. The FBI and the Justice Department have recently proven both her corruption and her deception, as much as they were trying to avoid prosecuting her.
So, if she is elected I can reasonably expect the American project as I understand it to die. There will still be a "Constitution," but it will not serve to restrain the powerful: it will serve only to produce occasional apologies from the Supreme Court for the government's continual expansion of power. The government will also become intensely corrupt at the same time that it is becoming completely unrestrained.
Thus, I cannot in good conscience vote for her.
Of the remaining candidates, I think the Libertarians are simply wrong on the merits on a number of foreign policy issues, as well as immigration. Immigration is right now one of the most important of issues to get right, and they don't. The Green Party's candidate is a well-meaning woman of intelligence and forceful argument. I like her, and I respect her as a moral agent, but I disagree with her about nearly everything.
On the other hand, neither of them is going to win, so I could in good conscience vote for either. My disagreements with them won't matter if they are never elected, and they are probably both decent people. I would have exercised my very limited power as a voter responsibly by endorsing only someone with the right moral character for the office, and I will have caused no harm in any case.
This all comes back to a philosophical argument we've had here from time to time. In the infamous "trolley problem," one envisions a trolley speeding down a track toward five people. They will be killed if you do nothing. However, you are standing next to a switch that can route the trolley onto another track. Only one person is on that track. Is it morally better to do nothing, or to pull the switch?
Some of you have argued that it is better to let the five die, because you are not responsible for that. That's an accident. If you pull the lever to save them, you will be responsible for intentionally killing the one innocent life. Intentional killing of the innocent is murder, and murder is always wrong. Thus, you cannot pull the lever even to save five lives.
Others say that not pulling the lever is also a chosen action, and by allowing the five to die rather than pull the lever you are taking their deaths on your conscience. Thus, you cannot refuse to pull the lever under the circumstances.
At the moment, with the polls tight, this looks like a difficult decision that might come down to a difference of philosophical intuitions like these. It may be that, closer to election day, the race will have diverged so much one way or the other that it will be easier to vote in good conscience. But for now, one must think of whether or not to pull the lever.
Thus, I cannot in good conscience vote for him.
However, if his opponent should win, I am quite sure that things will be even worse. She will be able to effectively repeal any part of the Constitution she dislikes by replacing the late Justice Scalia with a fifth progressive vote. The "living Constitution" means no real Constitution at all: it just means whatever the left would like it to mean, even if it plainly says otherwise. One faces not merely political defeat of our understanding of the right view for a time, but a permanent end to the Constitution as a written document establishing hard limits on the government.
Likewise, she herself is corrupt and a corrupting influence. She is also completely without decent character, and not the least bit shy about lying through her smile to the American people whenever it is even slightly convenient. The FBI and the Justice Department have recently proven both her corruption and her deception, as much as they were trying to avoid prosecuting her.
So, if she is elected I can reasonably expect the American project as I understand it to die. There will still be a "Constitution," but it will not serve to restrain the powerful: it will serve only to produce occasional apologies from the Supreme Court for the government's continual expansion of power. The government will also become intensely corrupt at the same time that it is becoming completely unrestrained.
Thus, I cannot in good conscience vote for her.
Of the remaining candidates, I think the Libertarians are simply wrong on the merits on a number of foreign policy issues, as well as immigration. Immigration is right now one of the most important of issues to get right, and they don't. The Green Party's candidate is a well-meaning woman of intelligence and forceful argument. I like her, and I respect her as a moral agent, but I disagree with her about nearly everything.
On the other hand, neither of them is going to win, so I could in good conscience vote for either. My disagreements with them won't matter if they are never elected, and they are probably both decent people. I would have exercised my very limited power as a voter responsibly by endorsing only someone with the right moral character for the office, and I will have caused no harm in any case.
This all comes back to a philosophical argument we've had here from time to time. In the infamous "trolley problem," one envisions a trolley speeding down a track toward five people. They will be killed if you do nothing. However, you are standing next to a switch that can route the trolley onto another track. Only one person is on that track. Is it morally better to do nothing, or to pull the switch?
Some of you have argued that it is better to let the five die, because you are not responsible for that. That's an accident. If you pull the lever to save them, you will be responsible for intentionally killing the one innocent life. Intentional killing of the innocent is murder, and murder is always wrong. Thus, you cannot pull the lever even to save five lives.
Others say that not pulling the lever is also a chosen action, and by allowing the five to die rather than pull the lever you are taking their deaths on your conscience. Thus, you cannot refuse to pull the lever under the circumstances.
At the moment, with the polls tight, this looks like a difficult decision that might come down to a difference of philosophical intuitions like these. It may be that, closer to election day, the race will have diverged so much one way or the other that it will be easier to vote in good conscience. But for now, one must think of whether or not to pull the lever.
DB: Military Must Condemn Radicalized Veterans
Following two incidents this month where veterans of the armed services murdered police officers, Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and GOP congressional leaders are putting heavy pressure on ordinary military people to condemn the actions of radicalized veterans, according to several statements released by representatives....
The Council on American/Military Relations (CAMR) has gone on the offensive.
“The actions of Mr. Johnson do not reflect the values of the United States Army or any of the other branches of service,” CAMR Secretary Eric Fanning said in response to the calls for condemnation. “The army is a religion of peace.”
Vote Your Conscience
After all, if Hillary Clinton wins, there's always South Australia.
Actually, Australia has intense immigration laws. So don't lie to yourself. You live or die here. America is the last hope, and not just the "last, best hope." We're it.
Actually, Australia has intense immigration laws. So don't lie to yourself. You live or die here. America is the last hope, and not just the "last, best hope." We're it.
The RNC is Awash with Plagiarism
Ted Cruz's speech tonight:
Well, if you must steal, you ought to steal from the best.
Actually, there are a lot of parallels with this speech and the matter before us today.
To protect our God-given rights... so that when we are old and grey, and when our work is done, and we give those we love one final kiss goodbye; we will be able to say, "Freedom Matters, and I was part of something beautiful."I've heard that speech before.
Well, if you must steal, you ought to steal from the best.
Actually, there are a lot of parallels with this speech and the matter before us today.
Julian Castro for Dem VP Nominee
Why not go all the way with the unindicted criminal thing?
UPDATE: Actually, you know what? It looks like there may be more than one option here.
UPDATE: Actually, you know what? It looks like there may be more than one option here.
3,000 Year Old Settlement Preserved... By Being Burned
Via Albion Swords, a raiding party thousands of years ago struck this settlement and burned it. Oddly enough, that's just why we can see it today in such dramatic detail.
Updating Sidebar
In a discussion below, I mentioned that the sidebar could really use an update. All of you who are co-authors here are invited to let me know if you would like a links section added, or updated, with your favorites. Anything you may be writing yourselves, including other blogs or books, you are welcome to mention.
Many times I don't even realize that people who leave comments here have blogs of their own I should be following. Let me know if there are resources I should know about.
Many times I don't even realize that people who leave comments here have blogs of their own I should be following. Let me know if there are resources I should know about.
Massachusetts Bans Sale of Many Modern Sporting Rifles
Declaring that their law bans the sale of any rifle that has interchangeable parts with any other rifle on their 'banned' list, by a stroke of a pen they have made illegal the sale of whole categories of rifles designed to be compliant with their state laws.
It's my understanding that (unlike handguns) you can buy a rifle while traveling in a different state than the one in which you reside, as long as you buy from a licensed gun dealer. (If you're worried about government records, you can then sell that rifle to someone in your own state in trade for another rifle they own -- which they can have purchased out of state from a licensed gun dealer.)
Massachusetts isn't that big of a state. Working around its restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms should be doable for most.
It's my understanding that (unlike handguns) you can buy a rifle while traveling in a different state than the one in which you reside, as long as you buy from a licensed gun dealer. (If you're worried about government records, you can then sell that rifle to someone in your own state in trade for another rifle they own -- which they can have purchased out of state from a licensed gun dealer.)
Massachusetts isn't that big of a state. Working around its restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms should be doable for most.
Muslim(s?) for Trump
I missed this aspect of last night's festivities, but it strikes me as significant -- not that it implies a lot of Muslim supporters for Trump, but for what it says about Trump and his people. They can't be nearly as anti-Islam as they have been painted if they're hosting Islamic prayers on the campaign stage. Trump is often compared to Hitler by his opponents, but no Nazi rally was ever going to close with a Jewish prayer.
"Lock Her Up"
I am amused by how upset people on the left are by the focus by the RNC crowd, especially during Christie's speech, on putting Hillary Clinton in prison. Why this is unprecedented! Disturbing! How can you debate an opponent fairly if you assume she is a criminal?
Well, you know, maybe don't keep nominating criminals, then.
Well, you know, maybe don't keep nominating criminals, then.
High Crimes vs. Misdemeanors
NRO, in a list of ten reasons why Trump might actually win, suggests that part of it comes down to what kinds of offenses each creates:
Trump struggles with embarrassing misdemeanors, Clinton with high crimes. She may be delighted at not having been indicted, but FBI Director Comey confirmed to the nation that she was an inveterate liar, paranoid, conspiratorial, and incompetent. That she was not charged only made the FBI seem absurd: offering a damning hooved, horned, pitchforked, and forked-tailed portrait of someone mysteriously not a denizen of Hell. Add in the Clinton Foundation syndicate and the fact that lies are lies and often do not fade so easily, and Hillary in the next 15 weeks may average one “liar” and “crooked” disclosure each week — at a rate that even the Trump tax returns and Trump University cannot keep up with.
The Melania Hoax
This is a huge story, and they're right that it has to be completely humiliating for Melania Trump. At minimum, it exposes her as someone who was willing to get up and give a speech about her life that was written by someone else, which wasn't obviously true to her life.
However, while everyone shouts at each other and tries to gain partisan points, let me suggest that this was a hoax. The evidence is the "Rickroll" in the middle of it.
Now as everyone knows, the "Rickroll" is an internet hoax created and popularized by 4chan pranksters. At least some members of Anonymous, which is linked to 4chan (and indeed commonly thought to have grown out of it originally) have declared war on Donald Trump, although the group's main channel has rejected the call.
Still, my guess is that some of these hackers got access to the Trump campaign's data -- through a hacked private email account, it could easily be -- and altered the speech in a way that was guaranteed to be humiliating to Ms. Trump. The "Rickroll" in the middle is a kind of signature, then, so everyone will realize how clever they were.
If I'm right in that guess, it was a devastating move. By the time anyone picks up on it, the news cycle will be over and she will have been both publicly humiliated and likely permanently damaged as a campaign asset.
However, while everyone shouts at each other and tries to gain partisan points, let me suggest that this was a hoax. The evidence is the "Rickroll" in the middle of it.
Now as everyone knows, the "Rickroll" is an internet hoax created and popularized by 4chan pranksters. At least some members of Anonymous, which is linked to 4chan (and indeed commonly thought to have grown out of it originally) have declared war on Donald Trump, although the group's main channel has rejected the call.
Still, my guess is that some of these hackers got access to the Trump campaign's data -- through a hacked private email account, it could easily be -- and altered the speech in a way that was guaranteed to be humiliating to Ms. Trump. The "Rickroll" in the middle is a kind of signature, then, so everyone will realize how clever they were.
If I'm right in that guess, it was a devastating move. By the time anyone picks up on it, the news cycle will be over and she will have been both publicly humiliated and likely permanently damaged as a campaign asset.
Marcus Luttrell at the RNC
The Lone Survivor decided he wasn't very good with a teleprompter, and was just going to speak from the heart. He did a pretty good job of it, too.
These "Art" Protests Are Pretty Pointless
Does anyone really think that Donald Trump is going to grasp the high-concept feminist point that these 100 naked women intended to make? (Link is NSFW, probably, unless your boss is totally OK with pictures of lots of nude women as long as they're making a high-concept feminist point).
If you're going to use art as a means of protest, shouldn't it be art that is structured to reach the particular people you're trying to change? Shouldn't it be clear and intelligible to them, rather than aimed over their heads?
Make a Western or something.
If you're going to use art as a means of protest, shouldn't it be art that is structured to reach the particular people you're trying to change? Shouldn't it be clear and intelligible to them, rather than aimed over their heads?
Make a Western or something.
In Praise of Forgetting
For some years I've argued that 'moral progress' is a mere illusion. Joseph W. and I used to fight about this, in that joyous and pleasant way in which we contested each other's ideas. My sense is that mostly people's values change by encountering other people -- ideas 'rub off,' as it were. Now people closer to you rub off on you more than people further away. It is possible to be distant in both time and space, such that people further away from you in time will look less like you than people closer. That means that we should ordinarily expect to see an illusion of progress, because (a) we take our own values to be right, and (b) the further back you go, the less people agree with us.
There are some obvious additional factors that make it easier or harder for people to 'rub off' on you: sharing a language makes it more likely at distance; belonging to a civilization makes it more likely that you will share at least some values with your ancestors, too. Still, by and large I think it's obvious that you would think of society as progressing morally simply by looking back and discovering that, the further away from yourself you go, the less people agree with your (obviously correct!) moral values.
As a Catholic, I'm inclined to draw a big exception to this general rule, which is that real moral progress is possible if and only if we are moving toward divinely defined rather than human values. Only if we are speaking in this way can we speak sensibly of a real moral progress. Any other sort of talk of moral progress is going to prove to be illusory, a mere flattering of one's self and of those that agree with us.
(There is an inverse argument that most conservative fears of moral crumbling are likewise illusory: if you set any moment in history as your ideal, naturally as you get further away from it values will be more and more different. Thus, both of our usual political viewpoints on morality -- the ones animating progressivism and conservatism -- are wrong.)
I remind you of all of that so that I can present you with this book review.
If you truly did forget, you would lose both any sense of moral progress, and any sense of moral crumbling. What would be left? Would it be enough?
There are some obvious additional factors that make it easier or harder for people to 'rub off' on you: sharing a language makes it more likely at distance; belonging to a civilization makes it more likely that you will share at least some values with your ancestors, too. Still, by and large I think it's obvious that you would think of society as progressing morally simply by looking back and discovering that, the further away from yourself you go, the less people agree with your (obviously correct!) moral values.
As a Catholic, I'm inclined to draw a big exception to this general rule, which is that real moral progress is possible if and only if we are moving toward divinely defined rather than human values. Only if we are speaking in this way can we speak sensibly of a real moral progress. Any other sort of talk of moral progress is going to prove to be illusory, a mere flattering of one's self and of those that agree with us.
(There is an inverse argument that most conservative fears of moral crumbling are likewise illusory: if you set any moment in history as your ideal, naturally as you get further away from it values will be more and more different. Thus, both of our usual political viewpoints on morality -- the ones animating progressivism and conservatism -- are wrong.)
I remind you of all of that so that I can present you with this book review.
This is a shocking book, and all the better for it. Many right-thinking and historically well-informed people with a lively sense of justice will be appalled, even outraged, by its central argument, yet it is an argument they will be hard put to refute. In his closing pages, David Rieff states his case with a cogency and directness that are not blunted by the fact that it is framed in the form of a rhetorical question: “is it not conceivable,” he writes, “that were our societies to expend even a fraction of the energy on forgetting that they now do on remembering ... peace in some of the worst places in the world might actually be a step closer?”I once heard a Buddhist argument that held something like: "To say that you have forgiven but not forgotten is to say that you have not forgiven." This is that argument in a developed form.
If you truly did forget, you would lose both any sense of moral progress, and any sense of moral crumbling. What would be left? Would it be enough?
Reason: Trump or Clinton Worse?
They asked a lot of people, and got almost always the expected answer: Clinton is the least worst of the two horrible, horrible options. There was one exception:
I think that the opposite is true. Clinton would be completely immune to the system's checks. As long as you lacked the supermajority necessary to remove her from office in the Congress, Congress would be powerless against her. She would have a progressive pure majority on the Supreme Court to back her every play. I can't imagine that she could be stopped from doing anything she wanted.
Trump, on the other hand, has set himself up with a very ordinary Republican as his Vice President. If he proved as bad a President as is likely, there's no reason his own party wouldn't go along with replacing him with President Pence. Pence could even run for two more terms as President, allowing him to stand for office with all the advantages of the incumbent until the 2028 election. So the checks on Trump will be extraordinarily strong, because it would be in the interests of both parties to remove him for any abuse.
Glenn ReynoldsI remain convinced that Clinton is worse, but I can see from the responses that my reasoning is not shared by anyone there. They all think Clinton will be more controlled, and maybe even more controllable. Virginia Postrel writes, for example, that "Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law. For the very reason that she is such a conventional politician, her opponents would know how to effectively oppose her."
professor of law at the University of Tennessee and blogger at InstaPundit.com
"I favor Trump over Clinton, on the theory that he will bring in a fresh crop of thieves, while Hillary will enable the current crop to burrow in deeper."
I think that the opposite is true. Clinton would be completely immune to the system's checks. As long as you lacked the supermajority necessary to remove her from office in the Congress, Congress would be powerless against her. She would have a progressive pure majority on the Supreme Court to back her every play. I can't imagine that she could be stopped from doing anything she wanted.
Trump, on the other hand, has set himself up with a very ordinary Republican as his Vice President. If he proved as bad a President as is likely, there's no reason his own party wouldn't go along with replacing him with President Pence. Pence could even run for two more terms as President, allowing him to stand for office with all the advantages of the incumbent until the 2028 election. So the checks on Trump will be extraordinarily strong, because it would be in the interests of both parties to remove him for any abuse.
Wichita Does It Right
Peace officers.
Wichita Police Chief, Gordon Ramsay, says he has been working with Black Lives Matter leaders, and a protest that was planned for Sunday is being canceled.
Instead, the police department is hosting a cookout at McAdams Park. Black Lives Matter leaders are calling it the First Steps BBQ.
DB: CDRUSCENTCOM Celebrates Dodging a Bullet on Turkey
Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti and his European Command staff were less excited by the news.I wonder if there are any plans to evacuate the nuclear weapons from Incirlik?
“I thought France was the only Islamic country in Europe,” intelligence officer Jason Smith confessed.... Scaparrotti addressed the issue briefly in a press conference this morning. “Look I came to Europe for the same reason as everyone else – to get as far away from Muslims as possible,” he said. “If this instability keeps up I’m packing my bags and heading back to Korea.”
Project Reverse Exile
An Assistant US Attorney explains what he thinks is going on with the spike in murder rates in American cities. He and I apparently agree about the cause, which is surprising given our quite different backgrounds.
The thing is, the Federal laws haven't changed. The President has the power in his hands to turn this around whenever he wants to do so. He's been pushing things the other way instead. Either he is in denial about the effects this is having on America's cities, or he desires those effects for some reason -- perhaps because he thinks it will improve his chances of getting a gun control bill through Congress, or of electing a new Congress that will be easier to get gun control past. That would be a rather cynical move.
My suspicion is that the answer is simply that the President and his hand-picked DOJ team just don't believe that the Federal government's crime policies are good for the black community. They've cut prosecutions because they think that the prosecutions are harmful. Then the spiking murder rate is an unintended effect, but one from which they are not learning. Or rather, they are trying to learn the lesson they'd prefer to learn instead of the obvious one. They're choosing to "learn" that they need to do more to enact their preferred agenda about disarming those tens of millions of Americans who have nothing to do with the crime rates because those people aren't criminals.
[B]eginning in the mid-80s, when we had violent crimes spiralling upwards, congress gave us, that is federal law enforcement community and the prosecutors some very important tools to dismantle and disrupt large drug – large and often violent drug trafficking organisations and gangs. And we used those tools. We took the most – the worst of the worst off the streets. We put them in federal prisons. And they got some very substantial sentences. That was important, so important that beginning in 1991, the trend of upward, upward trend of violent crime reversed. And by 2014, we had cut violent crime in half. Violent crime rates as well as non-violent crime rates had been cut in half....He also mentions immigration as a driver of higher crime rates, which is a forbidden thought that will probably get him fired from his position as an AUSA.
...one thing that most people may not know and that is, over the last five years, the United States Department of Justice has – and remember, we’ve focused on the worst of the worst in the violent and drug trafficking arenas, as well as other crime areas, we’ve had a twenty-five percent reduction in federal prosecutions.
The thing is, the Federal laws haven't changed. The President has the power in his hands to turn this around whenever he wants to do so. He's been pushing things the other way instead. Either he is in denial about the effects this is having on America's cities, or he desires those effects for some reason -- perhaps because he thinks it will improve his chances of getting a gun control bill through Congress, or of electing a new Congress that will be easier to get gun control past. That would be a rather cynical move.
My suspicion is that the answer is simply that the President and his hand-picked DOJ team just don't believe that the Federal government's crime policies are good for the black community. They've cut prosecutions because they think that the prosecutions are harmful. Then the spiking murder rate is an unintended effect, but one from which they are not learning. Or rather, they are trying to learn the lesson they'd prefer to learn instead of the obvious one. They're choosing to "learn" that they need to do more to enact their preferred agenda about disarming those tens of millions of Americans who have nothing to do with the crime rates because those people aren't criminals.
One of These Things is Not Like The Other
Michael Ledeen says that you can't win a fight against an enemy you can't even name.
Over the pond, the Qulliam Foundation is trying to figure out how to talk about the dangers from political Islam and the far right. They propose a lexicon.
The section on Islam is reasonable, and it's nice to see a willingness to grapple with it. The section on the "far right" has similarly clear definitions for Neo-Nazis, but the definition of "far right" is suddenly much less clear and precise than the other definitions in the lexicon: "a far-right ideology characterised by extreme nationalistic beliefs or extreme, intolerant behaviour."
There are no wiggle-words like "extreme" in the other definitions. Islamists are those who want to impose "any version" of Islam over society, violently or nonviolently. We know exactly who they are from that definition.
So who is the "far right"? They give some examples, but examples are not definitions. Clarity would be helpful here, as I think there's a tendency to elide a lot of ordinary right wing people and groups into the category of "extreme nationalists." What's the point at which nationalism becomes extreme? Favoring trade policies that protect your country's interests? Being willing to fight to preserve your national territory from invasion? From unlawful immigration? Or does it only embrace expansionist nationalisms, like Russia's is currently?
Over the pond, the Qulliam Foundation is trying to figure out how to talk about the dangers from political Islam and the far right. They propose a lexicon.
The section on Islam is reasonable, and it's nice to see a willingness to grapple with it. The section on the "far right" has similarly clear definitions for Neo-Nazis, but the definition of "far right" is suddenly much less clear and precise than the other definitions in the lexicon: "a far-right ideology characterised by extreme nationalistic beliefs or extreme, intolerant behaviour."
There are no wiggle-words like "extreme" in the other definitions. Islamists are those who want to impose "any version" of Islam over society, violently or nonviolently. We know exactly who they are from that definition.
So who is the "far right"? They give some examples, but examples are not definitions. Clarity would be helpful here, as I think there's a tendency to elide a lot of ordinary right wing people and groups into the category of "extreme nationalists." What's the point at which nationalism becomes extreme? Favoring trade policies that protect your country's interests? Being willing to fight to preserve your national territory from invasion? From unlawful immigration? Or does it only embrace expansionist nationalisms, like Russia's is currently?
Red Sun Rising
Japan is poised to amend its constitution for the first time since the Second World War.
It's a mixed bag of proposals, some of which are really nasty.
There's a neoplatonic root to the theory. Plotinus, explaining why the One produces the rest of the world, says something similar: "all things when they come to perfection produce." Since the One is perfect, it is eternally productive. Now, you may doubt the metaphysical claims of neoplatonism, but I think the insight is perhaps even more applicable to human beings (Plotinus was, after all, a human being). The sense of having reached a kind of perfection leads naturally to that place in which you are open to creating new life, just as a bird strives in the right time of the year to make nests and sing songs of attraction. The more one is afflicted with dense feelings of guilt and shame, the less likely it is that one ever comes to feel that sense that everything is right.
My theory could be quite wrong, of course: it's purely philosophical, and without any solid evidence to support it. However, believing it as I do, I can't help but think that it must be healthy for Japan to reject what it considers 'masochism,' and embrace a prouder view of its nation and traditions.
There is also no reason that Japan should not have an army, being neighbors with China and North Korea. For a long time the alliance with the United States was a plausible defense, but the years of Barack Obama have proven to the whole world that America is no longer reliable. Even once we have a new President, our standing has been greatly weakened by the consequences of Obama's foreign policy. A stronger defense makes good sense.
So those are the good parts of Japan's new self-assertiveness. The nasty parts... are all the rest of it, really. Worshiping the emperor? Abandoning the doctrine of natural human rights? Taking the easy road of revisionist history? These are not good signs.
It's a mixed bag of proposals, some of which are really nasty.
As Bloomberg reports, the LDP has pointed out that “several of the current constitutional provisions are based on the Western European theory of natural human rights; such provisions therefore [need] to be changed.” What has the LDP got against the “Western European theory of natural human rights”? you might ask. Well, dozens of LDP legislators and ministers — including Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe — are members of a radical nationalist organization called Nippon Kaigi, which believes (according to one of its members, Hakubun Shimomura, who until recently was Japan’s education minister) that Japan should abandon a “masochistic view of history” wherein it accepts that it committed crimes during the Second World War. In fact, in Nippon Kaigi’s view, Japan was the wronged party in the war....In general I think they're right that a 'masochistic' view of history is unhealthy for a nation. I've always had the sense, completely without evidence, that such masochism has something to do with the falling rates of fertility in Japan and Europe. I don't mean to suggest that it's the only cause, only that it has an effect on fertility. The theory runs something like this: just as you can't really be fully healthy if you hate your parents, you can't really be fully healthy if you hate the country that gave birth to you and sustained you into adulthood. Those who are less healthy will feel less interest in reproduction, out of an unspoken sense that they shouldn't pass on sickness and pain. By contrasts, countries with a robust patriotism -- as people who enjoy a strong and loving family bond -- will feel that they are flourishing, and that sensibly relates to a desire to have more children.
Kaigi believes that “Japan should be applauded for liberating much of East Asia” during WW2, that the “Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were illegitimate,” and that the rape of Nanking was either “exaggerated or fabricated.” It denies the forced prostitution of Chinese and Korean “comfort women” by the Imperial Japanese Army, believes Japan should have an army again — something outlawed by Japan’s current constitution — and believes that it should return to worshipping [sic] the emperor.
There's a neoplatonic root to the theory. Plotinus, explaining why the One produces the rest of the world, says something similar: "all things when they come to perfection produce." Since the One is perfect, it is eternally productive. Now, you may doubt the metaphysical claims of neoplatonism, but I think the insight is perhaps even more applicable to human beings (Plotinus was, after all, a human being). The sense of having reached a kind of perfection leads naturally to that place in which you are open to creating new life, just as a bird strives in the right time of the year to make nests and sing songs of attraction. The more one is afflicted with dense feelings of guilt and shame, the less likely it is that one ever comes to feel that sense that everything is right.
My theory could be quite wrong, of course: it's purely philosophical, and without any solid evidence to support it. However, believing it as I do, I can't help but think that it must be healthy for Japan to reject what it considers 'masochism,' and embrace a prouder view of its nation and traditions.
There is also no reason that Japan should not have an army, being neighbors with China and North Korea. For a long time the alliance with the United States was a plausible defense, but the years of Barack Obama have proven to the whole world that America is no longer reliable. Even once we have a new President, our standing has been greatly weakened by the consequences of Obama's foreign policy. A stronger defense makes good sense.
So those are the good parts of Japan's new self-assertiveness. The nasty parts... are all the rest of it, really. Worshiping the emperor? Abandoning the doctrine of natural human rights? Taking the easy road of revisionist history? These are not good signs.
Police Union President: "I Don’t Care if it’s Constitutional or Not."
Duly noted, officer.NEW: Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association drafting asking OH Gov. John Kasich to suspend open carry in Cleveland during RNC Convention.“We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something — I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not at this point,” Cleveland Police Union president Stephen Loomis told CNN.
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) July 17, 2016
Oh, Good Lord
"FBI Director Comey is a board member of Clinton Foundation connected bank HSBC."
Well, it could prove to be wrong or untrue. Maybe!
Well, it could prove to be wrong or untrue. Maybe!
This Poll is Difficult to Believe
Boy, those atheists, huh?
My guess is that 38% of Americans genuinely have a problem with atheism, whereas only 37% of Americans feel comfortable speaking honestly about their concerns with regard to Islam. Such concerns need not be hateful nor, at this point, an expression of "prejudice" -- a word that means a pre-judgment, in advance of the facts. There are plenty of hard facts in evidence now. At this point, anyone who doesn't admit to honest concerns about Islam as practiced today is not being honest, possibly with themselves. Muslims themselves have reasons to be concerned about Islam just now, and maybe Muslims most of all. I know some several who will admit to their concerns, at least in private conversation.
Again, at some point we need to start speaking honestly about all this. If we're to avoid a future of ethnic cleansing and worse, we need to stop trying to paper this stuff over.
Many Americans view Islam unfavorably, and supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump are more than twice as likely to view the religion negatively as those backing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, according to a Reuters/Ipsos online poll of more than 7,000 Americans.Does anyone really believe that as many or slightly more Americans have a negative view of atheism as Islam? When was the last atheist terror attack?
It shows that 37 percent of American adults have a "somewhat unfavorable" or "very unfavorable" view of Islam. This includes 58 percent of Trump supporters and 24 percent of Clinton supporters, a contrast largely mirrored by the breakdown between Republicans and Democrats.
By comparison, respondents overall had an equally unfavorable view of atheism at 38 percent, compared with 21 percent for Hinduism, 16 percent for Judaism and 8 percent for Christianity.
My guess is that 38% of Americans genuinely have a problem with atheism, whereas only 37% of Americans feel comfortable speaking honestly about their concerns with regard to Islam. Such concerns need not be hateful nor, at this point, an expression of "prejudice" -- a word that means a pre-judgment, in advance of the facts. There are plenty of hard facts in evidence now. At this point, anyone who doesn't admit to honest concerns about Islam as practiced today is not being honest, possibly with themselves. Muslims themselves have reasons to be concerned about Islam just now, and maybe Muslims most of all. I know some several who will admit to their concerns, at least in private conversation.
Again, at some point we need to start speaking honestly about all this. If we're to avoid a future of ethnic cleansing and worse, we need to stop trying to paper this stuff over.
How Captain America: Civil War Should Have Ended
The gentle folk at How It Should Have Ended take on Captain America. They bring up some of the stuff we talked about in our earlier discussion.
Also, here there be spoilers!
Also, here there be spoilers!
Range 15 Update
It's still showing here and there. "Here" being a few screens that have gotten repeat showings, as interest continues. "There" being... Baghdad.
U.S. veterans and now stars of recent military horror-comedy, “Range 15,” visited service members Saturday-Monday and shared a screening of their movie.
Soldiers deployed to Forward Operating Base Union III in support of the Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command – Operation Inherent Resolve filed into a room to watch “Range 15” and got the opportunity to meet the stars – Mat Best, Army Ranger veteran and CEO of Article 15 Clothing; Jarred Taylor, Air Force veteran and Article 15’s chief marketing officer; and Nick Palmisciano, Army veteran and founder of Ranger Up clothing company.
Because most deployed Soldiers would not have gotten the opportunity to see “Range 15,” Palmisciano worked his contacts to set up the tour in coordination with Armed Forces Entertainment, Best said.
“There was no theatrical release overseas, and this movie was made by vets for vets,” he said.
"Those Of Us Who Are Over... 35 Or So..."
Some words from Ronald Reagan.
How are we doing on this, brothers and sisters?
How are we doing on this, brothers and sisters?
Man Without Most of His Brain... Still Conscious
This goes with the 'male and female mice have different pain structures' discussion. We really don't have any idea how all this works.
Dear Piers Morgan: Don't Let The Door Hit You
His reaction to this commercial was to say that it was "One of the most disgusting things I've ever seen."
Well, we won't miss you, Piers. But I'd watch that talk if you ever run into my wife, because she's just this kind of girl.
Well, we won't miss you, Piers. But I'd watch that talk if you ever run into my wife, because she's just this kind of girl.
Pocket Monsters
(H/t Mad Minerva)Get off the firing line, Pikachu! That's a safety violation! pic.twitter.com/WilmXFBHlf— U.S. Marines (@USMC) July 11, 2016
A bit of reverse cultural assimilation: Pokemon (ポケモン) is a Japanese contraction for the English words "pocket monster" (ポケットモンスター / poketto monsuta-). For some reason, I find it amusing to hear Americans say "Pokemon".
No, I have no excuse for posting this. It's Friday: We don't need no stinking excuses!
Good Question
[I]n November, when American voters choose how to cast their ballots for president, they will surely take policies and the candidates' personalities into consideration.
But they also have another question to answer, and it is not a frivolous one. Do they want four more years of leaders who respond to crisis by delivering self-righteous lectures to them about their faults?
The FBI Is Not Covering Itself With Glory Lately
The Bureau finds 'no evidence' that Omar Mateen intended to target gays in his decision to stage an Islamist attack at a gay nightclub.
Cf. this reminder of another recent FBI investigation:
Cf. this reminder of another recent FBI investigation:
Never in the history of world has a human being been so completely buried under a mountain of no evidence. Hillary Clinton can say there’s no evidence she sent classified emails until the evidence shows up, at which point there is no evidence she knew they were classified, until evidence of that shows up, at which point there is no evidence anyone got hold of it, until 400 people are willing to stake their lives that it was certainly compromised by sophisticated bad actors, at which point there is no evidence that it mattered.It does seem as if they are, lately, more devoted to finding "no evidence" than to finding evidence.
This came to mind listening to FBI Director James Comey’s interesting phraseology, carefully formulated, no doubt: “We found no evidence” and “We did not find clear evidence” and “[Hillary’s lawyers] deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery” (emphasis mine).
November Paris Attack Tortured Victims for ISIS Propaganda
The French government has suppressed the story until now.
The chief police witness in Parliament testified that on the night of the attacks, an investigating officer, tears streaming down his face, rushed out of the Bataclan and vomited in front of him just after seeing the disfigured bodies.At some point, we're going to have to start being honest with ourselves about what we're facing.
The 14-hour testimony about the November attacks took place March 21st.
According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers reportedly gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were reportedly stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda.
Military Coup Attempt in Turkey
Unfolding. The Turkish military was entrusted by Ataturk with the duty of preserving his revolution, which has been undermined somewhat by the present administration's flirtation with Islamism. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
MikeD, Call the Office
Hey, Mike, I have a message for you and I don't seem to have your email. A friend of your friend COL Sobichevsky is trying to get in touch.
Viking Ship Update
Popular Mechanics has confirmed that it's actually four hundred thousand dollars that is being demanded in piloting fees.
Good gracious, people. Even if this were a commercial and profit-making vessel, how could that be a reasonable figure?
Good gracious, people. Even if this were a commercial and profit-making vessel, how could that be a reasonable figure?
Immigration and Terrorism
A post at Fabius Maximus.
Europe is in a situation much like the forests of the western US. Years of policy errors have made both into large tinderboxes. Prevention is impossible; massive fires are inevitable. Mitigation is the only option. That’s easy (albeit expensive) with forest fires. Less so with the consequences of mass immigration.One could also cut down the forests. We don't, but only because we value the forests a great deal.
France will have to live with the great rings around its cities of disaffected, poor, unassimilated migrants and their children. Fundamental Islamic groups have spent years building their infrastructure, with jihadists lurking within. More attacks are likely.
Brains and Immunity
Back in March, the University of Virginia announced that the brain turns out to be connected directly to the immune system -- and by structures we didn't know existed, long after most medical doctors thought the body was fully mapped. Now it turns out that the brain's connection to the immune system appears to govern something important about our social interactions.
So could immune system problems contribute to an inability to have normal social interactions? The answer appears to be yes, and that finding could have significant implications for neurological diseases such as autism-spectrum disorders and schizophrenia.That's going to change the way we think about a number of different things.
Weber Was Wrong
Bear this in mind, as you bear your arms.
And even there, if we are wrong, we have the comfort of praying for forgiveness in our error. But we aren't wrong: Luke 22:36.
Here’s the issue before us, after Dallas: Is the United States a state?No greater matter exists for us as a free people. The United States must never be a "state" by this European notion. Should it come to an appeal to the God of Hosts, we must keep this right subject to the People. This is what enabled Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence. There is no more fundamental matter, nothing more important save the salvation of our souls.
The question seems strange; this nation’s full official name suggests not only a state, but also a union of states. Among defining attributes of a state, the United States possesses a territory, a flag, laws — and courts and bureaucrats to enforce them.
What it doesn’t have, crucially, is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence by a central authority.
In part, this is by design. The Constitution provides for the legitimate use of violence by a federal government, but also by the 50 semi-sovereign entities represented in Washington. Indeed, in the founding era, the federal government exercised only limited power to establish a standing military or law-enforcement apparatus; it relied heavily on state cooperation, and state resources, to provide what we know today as “national security.”
And then there’s the Second Amendment, which gives “the people” a right to “keep and bear arms,” thus legitimizing nongovernmental violence, not only by groups — from slave patrols to pioneers to sheriffs’ posses — but also by individuals, from hunters to homeowners.
No constitutional provision better expresses an essential difference between the state as Europeans understood it and the “republic” America’s founders conceived. Yet none has spawned more debate, confusion and conflict within America itself, right down to the present day.
And even there, if we are wrong, we have the comfort of praying for forgiveness in our error. But we aren't wrong: Luke 22:36.
Bastille Day
30 dead in France. The weapon of choice? A big truck.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité still need fighting for. Aux armes, citoyens. You're likely to need those arms, and your ploughshares won't stop them.
That's true there, here, and everywhere.
UPDATE: There seems to be a big fire at the Eiffel Tower.
UPDATE: At least 75 killed. Bodies for a mile, some of them children. This is accounted a great day by our enemies.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité still need fighting for. Aux armes, citoyens. You're likely to need those arms, and your ploughshares won't stop them.
That's true there, here, and everywhere.
UPDATE: There seems to be a big fire at the Eiffel Tower.
UPDATE: At least 75 killed. Bodies for a mile, some of them children. This is accounted a great day by our enemies.
Cornell West: Obama Has Failed Us
I note that Professor West has also announced that he will be supporting Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and not Hillary Clinton. It's interesting that he chose the Guardian, out of the UK, for this article.
Unfortunately, Obama thrives on being in the middle. He has no backbone to fight for justice. He likes to be above the fray. But for those us us who are in the fray, there is a different sensibility. You have to choose which side you’re on, and he doesn’t want to do that. Fundamentally, he’s not a love warrior.Funny, I'd heard that he was a "lightworker," whatever that meant. Guess it's not the same thing. Maybe lightworkers are like Jedi, and they aren't allowed to love?
"There Are Two Americas...."
John Edwards' famous stump speech is coming true, although not in the way he envisioned it. In one America, violent crime is at historic lows. In 35 American cities however, as we were discussing yesterday, there has been a spike in murder rates coinciding with the spike in tensions between the police and black Americans.
And now:
The article notes that the Army's warning seems based on an internet rumor. Still, mobs -- including flash mobs -- can organize around internet rumors as well as anything else.
And now:
The Army last week warned all military personnel in the United States to avoid 37 American cities this week over concerns that anti-police protests, dubbed “Days of Rage,” are planned and could turn violent. The July 8 notice from the U.S. Army North said there is a potential for violence or criminal activities in the aftermath of the shootings of five Dallas police officers.Want to bet those lists of cities overlap more or less completely?
The article notes that the Army's warning seems based on an internet rumor. Still, mobs -- including flash mobs -- can organize around internet rumors as well as anything else.
False Positives on Racism
As someone who thinks that the issue here is really one of training -- specifically, of training for a stimulus-response reaction of shooting when hands get out of sight in cases where weapons are considered likely -- I've tended to dismiss or downplay the idea that racism is much at the back of these issues. Many, many people disagree with me about that. I would say that it is the most commonly held opinion among the 'great and the good' that America is still suffering from a simmering racism that has never been expiated through all our suffering.
I believe racism exists. I grew up in a county in Georgia where the Klan recruited openly, wearing their robes but not bothering with their hoods because they didn't think what they were doing was shameful. I just don't see racism like that any more, except in fringe cases. For example, in both the Stone Mountain rally here in Georgia, and the "Traditional Workers Party" rally in California, the members of the pro-white racist groups were vastly outnumbered by the anti-racist groups. In Stone Mountain, all the arrests were of anti-racists. In California, the police elected not to protect the white separatists.
Last night I was reading an article at the Huffington Post that investigates a suggestion that one of the slain Dallas cops was a "proud, open white supremacist." The HuffPo author ultimately approves the idea, saying that the signals individually could be dismissed, but that all together they are demonstrative.
Here is the alleged evidence:
These strike me as a collection of false positives, none of which should individually or collectively be taken as evidence of racism.
Support for Donald Trump is apparently taken to be prima facie evidence of racism, as is the display of any sort of Confederate flag. There are plausible non-racist reasons for either, to say the least that might be said.
I don't know who Pastor Greg Locke is, but I'm not a Protestant evangelical, and my guess is that he's known for more than just being opposed to trans* issues. I don't see how that's relevant to whiteness anyway; lots of trans* people are white. It's relevant to traditional Christian culture. Many Americans from traditional Christian faiths feel under siege on these issues, and some of the rhetoric has been angry, but it's got nothing to do with race.
Same deal with a Crusader tattoo. Chris Kyle had one. Was it about race issues in America? Of course not. It was about 9/11, and the sense that the West was under attack from radical Islam. Islam is not a race, and although many people would like to run "Islamophobia" in with racism, the comparison isn't plausible. Race is an invented, pseudo-scientific category that refers to nothing actually real in the physical world. Islam is a real thing. Anger at Islam for events like 9/11, or Orlando, or San Bernardino, or Chattanooga, or Fort Hood, or... well, anyway, it's not difficult to understand the anger. Maybe Muslims worldwide have some valid reasons to be angry with America, too, such as a sense that we are polluting their culture with images they find pornographic. Either way, it's got nothing to do with racism.
What they are calling an "Iron Cross" is properly called a cross formée or cross pattée. There are two of them on the sidebar here, one red and one white. It's a traditional piece of Christian heraldry, much older than and quite apart from any use by Germans, quite apart from any use by bikers (such as myself) or surfers. The Pope wears them on his sash. Others have other heraldic reasons for using them.
So what about the Thor's Hammer? You know, we talk about Vikings all the time around here. In the last week, I've had a post about the Viking ship sailing across the Atlantic and another about Wagner's Ring. Others inspired by such things include noted Roman Catholic J. R. R. Tolkien -- if you read the Silmarillion, note the character of Tulkas the Valiant. There's a very popular television show right now about Vikings. Interest in such things has been intense since about the middle of the 19th century, and for good reasons. The sagas and poetics have proven tremendously inspiring, and they are even today a continuing source of high art. That it may appeal more to people who have a sense of kinship with the Vikings is no more racist than the fact that Beijing opera appeals mostly to Han Chinese. Beijing opera has a kind of universal appeal -- witness Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, or for that matter Xena, Warrior Princess -- but it also has a cultural context that makes it more resonant for those within that culture. That's not shocking.
False positives are not helpful. Let's not magnify the perils of racism in our imagination, but rather fight it forthrightly where it unambiguously exists.
I believe racism exists. I grew up in a county in Georgia where the Klan recruited openly, wearing their robes but not bothering with their hoods because they didn't think what they were doing was shameful. I just don't see racism like that any more, except in fringe cases. For example, in both the Stone Mountain rally here in Georgia, and the "Traditional Workers Party" rally in California, the members of the pro-white racist groups were vastly outnumbered by the anti-racist groups. In Stone Mountain, all the arrests were of anti-racists. In California, the police elected not to protect the white separatists.
Last night I was reading an article at the Huffington Post that investigates a suggestion that one of the slain Dallas cops was a "proud, open white supremacist." The HuffPo author ultimately approves the idea, saying that the signals individually could be dismissed, but that all together they are demonstrative.
Here is the alleged evidence:
These strike me as a collection of false positives, none of which should individually or collectively be taken as evidence of racism.
Support for Donald Trump is apparently taken to be prima facie evidence of racism, as is the display of any sort of Confederate flag. There are plausible non-racist reasons for either, to say the least that might be said.
I don't know who Pastor Greg Locke is, but I'm not a Protestant evangelical, and my guess is that he's known for more than just being opposed to trans* issues. I don't see how that's relevant to whiteness anyway; lots of trans* people are white. It's relevant to traditional Christian culture. Many Americans from traditional Christian faiths feel under siege on these issues, and some of the rhetoric has been angry, but it's got nothing to do with race.
Same deal with a Crusader tattoo. Chris Kyle had one. Was it about race issues in America? Of course not. It was about 9/11, and the sense that the West was under attack from radical Islam. Islam is not a race, and although many people would like to run "Islamophobia" in with racism, the comparison isn't plausible. Race is an invented, pseudo-scientific category that refers to nothing actually real in the physical world. Islam is a real thing. Anger at Islam for events like 9/11, or Orlando, or San Bernardino, or Chattanooga, or Fort Hood, or... well, anyway, it's not difficult to understand the anger. Maybe Muslims worldwide have some valid reasons to be angry with America, too, such as a sense that we are polluting their culture with images they find pornographic. Either way, it's got nothing to do with racism.
What they are calling an "Iron Cross" is properly called a cross formée or cross pattée. There are two of them on the sidebar here, one red and one white. It's a traditional piece of Christian heraldry, much older than and quite apart from any use by Germans, quite apart from any use by bikers (such as myself) or surfers. The Pope wears them on his sash. Others have other heraldic reasons for using them.
So what about the Thor's Hammer? You know, we talk about Vikings all the time around here. In the last week, I've had a post about the Viking ship sailing across the Atlantic and another about Wagner's Ring. Others inspired by such things include noted Roman Catholic J. R. R. Tolkien -- if you read the Silmarillion, note the character of Tulkas the Valiant. There's a very popular television show right now about Vikings. Interest in such things has been intense since about the middle of the 19th century, and for good reasons. The sagas and poetics have proven tremendously inspiring, and they are even today a continuing source of high art. That it may appeal more to people who have a sense of kinship with the Vikings is no more racist than the fact that Beijing opera appeals mostly to Han Chinese. Beijing opera has a kind of universal appeal -- witness Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, or for that matter Xena, Warrior Princess -- but it also has a cultural context that makes it more resonant for those within that culture. That's not shocking.
False positives are not helpful. Let's not magnify the perils of racism in our imagination, but rather fight it forthrightly where it unambiguously exists.
Good news in food
Maggie's Farm linked to a guide for the neurotic food buyer. I found this part cheering:
Potatoes are Republican. There’s a possibility your potatoes were grown using Koch Advanced Nitrogen fertilizer. Yes, that’s Koch as in Koch Brothers, the family that has used its $82 billion fortune to finance free-market principles that are diametrically opposed to ideas like Fair Food certification.
What to buy: In 2010, the Wichita Eagle called Koch Industries the third-largest nitrogen-fertilizer company in the world. Considering how much fertilizer is required to grow not only potatoes but also corn feed for chickens, pigs, and cows, cutting Koch fertilizer out of your diet would be a challenge. You can try boycotting products like Dixie, Brawny, and Angel Soft, but there is really no effective way to avoid contributing to a new libertarian world order.
Rev. 3:16
Cox emphasized that Bikers for Trump weren’t looking for trouble at the convention. “Veterans are the backbone of the biker community,” Cox continued. “We are patriots and unlike Black Lives Matter and the other leftist idiots, we love our cops. You won’t find one biker in Cleveland jumping on cars, lighting fires, or doing any of the other stupid things we’ve gotten used to seeing on TV the last few months.”The police are having a difficult moment right now. I have a lot of concerns about the way we train police, and the way we equip them, and the way we deploy them. However, my intent in fielding these criticisms is to come to a place in which we have a better civilization. Police and other citizens aren't natural enemies, and it's strange in a way that we've gotten to this place. In another way, it's not so strange: it serves the interest of powers on both sides.
Nevertheless, I find Chris Cox's reaction puzzling. It's true that Vets are the backbone of the biker community. It's also true that lots of cops are also Vets. It is generally true that bikers are very strong patriots. It does not therefore follow that bikers love cops. A few bikers aren't just outlaws, they're criminals who have reason to fear the police. Among those who are outlaws in the sense of "Outlaw Country," police are often used to harass and extract money from them at gunpoint. Cops are often deployed against them by some of those powerful interests, and the police go along with it. It is, after all, their job to work for the bosses elected over them. In a corrupt system, and many of our localities are quite corrupt, the orders of the bosses are often bad. A friend of mine who was a long-time Chicago cop used to say that, in his opinion, the police were just the best-armed gang in that city given that the government itself was just another, bigger racket.
Even understanding the difficulty of the moment, I can't help but notice how strong the reactions have been. Cox isn't alone in overstating the case in spite of obvious counterexamples. The other day Nick Palmisciano of Ranger Up posted a criticism of two individual police officers -- the two from the Baton Rouge video. It was based on his experience as a military officer, and was both heartfelt and honest -- as well as detailed. I think it's been erased since then.
No wonder it has been. There's been a furious reaction against him by police. This is a guy who has a whole section of his store devoted to pro-police "Blue Line" merchandise. Nick Palmisciano really does love his cops. In spite of that, his criticizing one event featuring two individuals is being taken as proof of something akin to treason.
Nick will forgive them, if he hasn't already. Sometimes we'd see things like this during the heat of the Iraq war, when a bad call by a unit would lead to international headlines. We'd do our best to hold our own accountable, while trying not to lose it with those who were assuming the worst of all fighting men and preaching that the military was an evil bunch of baby-killers. So I get it. I do. I think a citizen has to take these issues seriously and deploy honest criticism, but I'm not insensitive to the pain the police must be feeling in the wake of Dallas.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)