A good pairing is Tincup, an American whiskey out of the Rocky Mountains. The flavor is sharp and spicy, like a bourbon and rye blend, and it comes with its own tin cup.
The Only Thing That Keeps Me Hanging On
In these dark and foreboding times ...
A good pairing is Tincup, an American whiskey out of the Rocky Mountains. The flavor is sharp and spicy, like a bourbon and rye blend, and it comes with its own tin cup.
A good pairing is Tincup, an American whiskey out of the Rocky Mountains. The flavor is sharp and spicy, like a bourbon and rye blend, and it comes with its own tin cup.
Olympics Update
Things are still going well.
That was 2012. This year, we're beating the crap out of everyone and capturing an asteroid.
That was 2012. This year, we're beating the crap out of everyone and capturing an asteroid.
Olympic Jousting?
If English Heritage has its way ...
Updated with videos!
Also, this might come in handy soon.
And, I'll move my drink pairing up from the comments: I actually have little idea what jousters drank, so I'll pair it with a drink from Merry Olde England, Samuel Smith's "Oatmeal Stout." With the brewery only founded in 1758, it's unlikely to have been part of a tournament champions celebration, but some horse cavalry might have enjoyed it. Should stand up well for sieges, too.
Update 2: Grim brings us up to speed on jousting beers and suggests a hoppy lager. None actually spring to mind. I'll have to go looking for one.
Also, check out these Shire horses Samuel Smith's uses for deliveries. Beautiful.
Updated with videos!
Also, this might come in handy soon.
And, I'll move my drink pairing up from the comments: I actually have little idea what jousters drank, so I'll pair it with a drink from Merry Olde England, Samuel Smith's "Oatmeal Stout." With the brewery only founded in 1758, it's unlikely to have been part of a tournament champions celebration, but some horse cavalry might have enjoyed it. Should stand up well for sieges, too.
Update 2: Grim brings us up to speed on jousting beers and suggests a hoppy lager. None actually spring to mind. I'll have to go looking for one.
Also, check out these Shire horses Samuel Smith's uses for deliveries. Beautiful.
A Sensible Point from Vox
Dara Lind gets it right:
That would be appropriately symbolic for this year. We aren't really a part of the 2016 election. It's being fought by people who don't understand us, and that's never more obvious than when they fight about us.
Trump caricatures conservatives in the same way some liberals doPerhaps part of the reason that the media and the Clinton people hear "assassination" from what he said isn't their own ignorance or malice, but Trump's own ignorance as a speaker. It's quite possible that even he doesn't know how what he said sounds to us, or what we think about questions of violent crime versus a heritage based in morally proper revolutions.
Every time something like this happens, you can count on at least a few liberal pundits to erupt in shouts of triumph. Aha! they say. That’s the logical conclusion of the position held by “reasonable” conservatives. Donald Trump just made the subtext text!
When Trump called on “Second Amendment people,” people argued that what he said was no different from pro–gun rights tropes like “you can have my guns when you take them from my cold dead hands.”...
The problem with treating Donald Trump as the conservative id, though, is that Trump isn’t a conservative. He’s not saying things he believes because he doesn’t know he’s not supposed to say them; he’s saying things he doesn’t believe because he thinks other people do.
Maybe in some cases, for some people, he’s right. But for other people, he’s wrong. There are plenty of conservatives who’ve thought hard about the implications of their positions and drawn principled lines.
The pro–gun rights groups who’ve pushed for a broader interpretation of the Second Amendment in recent years have done so by filing lawsuits on behalf of people whose guns were illegal where they lived — not by encouraging those people to try to fire on officers if they confiscated their weapons....
But Trump doesn’t know any of this. He’s new to conservatism, and when he tries to appeal to these voters, it shows.
That would be appropriately symbolic for this year. We aren't really a part of the 2016 election. It's being fought by people who don't understand us, and that's never more obvious than when they fight about us.
Revolution Is Not a Crime But A Duty
Let's stipulate that Trump's remarks yesterday about "2nd Amdendment guys" were a dogwhistle to the 2A community. Is it representative of ignorance that the media and the Clinton campaign alike don't understand how the 2nd Amendment community would interpret the remark? Or is it malice, in which they are intentionally forwarding a false and damaging impression about both the 2nd Amendment community and also Donald Trump?
The media is following the Clinton line that this remark by Trump was an "apparent Clinton assassination threat." Possibly that is how it sounds to them because they don't understand the 2nd Amendment community at all. The same community that produces these journalists produces the EEOC workers who can misinterpret the Gadsden flag as having something to do with racism, for example. They really don't seem to get what we're doing here, and so they think that the flag somehow must be a coded signal for white animosity -- rather than a clear and obvious signal that the government had better respect its constitutional limits and stop treading on our traditional freedoms.
Likewise, in decades of hanging around 2nd Amendment folks, going to gun shows, shooting, and so forth, I've never heard anyone argue that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the capacity to assassinate one's political opponents. Such a claim would be obviously false and easy to reject, for one thing. Yet perhaps the press -- and Clinton herself, who hates hunters as well as other kinds of gun owners, and who refuses to admit that the 2nd Amendment protects any constitutional right at all -- really doesn't understand what we're talking about to such a degree that they think this is a plausible reading. There are three hundred million guns in America legally owned by tens of millions of Americans, who are taken together one of the most law abiding communities in the country. It is absurd to think that they are a nest of murderers. If that were true, you'd know it: after all, there are tens of millions of us with 300,000,000 guns. Yet gun violence is at historic lows, and two thirds of it are suicides and almost the whole of the rest conducted by guns that are not lawfully owned.
What the 2nd Amendment people endorse is the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects the capacity for a second American revolution. Now, you might say: "Revolutions are even more violent than assassinations! What kind of people would endorse revolution as a solution to political problems?"
Well, Bernie Sanders talked about it all last year. In fact, "time for a revolution!" is a standard line on the left. So let's not pretend that suggesting a revolution is somehow beyond the pale in American politics.
When we do it, we are thinking of the same people who gave us the Culpepper and Gadsden flags, as well as the Plattsburg flag, as well as the American flag.
These people:
Clinton has openly said that she intends to appoint justices who will restrict first amendment rights, both in terms of Citizens United and in terms of religious liberty and free association. She has made fairly clear her intention to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights, which she does not even recognize as legitimate rights at all. It is striking that a woman so frequently proven to be willing to say anything at all to get elected cannot even bring herself to say that the 2nd Amendment protects a real right. We regard her as the enemy of our rights for good reason. She, by her own admission at the first Democratic debate, regards both the NRA and the Republican party as her "enemies."
Whether ignorance or malice motivates them, her faction had better learn to hear this message clearly. We have heard them clearly enough, and the long train of abuses grows longer by the day. They have elected to turn the law into a weapon against us, and a shield to protect their own from prosecution for obvious and provable crimes. They cannot now hide behind an appeal to the majesty of the law, not those who have done so much to undermine our faith in its legitimacy. The only question remains just how much longer the train must grow before the American people decide that "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
And that is the most American of questions.
The media is following the Clinton line that this remark by Trump was an "apparent Clinton assassination threat." Possibly that is how it sounds to them because they don't understand the 2nd Amendment community at all. The same community that produces these journalists produces the EEOC workers who can misinterpret the Gadsden flag as having something to do with racism, for example. They really don't seem to get what we're doing here, and so they think that the flag somehow must be a coded signal for white animosity -- rather than a clear and obvious signal that the government had better respect its constitutional limits and stop treading on our traditional freedoms.
Likewise, in decades of hanging around 2nd Amendment folks, going to gun shows, shooting, and so forth, I've never heard anyone argue that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the capacity to assassinate one's political opponents. Such a claim would be obviously false and easy to reject, for one thing. Yet perhaps the press -- and Clinton herself, who hates hunters as well as other kinds of gun owners, and who refuses to admit that the 2nd Amendment protects any constitutional right at all -- really doesn't understand what we're talking about to such a degree that they think this is a plausible reading. There are three hundred million guns in America legally owned by tens of millions of Americans, who are taken together one of the most law abiding communities in the country. It is absurd to think that they are a nest of murderers. If that were true, you'd know it: after all, there are tens of millions of us with 300,000,000 guns. Yet gun violence is at historic lows, and two thirds of it are suicides and almost the whole of the rest conducted by guns that are not lawfully owned.
What the 2nd Amendment people endorse is the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects the capacity for a second American revolution. Now, you might say: "Revolutions are even more violent than assassinations! What kind of people would endorse revolution as a solution to political problems?"
Well, Bernie Sanders talked about it all last year. In fact, "time for a revolution!" is a standard line on the left. So let's not pretend that suggesting a revolution is somehow beyond the pale in American politics.
When we do it, we are thinking of the same people who gave us the Culpepper and Gadsden flags, as well as the Plattsburg flag, as well as the American flag.
These people:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.You can't argue against that without arguing against the whole American project. It is obviously legitimate to overthrow the government if it betrays its mission -- indeed, its sole legitimate purpose -- of securing the unalienable rights of the People.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Clinton has openly said that she intends to appoint justices who will restrict first amendment rights, both in terms of Citizens United and in terms of religious liberty and free association. She has made fairly clear her intention to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights, which she does not even recognize as legitimate rights at all. It is striking that a woman so frequently proven to be willing to say anything at all to get elected cannot even bring herself to say that the 2nd Amendment protects a real right. We regard her as the enemy of our rights for good reason. She, by her own admission at the first Democratic debate, regards both the NRA and the Republican party as her "enemies."
Whether ignorance or malice motivates them, her faction had better learn to hear this message clearly. We have heard them clearly enough, and the long train of abuses grows longer by the day. They have elected to turn the law into a weapon against us, and a shield to protect their own from prosecution for obvious and provable crimes. They cannot now hide behind an appeal to the majesty of the law, not those who have done so much to undermine our faith in its legitimacy. The only question remains just how much longer the train must grow before the American people decide that "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
And that is the most American of questions.
Another Maligned Community
The Motorcycle Profiling Project provides statistics to show that criminality is not actually all that common among "Outlaw motorcycle clubs," in spite of Federal arguments to the contrary.
I understand that the name must be confusing. It's like Outlaw Country music, though. Their ethic is about a spirit of rebellion and a devotion to personal freedom more than it is about actually breaking the law. I suspect that, at worst, most people in both communities are more indifferent to whether they violate the law rather than committed to violating it. Probably this is especially true in matters of marijuana use, which is regrettably common in both communities.
Though I myself have never made use of any illegal drugs, and regard them as generally bad ideas, I can see why many people might take it as improper for the government to involve itself in the question of what relatively harmless substances they ingest. I tend to be more focused on the enumerated liberties and rights, which are in grave enough danger where they are not already -- as especially in the case of the 10th Amendment -- being openly violated by the government. In such an environment, being in some sense an Outlaw is the only way not to lay down your freedom.
I understand that the name must be confusing. It's like Outlaw Country music, though. Their ethic is about a spirit of rebellion and a devotion to personal freedom more than it is about actually breaking the law. I suspect that, at worst, most people in both communities are more indifferent to whether they violate the law rather than committed to violating it. Probably this is especially true in matters of marijuana use, which is regrettably common in both communities.
Though I myself have never made use of any illegal drugs, and regard them as generally bad ideas, I can see why many people might take it as improper for the government to involve itself in the question of what relatively harmless substances they ingest. I tend to be more focused on the enumerated liberties and rights, which are in grave enough danger where they are not already -- as especially in the case of the 10th Amendment -- being openly violated by the government. In such an environment, being in some sense an Outlaw is the only way not to lay down your freedom.
Just Another Russian Information Operation
Wikileaks is now claiming that their source for those DNC emails wasn't Russian hackers, but the recently murdered DNC employee killed in DC.
Well, it might be true.
The thing to remember is, where the Russians are concerned -- and Wikileaks is very much Russian intelligence -- even if it's true, they're telling you for a reason.
Well, it might be true.
The thing to remember is, where the Russians are concerned -- and Wikileaks is very much Russian intelligence -- even if it's true, they're telling you for a reason.
Who Are Your Friends?
NYT Headline: "Do Your Friends Actually Like You?"
Well, that depends on what you mean by "friends." If you mean the people I deal with socially and professionally, some of them do, and a lot of them are just being polite. That seems to be what they mean: "THINK of all the people with whom you interact during the course of a day, week, month and year."
OK, I guess. I imagine a lot of them really don't like me, but aren't ready to tell me so.
But I know some guys I don't see every year, that I don't even talk to every year, but we were together 18 hours a day in Iraq. I'm pretty sure I could go look any of them up tomorrow and we'd start back right where we left off. Certainly it's been that way every time I have ever been able to run into any of them.
Got close friends too, and family. Don't see them every day. I know who I can count on, though, and there's a few of them. Maybe one fewer, soon. That's the other side of this kind of thing. If it's just people you happen to run into every so often, well, they come and they go. The ones who count are people you miss.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "friends." If you mean the people I deal with socially and professionally, some of them do, and a lot of them are just being polite. That seems to be what they mean: "THINK of all the people with whom you interact during the course of a day, week, month and year."
OK, I guess. I imagine a lot of them really don't like me, but aren't ready to tell me so.
But I know some guys I don't see every year, that I don't even talk to every year, but we were together 18 hours a day in Iraq. I'm pretty sure I could go look any of them up tomorrow and we'd start back right where we left off. Certainly it's been that way every time I have ever been able to run into any of them.
Got close friends too, and family. Don't see them every day. I know who I can count on, though, and there's a few of them. Maybe one fewer, soon. That's the other side of this kind of thing. If it's just people you happen to run into every so often, well, they come and they go. The ones who count are people you miss.
Winners? Not Yet
You'll remember the first time they do win, if you raise them this way.
They will, too.
The Clinton campaign responded with a statement, with campaign manager Robby Mook saying: “This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.”First of all, that's nonsense as phrased: Clinton herself has been 'suggesting violence' in terms of talking about what she would do with regard to Syria and terrorism. The government is little but an instrument of violence, extracting taxes here and sending people to prison there, deploying a drone strike here and a Combined Joint Task Force there. Talking about how you'd apply the power of the state is most of what you do as a candidate for President. The only other topic Clinton ever discusses is whom she's going to reward with the wealth extracted from the disfavored. Everything else she talks about is suggesting violence at some level of abstraction -- that's what her calls for greatly increased taxes amount to, violence and nothing else.
What this Mook guy really meant to say is that no one running for President should ponder out loud that citizens might take up arms against the state.
It occurs to me that Thomas Jefferson ran for President.
Words versus Deeds
Clinton stories from the last few hours:
* Orlando shooter's father attends Clinton rally, seated right behind her.
* Clinton's reckless handling of national security information in emails leads to execution of American agent in Iran.
* Parents of Benghazi victims sue Clinton for contributing "to the death of both men, as well as defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress."
Trump stories:
* Last ditch GOP effort to kill Trump's candidacy by running an independent candidate who can't even get on all the ballots, but who could cost some swing states.
* Susan Collins announces she will not vote for Trump, citing his "cruel comments."
* Donors for Bush, Christie and Kaisch are turning to Clinton instead of Trump.
* Poll: Clinton has double-digit lead over Trump.
Now, Trump is clearly the anti-establishment candidate left in the race. In a way, the Republican establishment's efforts to destroy him make perfect sense. The Republican establishment feels more secure with the Clinton machine, which is itself a central part of America's political establishment, than with the insurgent voters propelling Trump or Sanders. Clinton is a crony capitalist, and you can get along with her if you're rich and connected and willing to pay (in money or in favors).
That just leaves the rest of us out. We have nothing she needs or wants. And that might be fine, because she has nothing I need or want either. It just can't be fine because of what she will do to the Constitution through the appointment of 'living document' justices, and of what she'll do to American sovereignty through support of deals like the T-TIP and TPP.
* Orlando shooter's father attends Clinton rally, seated right behind her.
* Clinton's reckless handling of national security information in emails leads to execution of American agent in Iran.
* Parents of Benghazi victims sue Clinton for contributing "to the death of both men, as well as defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress."
Trump stories:
* Last ditch GOP effort to kill Trump's candidacy by running an independent candidate who can't even get on all the ballots, but who could cost some swing states.
* Susan Collins announces she will not vote for Trump, citing his "cruel comments."
* Donors for Bush, Christie and Kaisch are turning to Clinton instead of Trump.
* Poll: Clinton has double-digit lead over Trump.
Now, Trump is clearly the anti-establishment candidate left in the race. In a way, the Republican establishment's efforts to destroy him make perfect sense. The Republican establishment feels more secure with the Clinton machine, which is itself a central part of America's political establishment, than with the insurgent voters propelling Trump or Sanders. Clinton is a crony capitalist, and you can get along with her if you're rich and connected and willing to pay (in money or in favors).
That just leaves the rest of us out. We have nothing she needs or wants. And that might be fine, because she has nothing I need or want either. It just can't be fine because of what she will do to the Constitution through the appointment of 'living document' justices, and of what she'll do to American sovereignty through support of deals like the T-TIP and TPP.
What Becomes of the Irish Borders?
Following Brexit, Ireland wonders if its borders are going to become tense again. They aren't now.
Worked So Well on the "Iran Deal"
The Washington Post reports that “President Obama has decided to seek a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would call for an end to nuclear testing.” Going to the Security Council could represent a deliberate effort to bypass the Senate, which rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999. Despite Obama’s adamant support for CTBT, senior officials have consistently pledged to pursue a nuclear test ban by means of a bipartisan dialogue with the Senate. Any effort to enact a test ban through the Security Council without the consent of the Senate would both violate these promises and subvert the checks and balances that enable lawmakers to restrain presidents in matters of national security.The way this worked last year was that the President got the UN Security Council to pass Resolution 2231, which ratified the so-called "Iran deal." Only then did he submit it to Congress for ratification, and without providing the full text along with any side deals as required by the Corker-Cardin law. Then, the Democrats filibustered the resolution of disapproval, so that the 'deal' was deemed to have passed without the Senate ever taking a vote on it at all.
Of course, the next President will be free to walk away from that 'deal,' since it was not ratified as a proper treaty. It's non-binding on Obama's successor, and if the UN doesn't like it they can go jump. Knowing this, the President is all in on electing his chosen successor, in the hope that she will continue his policy. (Good luck with trusting Hillary Clinton to keep her word once she doesn't need you any more, chief.)
Lacking willing Republican suckers to play along, the President won't be able to smuggle this one in on a filibuster. But he can still force his successors to be subject to the rhetorical cudgel that they have violated an agreement ratified by their ambassador at the UN. All he can accomplish here is to hand a weapon to America's enemies on the world stage.
So that's what he's going to do.
Marksmanship Update
Most of the US Rio golds have come from marksmanship, which isn't too surprising. America has one of the last true gun cultures in the modern world, as well as the resources to train people who come up in it to high levels of expertise. It turns out there's more of a military connection than you might have guessed from the use of air rifles, though.
The United States has won more Olympic medals in marksmanship than almost any other sport, and Army Soldiers make up more than a third of the team. This year, five Soldiers will be competing in the Rio Olympics.The Army apparently takes this Olympic shooting stuff seriously, and provides real support to potential Olympians.
2016 Olympic Qualified Soldiers
Sgt. 1st Class Glen Eller
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in double trap
Won a gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics and has competed in four previous Olympic Games
Sgt. 1st Class Michael McPhail
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in men’s 50-meter rifle prone
Competed in the 2012 London Olympics
Sgt. 1st Class Josh Richmond
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in double trap during the May 2016 Shotgun Olympic Trials in Tillar, Arkansas
Competed in the 2012 London Olympics
Spc. Daniel Lowe
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in Air Rifle by winning the 2016 Air Olympic Trials June 3-5 at Camp Perry, Ohio
This will be his first Olympics
Sgt. 1st Class Keith Sanderson
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in 25-meter rapid fire pistol
Rio will be his third Olympic appearance
A Contrast in Cultures
An essay, with photos, of the very different uniforms employed by the women's volleyball teams of Egypt and Germany. It strikes me that the Egyptians are competing at a major disadvantage, although it is wintertime in Brazil.
(Ironic, given that this is the summer Olympics, but it's true.)
Still, this will probably resolve itself. The way Germany is going, they'll be competing in burqinis any day now.
(Ironic, given that this is the summer Olympics, but it's true.)
Still, this will probably resolve itself. The way Germany is going, they'll be competing in burqinis any day now.
John Pilger on Obama & Clinton
This harsh criticism from the Left, by veteran Australian correspondent John Pilger, sounds very much like things I heard at the Philly rallies. I transmit it for that reason.
Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.
In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama. He is “modernising” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable”....
In Asia, the Pentagon is sending ships, planes and special forces to the Philippines to threaten China. The US already encircles China with hundreds of military bases that curve in an arc up from Australia, to Asia and across to Afghanistan. Obama calls this a “pivot”.
As a direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear weapons policy from no-first-use to high alert and put to sea submarines with nuclear weapons. The escalator is quickening.
It was Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State in 2010, elevated the competing territorial claims for rocks and reef in the South China Sea to an international issue; CNN and BBC hysteria followed; China was building airstrips on the disputed islands. In a mammoth war game in 2015, Operation Talisman Sabre, the US and Australia practiced “choking” the Straits of Malacca through which pass most of China’s oil and trade. This was not news.
Clinton declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian waters. The Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue their claims and old enmities against China. In America, people are being primed to see any Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so the ground is laid for rapid escalation. A similar strategy of provocation and propaganda is applied to Russia.
Clinton, the “women’s candidate”, leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine – literally, borderland – that Hitler’s Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton’s presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world’s ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close.
The "Rorke's Drift Paras"
This is one of the great stories of military history.
For nearly two months, the 88 men of Easy Company – a mix of Paratroopers and the Royal Irish – had faced the overwhelming force and firepower of up to 500 Taliban determined to over-run the remote Helmand outpost of Musa Qala....There's going to be a documentary that ought to be worth the candle.
Hungry and frequently at the point of exhaustion, they were forced to somehow fend off 360-degree attacks from the Taliban, with little protection beyond a series of low mud walls.
They used up a quarter of all the British Army’s Afghan ammunition for that entire year.
Bang, Bang
American women shooters are tearing it up at the Olympics this year. Corey Cogdell took bronze in trap.
I'd pair that with a good mass-produced American brew, but not a light beer. It's only a bronze, after all. It's not the very best there is. But it's not nothing, either. Maybe a PBR, or a full-strength Coors.
I'd pair that with a good mass-produced American brew, but not a light beer. It's only a bronze, after all. It's not the very best there is. But it's not nothing, either. Maybe a PBR, or a full-strength Coors.
Drink/Thought Pairings
So, I guess we are doing this. Co-bloggers are encouraged to suggest a drink to go along with the thought or reflection they are proposing to the Hall. It can be fancy, like Tom's suggestion of Chianti Classico, or brutal, like my suggestion of Jerry Rum. I trust you're all experienced hands.
Well, That's Inconvenient
Regarding Galileo, "The Inquisition followed sound science," according to the Boston Globe.
There's an issue about punctuation.
There's an issue about punctuation.
The Hell You Say
The government’s top watchdog revealed in a new report that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) essentially maintained a database of law-abiding gun owners by ignoring its own policies.... FFLs are required to report to the ATF the names of customers who purchase multiple firearms at once. ATF is supposed to keep the names on file for no longer than two years, after which policies require that the agency remove identifying information about the buyers if the firearms haven’t been linked to a crime.How shocking.
But for more than two decades, the agency has failed to comply with the privacy protection policies with regularity.
Porco Rosso
On the topics of honor and Eric's series of anime, let me mention Porco Rosso, the Crimson Pig:
It's Hayao Miyazake again. The story is about Porco, a self-employed fighter pilot who also happens to be a pig, in the Mediterranean in the 1930s. He used to be Marco, a human pilot. He and his best friend joined the Italian air force to become fighter pilots in World War I, but his best friend, and most of his squadron, was killed in combat. This is the spell that turned Marco into Porco. (All of the dates and countries are rough analogues; the story is not intended to be historical, but merely rhyme with history.)
Porco is a bounty hunter who hunts pirates, of which there is no shortage. He is challenged by a man the pirate gangs hired to take him out. Honor compels him to the fight. Along the way, he is helped by Fio, a young woman who turns out to be a budding young aviation engineer, and she gets involved in the duel. In part for his own honor, and in part to save her, he stakes everything on one dogfight.
For her part, designing the best amphibian fighter plane in the world is Fio's challenge, and also finding the answer to whether or not Porco can be saved from his spell.
It is worth watching for the imagery, the music, and the story. You will not be enlightened, but who says every movie must make you rethink your life?
One caveat: In an odd juxtaposition, the early part of the movie is much more for children than the latter part. When I first saw the early part, I thought, oh, that's cute. After seeing this movie several times, I just put up with the first part in order to get to the story I'm interested in. It's a good time to make popcorn.
A second caveat: There is a point in the movie where a good friend is asking Porco not to get into this fight. In the translation, Porco replies: "A pig's gotta fly." However, the actual Japanese is: 飛ばない豚はただの豚だ. "A pig who doesn't fly is just a pig."
I understand the difficulties of translating for a movie. You have to get the meaning across, but also stick to the time allowed the scene. However, the Japanese reply carries a deeper meaning in the context of Porco's transformation from human to pig, and his insistence on personal honor when his friends have died in a lost battle and things like national honor and pride have been demolished.
UPDATE: Normally, I suppose, you watch the movie and then review it, but I had seen it maybe half a dozen times, maybe more, so I didn't bother to watch it again before posting this. I didn't intend to watch it again today, but after posting I couldn't get it out of my mind, and I had a bottle of Italian wine in the cupboard ... The children's part is shorter than I had remembered, and the whole story does depend on personal honor. The topic is brought up at several points in the story. Also, during this time Italy is turning to fascism, which is one reason why Porco doesn't return to the air force, and why he can no longer rely on national pride or honor, but only the honor of one man, er, pig, standing against the world. (Really, one man and one woman.)
I watch it in Japanese, so maybe I'm not the best one to offer advice here. In considering a non-Japanese-speaking audience, I tried watching it dubbed in English, but Michael Keaton's voice was jarring. He may be Batman, but Porco? I don't think so. I recommend it in Japanese with English subtitles if you don't mind subtitles. If you do mind subtitles, well, Michael Keaton's not terrible.
If you are the type who matches movies with drinks, allow me to recommend the Gabbiano Chianti Classico for a richer taste, or the Placido Chianti for a smoother taste, for this movie.
It's Hayao Miyazake again. The story is about Porco, a self-employed fighter pilot who also happens to be a pig, in the Mediterranean in the 1930s. He used to be Marco, a human pilot. He and his best friend joined the Italian air force to become fighter pilots in World War I, but his best friend, and most of his squadron, was killed in combat. This is the spell that turned Marco into Porco. (All of the dates and countries are rough analogues; the story is not intended to be historical, but merely rhyme with history.)
Porco is a bounty hunter who hunts pirates, of which there is no shortage. He is challenged by a man the pirate gangs hired to take him out. Honor compels him to the fight. Along the way, he is helped by Fio, a young woman who turns out to be a budding young aviation engineer, and she gets involved in the duel. In part for his own honor, and in part to save her, he stakes everything on one dogfight.
For her part, designing the best amphibian fighter plane in the world is Fio's challenge, and also finding the answer to whether or not Porco can be saved from his spell.
It is worth watching for the imagery, the music, and the story. You will not be enlightened, but who says every movie must make you rethink your life?
One caveat: In an odd juxtaposition, the early part of the movie is much more for children than the latter part. When I first saw the early part, I thought, oh, that's cute. After seeing this movie several times, I just put up with the first part in order to get to the story I'm interested in. It's a good time to make popcorn.
A second caveat: There is a point in the movie where a good friend is asking Porco not to get into this fight. In the translation, Porco replies: "A pig's gotta fly." However, the actual Japanese is: 飛ばない豚はただの豚だ. "A pig who doesn't fly is just a pig."
I understand the difficulties of translating for a movie. You have to get the meaning across, but also stick to the time allowed the scene. However, the Japanese reply carries a deeper meaning in the context of Porco's transformation from human to pig, and his insistence on personal honor when his friends have died in a lost battle and things like national honor and pride have been demolished.
UPDATE: Normally, I suppose, you watch the movie and then review it, but I had seen it maybe half a dozen times, maybe more, so I didn't bother to watch it again before posting this. I didn't intend to watch it again today, but after posting I couldn't get it out of my mind, and I had a bottle of Italian wine in the cupboard ... The children's part is shorter than I had remembered, and the whole story does depend on personal honor. The topic is brought up at several points in the story. Also, during this time Italy is turning to fascism, which is one reason why Porco doesn't return to the air force, and why he can no longer rely on national pride or honor, but only the honor of one man, er, pig, standing against the world. (Really, one man and one woman.)
I watch it in Japanese, so maybe I'm not the best one to offer advice here. In considering a non-Japanese-speaking audience, I tried watching it dubbed in English, but Michael Keaton's voice was jarring. He may be Batman, but Porco? I don't think so. I recommend it in Japanese with English subtitles if you don't mind subtitles. If you do mind subtitles, well, Michael Keaton's not terrible.
If you are the type who matches movies with drinks, allow me to recommend the Gabbiano Chianti Classico for a richer taste, or the Placido Chianti for a smoother taste, for this movie.
"A Good Gift For Bad People"
Yo.
I strive to be an honorable man, but increasingly I wonder if that is always consistent with being a good man. We all know that mafias have honor codes, but aren't good men in spite of living by these codes. It's an interesting question. Assuming for the moment that honor and goodness don't always line up, which one should be preferred? Alternatively, can you give an account of why they should always line up, one that would explain that codes like the mafia's aren't really honorable?
You might want to have a drink while considering the question. It's the kind of thing we live or die by.
Okay, You Tell Me, Then
Yesterday I suggested a way to change Conservative rhetoric to create openings to persuade Progressives, but the comments mostly agreed that it was too late for persuasion:
So what have you tried? What convinced you that persuasion isn't possible?
And what's your solution? Or, if you don't think there's a solution, how do you think things will play out?
raven: I have given up, and I largely avoid them. I do not believe they can be trusted, not on any grounds of compassion, but because they accept orders unconditionally, and will perform mental contortions to reconcile the new belief with the old. The gulag is the gulag and they always end up putting their opponents there....
Mississippi: Wow, I back Raven's comments. She is correct. Progressives are smug. They deem non-progressives as inferior....
Eric Blair: I think Raven has the sense of it....
Krag: I view this as an exercise in extreme futility. I think we are far past reconciliation with the left. The views for the future are too different for one nation to move forward. One side has to win, through bloody means, before America will take any more steps forward....
Anonymous: I disagree. Progressives are a manifestation of arrested development and the infantile, Nietzschean "will to power," unrestrained by any sense of reason born of maturity, discipline, reason, or Christian temperance. ... I have become convinced that this cannot be reasoned with....
So what have you tried? What convinced you that persuasion isn't possible?
And what's your solution? Or, if you don't think there's a solution, how do you think things will play out?
Don't Tread On Me
So, before today, did any of you know that Gadsden owned slaves?
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is gathering information to determine whether the iconic Gadsden flag is racist and punishable under federal workplace harassment regulations.How likely is it that someone displaying a Gadsden flag knew that Gadsden was a slave-owner if we didn't? I would like to point out that the word "slave" doesn't appear anywhere on the Wikipedia entry for the Gadsden flag. I therefore reason that your average American displaying the flag probably isn't thinking of race or slavery. They're thinking of rebellion against an overweening government.
The impetus was a Jan. 8, 2014, complaint brought by a black federal employee who was upset by his coworker’s hat, which bore the flag.
The individual who filed the complaint did so because the flag is allegedly an “indicator of white resentment against blacks,” specifically tied to the tea party movement, and that its creator, South Carolina statesmen Christopher Gadsden, owned slaves.
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who specializes in First Amendment issues and runs a blog for The Washington Post, wrote that the case includes no evidence that racial epithets were ever uttered — though some details of the case are not revealed due to secret proceedings — and the EEOC acknowledged that Gadsden created the flag “in a nonracial context” prior to the Revolutionary War.
And that's downright American. It's the core of what America is all about.
Sounds Reasonable
Pentagon kills defense reporter after toddler falls into press enclosure:
ARLINGTON, Va. — Members of the national press and the military are in shock today after a small child fell into the Pentagon’s press enclosure and officials were forced to shoot and kill a 35-year old reporter to protect the child.I know this sounds like a drastic measure, and PETA is already up in arms, but once you know all the facts, it just makes sense.
A Hunch about Persuading Progressives to Change
Progressivism is a moral philosophy: Progress is, finally, moral progress. We get there through a process of evolution, which is very slow and very messy. Each generation may only make a little Progress. We know our society is making Progress because we are rewarded, overall, with better lives and a more just society.
Progressives live in a very simple, but powerful, moral world:
One of the reasons it is difficult to change minds is that we have this ideal of reasoning toward a good conclusion, but that's not how most people work. People work from a general paradigm, a view of how the world works. If you share their worldview, then you can get somewhere through reason. However, if you do not, if your worldview is quite different, they will write off your arguments as violations of how the world works. They won't even really consider them; they can't and still hold on to their identity.
Reading Tex's experiences with Obamacare is gut-wrenching. But when I've talked to Progressives about the problems with the law, in the end, it comes down to their sense of identity: Progressives care about other people and they are generous. Obamacare, then, is a good-hearted law designed to help the needy, and it has some flaws that should be fixed. In the end, neither the problems the program has caused nor the hazards of increased government control over our lives has made any difference to Progressives because they believe it's a generous law that will (when corrected) really help the disadvantaged. These things take time, you know. Evolution is a messy process.
Progressives are also humble. They are more than willing to admit mistakes. Sometimes their hearts overrule their heads and, overcome with a tremendous desire to help others, they don't think everything through and just rush to help. But we can fix those mistakes and make things better. Just watch.
You see, no matter what the Conservative's argument is, until it gets to the heart, it doesn't really matter. Progressive thought always ends up in the heart as its last defense: We care about others; we're generous; we're open-minded; in the end, through messy evolutionary processes, this will all work out for the better. This is the inner fortress of Progressive identity.
To really change a Progressive's mind, then, we need to challenge this identity. We have to show not just that their policies are harmful, but that they are heartless. We have to indict them as selfish and close-minded, more concerned with power than actually helping anyone. We have to show them that evolution is blind.
I think if we do that, we can create real openings.
The second part is one of of Khun's rules: No matter how problematic one's worldview is, no one abandons it until they can see a new, better paradigm to replace it with. We need to have a clear replacement to offer them, one that focuses on selflessness, service, generosity, genuine charity (in the old caritas / love they neighbor sense) and making the world a better place. I think Conservatives in general need to have a much better understanding of their own ideals and their own moral values, and they need to be able to articulate them clearly and succinctly. We each need our elevator speech, and we need to be able to back it up with in-depth discussions at the coffee house and pub.
Of course, this is just a hunch.
Progressives live in a very simple, but powerful, moral world:
- Progressives care about other people, especially the poor, the helpless, and the victims of injustice.
- Conservatives are selfish and myopic; they often can't even see injustice.
- Progressives are generous, good-hearted people willing to sacrifice for others.
- Conservatives are greedy and only want to improve the lot of themselves and their own kind.
- Progressives are open-minded, willing to explore new ideas, and willing to accept strangers as fellow-travelers on the road to a better future.
- Conservatives are close-minded: they are afraid of new ideas, and they are afraid of strangers.
One of the reasons it is difficult to change minds is that we have this ideal of reasoning toward a good conclusion, but that's not how most people work. People work from a general paradigm, a view of how the world works. If you share their worldview, then you can get somewhere through reason. However, if you do not, if your worldview is quite different, they will write off your arguments as violations of how the world works. They won't even really consider them; they can't and still hold on to their identity.
Reading Tex's experiences with Obamacare is gut-wrenching. But when I've talked to Progressives about the problems with the law, in the end, it comes down to their sense of identity: Progressives care about other people and they are generous. Obamacare, then, is a good-hearted law designed to help the needy, and it has some flaws that should be fixed. In the end, neither the problems the program has caused nor the hazards of increased government control over our lives has made any difference to Progressives because they believe it's a generous law that will (when corrected) really help the disadvantaged. These things take time, you know. Evolution is a messy process.
Progressives are also humble. They are more than willing to admit mistakes. Sometimes their hearts overrule their heads and, overcome with a tremendous desire to help others, they don't think everything through and just rush to help. But we can fix those mistakes and make things better. Just watch.
You see, no matter what the Conservative's argument is, until it gets to the heart, it doesn't really matter. Progressive thought always ends up in the heart as its last defense: We care about others; we're generous; we're open-minded; in the end, through messy evolutionary processes, this will all work out for the better. This is the inner fortress of Progressive identity.
To really change a Progressive's mind, then, we need to challenge this identity. We have to show not just that their policies are harmful, but that they are heartless. We have to indict them as selfish and close-minded, more concerned with power than actually helping anyone. We have to show them that evolution is blind.
I think if we do that, we can create real openings.
The second part is one of of Khun's rules: No matter how problematic one's worldview is, no one abandons it until they can see a new, better paradigm to replace it with. We need to have a clear replacement to offer them, one that focuses on selflessness, service, generosity, genuine charity (in the old caritas / love they neighbor sense) and making the world a better place. I think Conservatives in general need to have a much better understanding of their own ideals and their own moral values, and they need to be able to articulate them clearly and succinctly. We each need our elevator speech, and we need to be able to back it up with in-depth discussions at the coffee house and pub.
Of course, this is just a hunch.
95 Is The Dividing Line
If you're experiencing any existential crises, your motorcycle may lead you out of them. Your motorcycle will guide you past them, but only once you gear it up over 95. That's for a bike without windshield or fairing. I assume those things raise the point at which you have no choice but to focus your attention on the bike and nothing else.
At some point I am going to have a talk with the Good Lord about why He built the world in such a way that these things are necessary. But maybe He did it just so we could ride motorcycles like this in something like good conscience. Not all the time. Mostly it's a sin that I've ridden this way, and Lord knows I've ridden like this a lot.
Maybe this time it's all right.
Or just as possibly, it may... be... not.
Well, I confess my sins to you.
At some point I am going to have a talk with the Good Lord about why He built the world in such a way that these things are necessary. But maybe He did it just so we could ride motorcycles like this in something like good conscience. Not all the time. Mostly it's a sin that I've ridden this way, and Lord knows I've ridden like this a lot.
Maybe this time it's all right.
Or just as possibly, it may... be... not.
Well, I confess my sins to you.
I Guess It's Good That It's "Official"
The Washington Post: "A slew of bad economic headlines last week made it official: The Obama economy has failed."
Oh, Good, We're Paying Ransoms Now
I mean, what are the odds that Iran will interpret this as an incentive to take more Americans hostage, right?
Oh, you say they're already doing that? Gee, who could have predicted that?
You know, Trump may be right. As ridiculous as the claim seems, he may really understand foreign policy better than President Obama.
Oh, you say they're already doing that? Gee, who could have predicted that?
You know, Trump may be right. As ridiculous as the claim seems, he may really understand foreign policy better than President Obama.
Dark Ages Palace Discovered in Cornwall
Some Arthurian news of more interest:
Archaeologists have discovered the impressive remains of a probable Dark Age royal palace at Tintagel in Cornwall. It is likely that the one-metre thick walls being unearthed are those of the main residence of the 6th century rulers of an ancient south-west British kingdom, known as Dumnonia.
Scholars have long argued about whether King Arthur actually existed or whether he was in reality a legendary character formed through the conflation of a series of separate historical and mythological figures.
But the discovery by English Heritage-funded archaeologists of a probable Dark Age palace at Tintagel will certainly trigger debate in Arthurian studies circles – because, in medieval tradition, Arthur was said to have been conceived at Tintagel as a result of an illicit union between a British King and the beautiful wife of a local ruler.
How to Start a Clash of Civilizations
Foreign Policy has an interesting piece by that title. The sub-head is:
And then:
It's an interesting and brief article that discusses the history of Catholicism in France and recent statements about refugees and Islam by European politicians and the pope, then turns to Marion Le Pen and the French Catholic reaction.
I think it's too little, too late: How much of France is still really Catholic? I've heard the term "culturally Catholic" to describe western European Catholics who are really secular and often atheists. So, maybe the small number of real French Catholics are willing to stand up against violent jihad, but what about the rest of France?
On the other hand, I really know little of European politics. Maybe it's true that while there is life there is hope.
If the Islamic State wants to renew the Crusades by attacking churches and killing priests, Catholic France won’t run from the fight.
And then:
Whatever the extent of Western reluctance or prudence, the truth is there’s no better way to shake Europe out of what many now see as its guilt-ridden paralysis than to assault French Catholicism — the oldest, most ingrained force that transcends nationalism in Europe’s most powerful proud nation.
It's an interesting and brief article that discusses the history of Catholicism in France and recent statements about refugees and Islam by European politicians and the pope, then turns to Marion Le Pen and the French Catholic reaction.
I think it's too little, too late: How much of France is still really Catholic? I've heard the term "culturally Catholic" to describe western European Catholics who are really secular and often atheists. So, maybe the small number of real French Catholics are willing to stand up against violent jihad, but what about the rest of France?
On the other hand, I really know little of European politics. Maybe it's true that while there is life there is hope.
Seventy Years Since
The Battle of Athens ought to be an inspiration to us all -- if only we all knew about it.
It Was Over A Hundred This Afternoon....
...in the country.
I imagine it was right brutal in the city.
I imagine it was right brutal in the city.
The Elitist Elites Rally Against The Donald
Joe Bob Briggs, drive in movie reviewer to the stars, writes about journalists' treatment of Donald Trump. I'm going to quote only one of his points about the way the self-appointed elite gatekeepers of our democracy view Trump.
Meanwhile, the President of the United States himself has come out to declare the opposition party's candidate manifestly unfit to serve. It's hard to get more elite than the sitting President, and he's simply declaring that the opponent's candidate should be dismissed outright from consideration.
Now, I also happen to think that Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit for the office he's seeking. I also think that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is morally unfit for the same office. Of the two, I regard a defect in moral character as the more disqualifying.
Still, it's a predictable brouhaha in a way. Donald Trump, the billionaire, has somehow become the voice of the anti-establishment movement. The whole establishment is united against him. They're united against him in a more vocal way than we've ever yet seen.
I suppose that means they think he's going to win. You only pull out all the stops like this when you're terrified of what's about to happen.
But let’s cut to the chase and look at what I’m calling the Big Eight. Of all the words used by the press to describe Donald Trump, the million-hit wonders are these:You should read the rest, which is at Taki's magazine in the UK.
bully 1.4 million
self-obsessed 2.5 million
vicious 9.1 million
rude 13.3 million
cruel 13.3 million
liar 16.2 million
angry 19.3 million
And the winner—drum roll, please:
idiot 20.5 million
Notice that five of the eight are internal attributes, only one can be fact-checked, and the most popular epithet of them all is the last refuge of sputtering incoherent rage. It’s reminiscent of the old Saturday Night Live routine, with Dan Aykroyd responding to anything Jane Curtin said with, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
Meanwhile, the President of the United States himself has come out to declare the opposition party's candidate manifestly unfit to serve. It's hard to get more elite than the sitting President, and he's simply declaring that the opponent's candidate should be dismissed outright from consideration.
Now, I also happen to think that Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit for the office he's seeking. I also think that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is morally unfit for the same office. Of the two, I regard a defect in moral character as the more disqualifying.
Still, it's a predictable brouhaha in a way. Donald Trump, the billionaire, has somehow become the voice of the anti-establishment movement. The whole establishment is united against him. They're united against him in a more vocal way than we've ever yet seen.
I suppose that means they think he's going to win. You only pull out all the stops like this when you're terrified of what's about to happen.
A Purely Personal Note About the Protests
So, in addition to the things I've written previously, I want to note for the record that protesters like me on sight. Not everyone usually does. I'm not the sort of person who comes by protests often, but they really appreciated that I was there. They were vocal about it.
Whole years go by without someone complimenting my appearance, but I had a pretty young lady come up and shake my hand emphatically. "You're just so cool," she said.
At the Black Men for Bernie protest, one of the Black Men for Bernie came up to me and said, "What's up, my brother with the best beard ever?" He proved, in a few seconds conversation, to have accurately guessed that I'd been to Iraq. I'm not sure what he was picking up on -- I wasn't wearing my "Baghdad Summer Camp" T-shirt.
I also met a very nice, older lesbian couple who had spent their younger years as trappers in the north, and were now raising exotic plant species. They were great fun to talk to, worried about corporate influence on our elections but very much in favor of the freedom to wander the forests.
There was also a reporter I met from Australia, who said he was working for their version of VICE. He was a fun guy to hang out with and swap stories. His opinion was that these protests were proof that, for the first time in a while, personal character had become a real issue in an American Presidential election. The rise of third parties wasn't mostly about ideology, but about the fact that both major party nominees were really bad people.
He was right about that, I think. For a while, I was carrying a sign somebody gave me that read, "Which Liar Do You Trust?"
It does seem to be the relevant question this year.
Whole years go by without someone complimenting my appearance, but I had a pretty young lady come up and shake my hand emphatically. "You're just so cool," she said.
At the Black Men for Bernie protest, one of the Black Men for Bernie came up to me and said, "What's up, my brother with the best beard ever?" He proved, in a few seconds conversation, to have accurately guessed that I'd been to Iraq. I'm not sure what he was picking up on -- I wasn't wearing my "Baghdad Summer Camp" T-shirt.
I also met a very nice, older lesbian couple who had spent their younger years as trappers in the north, and were now raising exotic plant species. They were great fun to talk to, worried about corporate influence on our elections but very much in favor of the freedom to wander the forests.
There was also a reporter I met from Australia, who said he was working for their version of VICE. He was a fun guy to hang out with and swap stories. His opinion was that these protests were proof that, for the first time in a while, personal character had become a real issue in an American Presidential election. The rise of third parties wasn't mostly about ideology, but about the fact that both major party nominees were really bad people.
He was right about that, I think. For a while, I was carrying a sign somebody gave me that read, "Which Liar Do You Trust?"
It does seem to be the relevant question this year.
No, These Do Not Constitute 'Similarities'
This guy is apparently both a Ph.D. and a "retired senior military officer," so he claims.
At one point I had a computer program glance over the page, and it found that less than 1% of the posts and commentary in the Hall included profanity. My capacity to keep up those standards is being intensely pressured by nonsense like this.
Contentious as it might sound, there are significant similarities between the Islamic State terrorist organization, ISIS, and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Of course there are differences as well, but examining issues of congruence adds another dimension to the gun violence controversy.I hardly know where to begin. Fear and intimidation? Defy ISIS and they'll murder a hundred people in cafes in your peaceful city. Defy the NRA, and you'll get lots of angry postcards.
The most important parallels between ISIS and the NRA are:
- Institutionally, both organizations are remorseless about the deaths of victims
- Both use fear and intimidation to obtain their objectives
- Both assume their ideology is superior to the wishes of the majority of citizens
- Both have intensely loyal followers
- Both recruit and indoctrinate members who are ignorant of the basic facts
- Both are relatively small organizations that have impact far beyond their size
- Neither organization will apologize for the harm they cause
At one point I had a computer program glance over the page, and it found that less than 1% of the posts and commentary in the Hall included profanity. My capacity to keep up those standards is being intensely pressured by nonsense like this.
Oh, Really?
Vox is worried that Trump's talk about a "rigged election" could take a sledgehammer to the bedrock of America's faith in democracy.
I'd have thought it was the DNC's proven rigging of elections that was undermining faith in the fairness of elections. I mean, the only reason Trump doesn't sound paranoid is that you've just proven that you Vox types are totally on board with actively rigging elections -- and also totally on board with making sure no one suffers any consequences for it, as long as they're on your side.
I'd have thought it was the DNC's proven rigging of elections that was undermining faith in the fairness of elections. I mean, the only reason Trump doesn't sound paranoid is that you've just proven that you Vox types are totally on board with actively rigging elections -- and also totally on board with making sure no one suffers any consequences for it, as long as they're on your side.
Not Just A Right, But A Duty
D29 has an important distinction on the matter of defense:
In any case, it is worth making clear that the right to defense is only part of the issue. A duty also exists in some cases. We are less responsible for the defense of our fellow citizens than for our family members, but I'm not sure there ought not to be a moral duty of citizens to defend one another as well. Just as we say that you must stop and render aid and assistance in the case of an accident, ought you not to aid your fellows if you find them being robbed or beaten?
'Ought implies can,' so the duty is less onerous for those who are less capable. Yet this is a good reason for an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment: we are all more capable if we keep and bear arms, especially if they are arms in which we regularly train.
Turning the other cheek is the counsel Christ gave in the instance of an individual when morally insulted: Humility conquers pride. It has nothing to do with self-defense.Presumably, outside of Catholic circles, we would say that the mother has an equal responsibility rather than standing on the idea of complementarianism. I leave that decision to you each to make for yourselves. I can see arguments for complementarianism in some spheres, of which the family is perhaps the most obvious. Still, even there, there is something to be said for the liberty for families to order themselves without much if any external interference. There is no greater space for liberty than the human family, which is a genuinely pre-political structure that politics should not, in general, intrude upon. There may be exceptions to that principle, but I am suspicious of the business of crafting exceptions to it. The argument for each particular exception would need to be quite strong.
The Catholic Church has always maintained that the defiance of an evil force is not only a right but an obligation. Its Catechism (cf. #2265) cites St. Thomas Aquinas: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State.”
A father is culpable if he does not protect his family.
In any case, it is worth making clear that the right to defense is only part of the issue. A duty also exists in some cases. We are less responsible for the defense of our fellow citizens than for our family members, but I'm not sure there ought not to be a moral duty of citizens to defend one another as well. Just as we say that you must stop and render aid and assistance in the case of an accident, ought you not to aid your fellows if you find them being robbed or beaten?
'Ought implies can,' so the duty is less onerous for those who are less capable. Yet this is a good reason for an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment: we are all more capable if we keep and bear arms, especially if they are arms in which we regularly train.
Texas Readers Take Note
Six nights of the Reverend Horton Heat at the Continental Club in Austin.
The undisputed Godfather of Psychobilly, The Reverend Horton Heat, invites its congregation to join them this October in Austin, TX for six white-hot nights as the legendary Continental Club is transformed to The Continental Church Of The Reverend Horton Heat.That's going to be an amazing set of shows.
For the first time ever in its historic 50 years plus existence a band will be selling out 6 consecutive nights of shows, guaranteeing this event’s rightful place in Austin’s music and folklore history.
Making the event even more special, each show will feature a unique line up with some VERY SPECIAL guest artists and bands.
Get ready… as hot rods, lowriders and choppers descend on South Congress to The Continental Church of The Reverend Horton Heat.
A Hunch about the Democrats' Foreign Policy
I suspect Obama's Iran deal and Hillary's support for Russian weapons development are parts of a strategy to limit the power of the United States and force US politics to focus on domestic issues, where Democrats believe they are strong and Republicans are weak.
Generally, Republicans are more focused on foreign involvement, and Democrats on domestic involvement. If the Democrats can make foreign involvement much less meaningful, then they force US politics to focus on the Democrats' strengths.
By helping Iran and Russia become militarily powerful nations, they make the stakes for US military involvement overseas much, much higher. In addition, weakening relations with our traditional military allies also limits us. Doing these things will almost certainly lead to a much lower probability of US military action in those regions. This can be used to claim we don't need as much military power and then to reduce our forces, which will further limit our options. (As a bonus, the military is a hotbed of Republican support, so reducing it is always good for Democrats.)
Given our own weakness in the face of powerful foreign forces, they can then, quite reasonably, claim that since we can't do much about what foreign nations do, we should focus on social justice here. Voila! The entire national debate shifts dramatically.
It's just a hunch, though.
Generally, Republicans are more focused on foreign involvement, and Democrats on domestic involvement. If the Democrats can make foreign involvement much less meaningful, then they force US politics to focus on the Democrats' strengths.
By helping Iran and Russia become militarily powerful nations, they make the stakes for US military involvement overseas much, much higher. In addition, weakening relations with our traditional military allies also limits us. Doing these things will almost certainly lead to a much lower probability of US military action in those regions. This can be used to claim we don't need as much military power and then to reduce our forces, which will further limit our options. (As a bonus, the military is a hotbed of Republican support, so reducing it is always good for Democrats.)
Given our own weakness in the face of powerful foreign forces, they can then, quite reasonably, claim that since we can't do much about what foreign nations do, we should focus on social justice here. Voila! The entire national debate shifts dramatically.
It's just a hunch, though.
Of Course She Doesn't Want to "Repeal" It
Hillary Clinton claims she doesn't want to 'repeal' the Second Amendment.
Of course she doesn't. Repealing it would require a supermajority vote of the legislature, followed by ratification by numerous states. That's exactly the kind of democracy she opposes as insufficiently submissive to the whims of the elite.
What she wants is to appoint a reliable majority to the Supreme court that will redefine the Second Amendment so that it says what she wants it to say. We shall all have the right to keep and bear arms insofar as we belong to an official state militia, none of which shall be allowed as the National Guard is a perfectly appropriate substitute for them. It won't be repealed, just interpreted in a way that ensures that none of us can appeal to it for any legal reason whatsoever.
Of course she doesn't. Repealing it would require a supermajority vote of the legislature, followed by ratification by numerous states. That's exactly the kind of democracy she opposes as insufficiently submissive to the whims of the elite.
What she wants is to appoint a reliable majority to the Supreme court that will redefine the Second Amendment so that it says what she wants it to say. We shall all have the right to keep and bear arms insofar as we belong to an official state militia, none of which shall be allowed as the National Guard is a perfectly appropriate substitute for them. It won't be repealed, just interpreted in a way that ensures that none of us can appeal to it for any legal reason whatsoever.
Death to Wells Fargo
I don't especially like when corporations go after gun rights, and I'd be only too happy to see a few heads on pikes as a warning to others. A company that goes after knife manufacturers, though: that's a bridge too far. Now it's not about the particular dangers of guns of this or that type. You're just opposed to weapons. To be opposed to weapons is not to oppose the human right of self-defense. It's just to oppose the tools that would make such a right realizable.
It's like favoring voting rights, but being opposed to polling stations.
It's like favoring freedom of speech, but being against people being allowed to keep their tongues.
It's like favoring freedom of religion, but opposing anyone building a church.
Corporations that try to destroy the practical realization of any of our freedoms deserve to be destroyed in turn.
It's like favoring voting rights, but being opposed to polling stations.
It's like favoring freedom of speech, but being against people being allowed to keep their tongues.
It's like favoring freedom of religion, but opposing anyone building a church.
Corporations that try to destroy the practical realization of any of our freedoms deserve to be destroyed in turn.
The Glories of Obamacare Continue to Shine
That grandfathered plan I have had since the enactment of this monstrosity we call Obamacare is being canceled next year. The company just doesn't want to offer it any longer, though I was promised that 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.' They're offering a similar plan, with the much-smaller network associated with Obamacare, for only 122% of the price of my current plan.
Of course, "you should know changing your health care plan will cause you to lose your grandfathered status -- and under the health care law, you can't get it back."
So, I have the option of changing my plan and losing that status, or having the plan canceled out from under me and replaced with a much more expensive one that isn't nearly as good.
UPDATE: I should add that this plan has more or less doubled in price since 2010 already. At this point, I'd be paying nearly three times the original rate for less access to health care.
Maybe this monster worked for somebody, but from my perspective Obama's signature legislative accomplishment has been an unmitigated disaster.
Of course, "you should know changing your health care plan will cause you to lose your grandfathered status -- and under the health care law, you can't get it back."
So, I have the option of changing my plan and losing that status, or having the plan canceled out from under me and replaced with a much more expensive one that isn't nearly as good.
UPDATE: I should add that this plan has more or less doubled in price since 2010 already. At this point, I'd be paying nearly three times the original rate for less access to health care.
Maybe this monster worked for somebody, but from my perspective Obama's signature legislative accomplishment has been an unmitigated disaster.
Jill Stein: Winner of the Protests
Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, was the clear winner from the protests. Opinions about Bernie's endorsement of Hillary ran from heartbreak to outrage, but not compliance. Jill Stein, on the other hand, showed up in person to several protests and was allowed to take the mic. She was warmly welcomed, and her chant -- "JILL NOT HILL!" -- became a very common refrain by the end of the week.
Even by Tuesday, she joined the march on the DNC by the protesters that was later joined by the walkout delegates, and kept marching with them through the night. I would not be surprised to see her take leadership of a breakaway faction of the progressive left. Again, the DNC brought it on themselves with their own corrupt conduct and refusal to abide by democratic norms.
Here is some chalk art from Thomas Paine Square, on Friday at the protests.
Even by Tuesday, she joined the march on the DNC by the protesters that was later joined by the walkout delegates, and kept marching with them through the night. I would not be surprised to see her take leadership of a breakaway faction of the progressive left. Again, the DNC brought it on themselves with their own corrupt conduct and refusal to abide by democratic norms.
Here is some chalk art from Thomas Paine Square, on Friday at the protests.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)