Headline: "How President Donald Trump Could Ruin His Enemies' Lives."
The article makes a lot of good points, and indeed explains why the unconstrained Federal government is such a tremendous danger to the very liberty it was created to protect. Only now do they see the terror of the monster they've created.
What they also don't see is how it's been used, and is being used, in so many of these ways. In fact, if you talked to them about the IRS scandal, you'd be told that was just wild conspiracy theory.
Nor do they ponder how much institutional resistance there would be to a Trump attempt to turn a bureaucracy made up very disproportionately of Democrats against his enemies. A Clinton attempt, by contrast, would be as happily embraced as the Obama attempts have been.
Foundations
"A lot of smoke, and no fire," she says.
I feel some heat coming off of these.
Story one:
I feel some heat coming off of these.
Story one:
... the American people, their representatives, and law enforcement were never supposed to see these Clinton documents. She blatantly broke the law to destroy them, instead of handing them over to the State Department. “Clinton’s lawyers deleted these emails without turning them over to the State Department, though it turns out that they are clearly public records that explain just how a momentous decision was made on a major arms deal. In spite of that, the FBI recommended no prosecution[.]"Story two:
Story three:"I have never seen a diplomatic cable that had as stark a description of one energy company trying to cheat."...While the CFIUS deliberations were taking place, people who stood to profit from the Uranium One sale donated more than $2.6 million to the Clinton Foundation.
— Fred Fleitz, Center for Security Policy
Also, Renaissance Capital, an investment bank with connections to the Russian government, paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 to deliver a speech -- more than his usual fee.
Even before the sale was under consideration, the Clinton Foundation received $31.3 million in donations from one person, Frank Giustra, who stood to benefit from the sale....
"I think it is a smoking gun," Gray said. "By not acting, she helped. And the only way she could have avoided criminal liability was to recuse herself, which she did not. I think it is a clear violation of ethics statutes."
From 2009 through 2013, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had refused to designate Boko Haram as an official Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in spite of intense bipartisan pressure to do so. Why? Both Citizens United and Senator David Vitter have sought FOIA releases of documents explaining State’s thought process at this time. However, there is a major Clinton Foundation donor who had a clear interest: a Nigerian oilfield billionaire named Gilbert Chagoury.UPDATE: Pretty hot over here, too.
Gilbert Chagoury has substantial oil exploration interests in Nigeria. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in 2009, the same year Hilary Clinton took office as Secretary of State. Gilbert Chagoury is part of a small Nigerian clique that includes President Muhamadu Buhari. He was interested in seeing Buhari elected, and is reportedly the one who pushed for Axelrod’s firm to be brought in.
It would have been in the business interests of Chagoury, and Buhari to keep former president Goodluck Jonathan from initiating oil ventures in northern Nigeria until Buhari was able to secure the presidency. That would make sure that the contracts got into the right hands.
T&P: Alternative Marine Raider Insignia
They have some suggestions. You can read about one of the things they reference here.
Honesty in Training
Apparently honesty is not always thought to be the best policy after all.
Story one: Army pulls training slide listing Clinton as insider threat.
Story two: Stanford pulls training on sexual harassment and alcohol that is a bit too straightforward about reality for comfort.
In both cases, I think these materials are among the best I've ever seen in their genres, both of which are irritating but necessary aspects of contemporary life. Read the archived drinking page for yourself. It doesn't just treat the dangers of rape (which is what caused the objection), but that women risk organ damage at lower levels and shorter periods of heavy drinking. If the intent of the training is to help young women learn how to manage the risks that alcohol poses to them, both socially and as a chemical, this is a fantastic page.
Likewise, the OPSEC slide put its finger on a serious issue that is hard to talk about: that those who outrank you, both in the chain of command and also as civilian appointees or elected officials, may themselves be the risk. You can't let someone's higher rank cause you to turn a blind eye to bad practices. It's just because the State Department lacked such a culture that some of America's most sensitive secrets were exposed by Hillary Clinton to our national enemies. If the intent of OPSEC training is actually operational security, that was a great slide.
We'll have to do with weaker sauce that leaves these risks unaddressed, I suppose.
Story one: Army pulls training slide listing Clinton as insider threat.
Story two: Stanford pulls training on sexual harassment and alcohol that is a bit too straightforward about reality for comfort.
In both cases, I think these materials are among the best I've ever seen in their genres, both of which are irritating but necessary aspects of contemporary life. Read the archived drinking page for yourself. It doesn't just treat the dangers of rape (which is what caused the objection), but that women risk organ damage at lower levels and shorter periods of heavy drinking. If the intent of the training is to help young women learn how to manage the risks that alcohol poses to them, both socially and as a chemical, this is a fantastic page.
Likewise, the OPSEC slide put its finger on a serious issue that is hard to talk about: that those who outrank you, both in the chain of command and also as civilian appointees or elected officials, may themselves be the risk. You can't let someone's higher rank cause you to turn a blind eye to bad practices. It's just because the State Department lacked such a culture that some of America's most sensitive secrets were exposed by Hillary Clinton to our national enemies. If the intent of OPSEC training is actually operational security, that was a great slide.
We'll have to do with weaker sauce that leaves these risks unaddressed, I suppose.
"A Nation For Sale Under Hillary Clinton"
Well, not the whole nation, thank you. A few of us are not to be bought.
On the other hand, as Auda Abu Tai said, why should they wish to buy a man like me? What good am I to them?
On the other hand, as Auda Abu Tai said, why should they wish to buy a man like me? What good am I to them?
Kurt Schlichter: Prophet
Well, novelist, really. It just feels prophetic, sometimes.
The Inauguration Speech America’s Corrupt and Incompetent Ruling Class Will Make A Reality
I highly recommend his "future history" novel, Conservative Insurgency. Told from the perspective of a history Ph.D. candidate working on his dissertation in the 2040s, it tells the story of how constitutional conservatives created a successful cultural insurgency and re-established themselves as the dominant political, social, and cultural force in the nation.
The book is intended as a road guide for conservatives today who are hoping to do that very thing.
Given our discussions of the possibilities of a new civil war, the book deserves a read as a way change might be effected without significant violence. If anyone has or does read it, let's discuss it. I'd be interested to know what you think.
The Inauguration Speech America’s Corrupt and Incompetent Ruling Class Will Make A Reality
...
For too long, the elites looked down on us even as they stole our labor and our heritage to enrich themselves. For too long, they hid behind laws that apply only to us and not to them, behind a media that lied to us to protect them, behind an economic system that stole from us to protect them. That ends today!
Enemies of the people and their lapdogs in the media, it is time for you to be held accountable!
They speak of the Constitution, but your will is my constitution! Your needs are my Bill of Rights! Under my rule, your voice will be America’s voice!
...
I highly recommend his "future history" novel, Conservative Insurgency. Told from the perspective of a history Ph.D. candidate working on his dissertation in the 2040s, it tells the story of how constitutional conservatives created a successful cultural insurgency and re-established themselves as the dominant political, social, and cultural force in the nation.
The book is intended as a road guide for conservatives today who are hoping to do that very thing.
Given our discussions of the possibilities of a new civil war, the book deserves a read as a way change might be effected without significant violence. If anyone has or does read it, let's discuss it. I'd be interested to know what you think.
Say What Now?
More scientific studies prove that national parks and natural areas are racist, deny equal access.... Among the changes encouraged by the Centennial Initiative is a redesign of all national parks to remove intimidating imagery, such as the vehicles driven by and uniforms worn by park rangers, both of which “have law enforcement connotations” and therefore “present a significant impediment to engaging all Americans.”First of all, park rangers often actually are law enforcement officers, so removing that 'connotation' would be confusing. They're there to help you, but they're also there to make sure you obey the parks rules -- many of which are actually Federal laws.
Second, speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time in National Parks around the country -- if you get more than 50 feet from the road, you'll never see rangers anyway. If you don't like cops, hike a little. It'll improve your health, and I can promise you that I have never seen a park ranger on any backcountry trail in any state or National park ever.
Park rangers have to be the least intimidating police in the country. Almost all they do is fill out forms and sell you access to campsites and such. There's an outside chance one might be around if you needed help, but it's not like they're going to be breathing down your neck while you tramp over Clingman's Dome or scale the Tetons in spite of clear warning signs telling you not to do that. Hypothetically, that last one.
Now You're Talking
Headline: "Trump: Special prosecutor must investigate Clinton 'immediately.'"
Immediately isn't soon enough, really.
Immediately isn't soon enough, really.
Things For Which I Am Grateful
After more than a week of receiving visitors while staying with my mother, I am deeply grateful to be back at my home. The one with a locking gate at the road, another at the top of the pasture, and a sign by the road gate that reads:
POSTED
NO TRESPASSING
KEEP OUT
POSTED
NO TRESPASSING
KEEP OUT
"Good Friend of Ours"
Included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment. Abedin advised Band that when she went through “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours. According to the Clinton Foundation website... had contributed $32 million to CGI.... reportedly gave between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation....gave an additional $25,000 to $50,000.The real issue isn't that this is how Secretary Clinton conducted state business. It's that this is how President Clinton will conduct state business. The Federal government of the United States will no longer be for the People, but for her "good friends," that is, the ones who are at the top of the bribery scale.
This Sounds Like A Solid Briefing
These briefings are always interminable and painful, especially since you've already sat through goodness knows how many of them. This one raises what is really an excellent point that I don't think I've ever heard covered before. Good for the briefer for finding a way to make the briefing not only more amusing (and therefore more interesting), but to raise a new and real concern.
H/t: US Army W.T.F! Moments. They're a lot like the old milblogs used to be.
UPDATE: For the record, I heard not one but two pre-deployment briefings on the laws of war that cited Allen B. West as a bad example, and while he was a sitting Congressman. Clinton doesn't deserve more deference.
Top Clinton Adviser Spent Years Editing Radical Islamic Journal
I think the story about how this journal published a point-by-point takedown of her famous Beijing speech is hilarious.
But I think my favorite part of the story comes at the end, when Clinton is Secretary of State:
But I think my favorite part of the story comes at the end, when Clinton is Secretary of State:
[I]n 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”If we had a real press, somebody would be running with a headline built around Hillary Clinton's opposition to bikinis.
Those Who Dare
Headline: "Despite threat from ISIS, 100 children receive First Communion in Iraq."
Their plight will not likely be a happy one, even if ISIS's most prominent enemies win. Life in a state ruled by intensely-ideological and Iran-backed Shi'a militias will be tough, even if it is better than what the Islamic State would have given them.
Their plight will not likely be a happy one, even if ISIS's most prominent enemies win. Life in a state ruled by intensely-ideological and Iran-backed Shi'a militias will be tough, even if it is better than what the Islamic State would have given them.
Eulogy
Here's a post from 2004 that is newly relevant.
Cowboys
He would usually find some time on Sunday afternoon to watch some television. The TV was always on when he was home, and it would usually show one of three things: a football game, a NASCAR race, or a Western movie. These were dependable features.
I had no time for Westerns -- I very much preferred Star Wars movies, more progressive, not mired in the past. We lived out on the edge of civilization, it seemed, although I knew that there was more civilization if you just kept going: run far enough from Atlanta and you'll hit Chattanooga. But there was a large swath of country that lay out beyond the uttermost suburb where you'd find cattle country and timberland. North Georgia ground isn't very good, so other forms of farming don't work well. But you can raise cattle, and you can raise short needle pine for pulpwood. This all felt very far from the action, to a boy; I recognized Luke Skywalker's complaint about being on the planet farthest from the bright center of things, and greatly admired Han Solo.
So, I would usually leave my father to his Westerns. I still spent a fair amount of time with him when he was home, though, helping him work on the cars and with other tasks around the property. He spent a lot of that time telling stories, one right after another. Almost all of them were about growing up with my grandfather, who had run a body shop and service station for long haul truckers on I-75. In the imagination of youth, it sounded a great deal like Mos Eisley: there was a cantina filled with dangerous, armed men where my young father sometimes had to go to get and carry back family friends, and which produced occasional fights and drawn guns. Hot rods as finely tuned as any starfighters had occupied my father's free time as a young man. Freightliners paused there to gas up, seeming like smugglers, hauling over their limit, often running on amphetamines as much as gasoline. High stakes poker games ran in the back, while mechanics fixed up the rigs in the bays.
In the center of it all was my grandfather, a great and heroic figure, always armed with his revolver, so fearsome that none of the dangerous men who occupied the fringes of the story ever dared to trouble him. This part of the story I knew to be perfectly realistic, for I'd met the man myself. He had no exact Star Wars comparison. Star Wars would have been a different movie with "Jack T." in it. He was big, and strong, and fearless, hard-drinking but not controlled by the whisky, dangerous but kindhearted to the weak. He took care of his family and his friends, kept the peace among those who were passing through, and ran off the ones who wouldn't abide by his rules.
I always wanted to grow up to be just like him. He was the best man I'd ever heard of or met, so I thought as a boy.
Of course you've realized by now what kind of movie features a man like that.
You never know, with stories, exactly how much is an expression of the great archetypes. A lot has been written about Star Wars archetypes: Han Solo the pirate, Obi-Wan the Wizard, Luke as the Young Hero. The most resonant fiction is built on these archetypes, which speak to the depths of the human heart.
It happens with true stories too, though. Jack T. was the Sheriff, or the Marshall; but the Sheriff in the Western is also the King. Like all of these archetypes, he can be good or bad. The Bad King is a tyrant. The Good King keeps order in the world, upholds and cares for the weak, looks out for the poor, drives off the vicious. He has the power to punish and to pardon, which is seen in every Western: the bandit is run off or killed, but the harmless town drunk is endlessly forgiven and helped in his times of particular adversity.
The world can be violent and cruel, filled both with lawful and the lawbreakers. But the stories tell us that it can also be a good place, a happy place, if there is a good King. If this is the story of the Western, it is also the story of the Beowulf, whose time as king is peaceful in spite even of the existence of dragons. His death brings wild mourning, and the folk expect both death and slavery to follow, even though the dragon was slain.
Americans don't want Kings, but we still need the man even if we don't want the office. We want a free-born man, chosen by his equals rather than by his birth -- and in this, it happens that we are following precisely in the footsteps of the Geats, whose kings were elected by the folk.
I inherited my grandfather's Stetson after he died. I wear it often, when I don't wear my own. I carry a revolver, legally and licensed in several states. I find, when I have time that I don't have to spend working, that there's little I want more than to settle in with a good Western. In this, I am just like many Americans, apparently including Doc. We are seeing in our own way the same, ancient things:
Also, I realize -- not quite too late -- that Jack T. was not the best man I've ever known. My father is. I wanted to be like his father not because his father was better than him, but because his father was the man he most respected and admired in the world. All I wanted was for him to respect and admire me just like that.
If the stories proved not to be completely accurate, they were nevertheless perfectly true. I may not always succeed at being a good man, but I know how. I know how to be a good man because my father told me. He told me about his father. Now I have a son, and I have to tell him. Nothing can capture the value of this gift, or the weight of this duty. I have heard only too often the laments of those who did not receive what I was given, who do not know how to pass on what I must.
The Western is our national epic. It is the way in which Americans, the ones who still remember how, pass on the eternal truths to the next generation.
Cowboys
Should there be a National Cowboy Day?
My father liked to watch Westerns when I was a boy. He was a big television watcher when he was home, which was only on the weekends. His job had him up and gone before the sun rose, and the only time of the year you'd see him before sunset was the summer -- because the day was longer in the summertime. On the weekend, though, he'd be at home, working at home and car repair, and serving as a volunteer fireman, instead of doing his regular job.Times change. The cowboy doesn't. While our culture might sell out; the cowboy stays true to his values (and his horse). Rock stars, rap stars, movie stars come and go--loudly. The cowboy remains--quietly. When our children watch the Twin Towers crumble on CNN, they worry for our security, our future, our very foundation. The cowboy represents that foundation, that self-reliance, survival instinct, and integrity. We know that he'll ride out of that dusty ruin and survive, and with the grace of God he'll get the cattle to Amarillo. There's a little bit of him in every American. That's why we need him. John Fusco, Screenwriter; Hidalgo
He would usually find some time on Sunday afternoon to watch some television. The TV was always on when he was home, and it would usually show one of three things: a football game, a NASCAR race, or a Western movie. These were dependable features.
I had no time for Westerns -- I very much preferred Star Wars movies, more progressive, not mired in the past. We lived out on the edge of civilization, it seemed, although I knew that there was more civilization if you just kept going: run far enough from Atlanta and you'll hit Chattanooga. But there was a large swath of country that lay out beyond the uttermost suburb where you'd find cattle country and timberland. North Georgia ground isn't very good, so other forms of farming don't work well. But you can raise cattle, and you can raise short needle pine for pulpwood. This all felt very far from the action, to a boy; I recognized Luke Skywalker's complaint about being on the planet farthest from the bright center of things, and greatly admired Han Solo.
So, I would usually leave my father to his Westerns. I still spent a fair amount of time with him when he was home, though, helping him work on the cars and with other tasks around the property. He spent a lot of that time telling stories, one right after another. Almost all of them were about growing up with my grandfather, who had run a body shop and service station for long haul truckers on I-75. In the imagination of youth, it sounded a great deal like Mos Eisley: there was a cantina filled with dangerous, armed men where my young father sometimes had to go to get and carry back family friends, and which produced occasional fights and drawn guns. Hot rods as finely tuned as any starfighters had occupied my father's free time as a young man. Freightliners paused there to gas up, seeming like smugglers, hauling over their limit, often running on amphetamines as much as gasoline. High stakes poker games ran in the back, while mechanics fixed up the rigs in the bays.
In the center of it all was my grandfather, a great and heroic figure, always armed with his revolver, so fearsome that none of the dangerous men who occupied the fringes of the story ever dared to trouble him. This part of the story I knew to be perfectly realistic, for I'd met the man myself. He had no exact Star Wars comparison. Star Wars would have been a different movie with "Jack T." in it. He was big, and strong, and fearless, hard-drinking but not controlled by the whisky, dangerous but kindhearted to the weak. He took care of his family and his friends, kept the peace among those who were passing through, and ran off the ones who wouldn't abide by his rules.
I always wanted to grow up to be just like him. He was the best man I'd ever heard of or met, so I thought as a boy.
Of course you've realized by now what kind of movie features a man like that.
You never know, with stories, exactly how much is an expression of the great archetypes. A lot has been written about Star Wars archetypes: Han Solo the pirate, Obi-Wan the Wizard, Luke as the Young Hero. The most resonant fiction is built on these archetypes, which speak to the depths of the human heart.
It happens with true stories too, though. Jack T. was the Sheriff, or the Marshall; but the Sheriff in the Western is also the King. Like all of these archetypes, he can be good or bad. The Bad King is a tyrant. The Good King keeps order in the world, upholds and cares for the weak, looks out for the poor, drives off the vicious. He has the power to punish and to pardon, which is seen in every Western: the bandit is run off or killed, but the harmless town drunk is endlessly forgiven and helped in his times of particular adversity.
The world can be violent and cruel, filled both with lawful and the lawbreakers. But the stories tell us that it can also be a good place, a happy place, if there is a good King. If this is the story of the Western, it is also the story of the Beowulf, whose time as king is peaceful in spite even of the existence of dragons. His death brings wild mourning, and the folk expect both death and slavery to follow, even though the dragon was slain.
Americans don't want Kings, but we still need the man even if we don't want the office. We want a free-born man, chosen by his equals rather than by his birth -- and in this, it happens that we are following precisely in the footsteps of the Geats, whose kings were elected by the folk.
I inherited my grandfather's Stetson after he died. I wear it often, when I don't wear my own. I carry a revolver, legally and licensed in several states. I find, when I have time that I don't have to spend working, that there's little I want more than to settle in with a good Western. In this, I am just like many Americans, apparently including Doc. We are seeing in our own way the same, ancient things:
In the end, I suppose I did turn out to be just like my grandfather. I'm old enough now to know that he wasn't exactly the man who was painted for me. Having become him, I can see only too clearly some of the flaws he must have borne, which now I bear.It was decidedly cool for Houston, a harbinger for the frost that would set in that night. Anyway, I was walking along in the cool of the evening with a Justin cowboy hat on my head, and Alice on my hip, when I looked up and I saw a most amazing sunset. It was all gold and burning over the rooftops. Little broad streaks of copper and gold clouds fixed high above in a sea of ultramarine blue, while I was drowned beneath in a cool breeze. It was just gorgeous. I paused from my errand for a minute, awed by a beauty that must have awed man in discrete moments throughout the ages, from ancient Greece to a greek eatery in modern Texas.
Also, I realize -- not quite too late -- that Jack T. was not the best man I've ever known. My father is. I wanted to be like his father not because his father was better than him, but because his father was the man he most respected and admired in the world. All I wanted was for him to respect and admire me just like that.
If the stories proved not to be completely accurate, they were nevertheless perfectly true. I may not always succeed at being a good man, but I know how. I know how to be a good man because my father told me. He told me about his father. Now I have a son, and I have to tell him. Nothing can capture the value of this gift, or the weight of this duty. I have heard only too often the laments of those who did not receive what I was given, who do not know how to pass on what I must.
The Western is our national epic. It is the way in which Americans, the ones who still remember how, pass on the eternal truths to the next generation.
Behold the Röhm RG10!
My grandfather gave a pistol to my father many years ago, back when they were working a service station on I-75 near Knoxville together. At dad's death, I came into possession of it. I remember shooting it as a young man, but didn't really know much about it. So I looked into it today, just to see what I could learn about the model and its history.
Well, my grandfather carried better guns himself. So did his wife, as a matter of fact. I think I'll keep the thing as a memento only. For shooting, I have a Ruger Single Six that serves the same purpose far better.
The Rohm RG-10 revolver is a notoriously dangerous "Saterday night special" poorly made gun in which frequently the cylinder does not align with the barrel and when you pull the trigger as much lead may come out the sides of the gun as out the front.Well, let's have a second opinion.
They have a HORRIBLE reputation. They break after very little use.
The BEST thing you can do is break the hammer off with a pair of pliers and then save the gun until the next "buy back" offer and turn it in for the money.
[Y]ou would have to pay me to take the gun out of your hands. I have one that I bought in the early '60's for about $10. and you would be fortunate to get that for it today. The proverbial Saturday Night Special!Hm. Perhaps a third opinion?
Well, my grandfather carried better guns himself. So did his wife, as a matter of fact. I think I'll keep the thing as a memento only. For shooting, I have a Ruger Single Six that serves the same purpose far better.
On Station
My mother is now in Wyoming, with my sister and her new grandbaby. I was with her, with only short breaks for the gym and suchlike, from the moment dad died until I watched her pass through airport security this afternoon. We haven't spent that much sustained time together since I was a child. It was nice, in a way, in spite of the very difficult circumstances.
I am now returned home.
I am now returned home.
The Absurdity of Political Discourse This Year
I was having an interesting discussion over at neo-neocon's about Trump when the full weight of this election's absurdity struck me. Again. If I were to reduce it to campaign slogans, it would look like this:
Someone I read recently, I can't remember who, claimed that there were just a lot fewer conservatives than she thought. I think the electorate has caught us by surprise, and so I wonder how well I know the people of my own nation.
I got to hear one of my state senators recently. He encouraged everyone to get into local politics more. Focus on your city, county, and state offices, he said. Those in local offices are closer than DC and more likely to sit down and talk with you. You have more actual influence there.
He also said something interesting about Democratic vs. Republican involvement. He had spent some years in city government before being elected to the state legislature. He said that although he was a Republican in a deep red state, his Democratic constituents contacted him a lot more than his Republican ones. This was especially true at the city level, but still true at the state level.
I think I've gotten to the point where I'm writing off the presidential election. Whoever wins, it seems, will be a tragedy. I'll vote, but gradually I've come to care less and less about who wins. I'm going to focus more on local politics.
But even more, I want to focus on participating in the culture. I do believe politics is downstream from culture. I think, if we could shift the culture toward conservative values, the political elections would follow. If we shift it enough, the parties will follow.
Vote for Trump -- We're more likely to be able to impeach him!
Vote for Hillary -- She's going to be an awful president, but better than Trump!
Vote for Trump -- He might, possibly, maybe, do some good things! Really! He could!
Vote for Hillary -- If we're going to have the worst president ever, better the Democrats get the blame! Or the Liberals!
Someone I read recently, I can't remember who, claimed that there were just a lot fewer conservatives than she thought. I think the electorate has caught us by surprise, and so I wonder how well I know the people of my own nation.
I got to hear one of my state senators recently. He encouraged everyone to get into local politics more. Focus on your city, county, and state offices, he said. Those in local offices are closer than DC and more likely to sit down and talk with you. You have more actual influence there.
He also said something interesting about Democratic vs. Republican involvement. He had spent some years in city government before being elected to the state legislature. He said that although he was a Republican in a deep red state, his Democratic constituents contacted him a lot more than his Republican ones. This was especially true at the city level, but still true at the state level.
I think I've gotten to the point where I'm writing off the presidential election. Whoever wins, it seems, will be a tragedy. I'll vote, but gradually I've come to care less and less about who wins. I'm going to focus more on local politics.
But even more, I want to focus on participating in the culture. I do believe politics is downstream from culture. I think, if we could shift the culture toward conservative values, the political elections would follow. If we shift it enough, the parties will follow.
Interior decorators
I've reached this advanced age never really knowing what people saw in the Taj Mahal. All I've ever seen is the standard exterior shots, not really for me, radial symmetry and so on. Someone pointed out to me that the extraordinary part was the interior detail. Yikes! I'll say. "Google Images" has an eyeful, this being just an example:
Well, I can't do that kind of work, but I have been having the best time making "Chrismon" Christmas tree ornaments for my new church's new Christmas tree. The new building's higher ceilings inspired someone to pass the hat and buy a bigger tree, sadly artificial but still nicer than the old one. They need new ornaments in the 8- to 10-inch range. You know what that means? There are many, many more pixels in an ornament that size than the usual 3-inch range I shoot for. At least four times as much fun, and I still have five months till Christmas to work on these. My work table is fairly groaning with the weight of thread and beads and sequins crying out to be sewn and crocheted together. In fact, when the word goes out that you need beads and such, people start volunteering to unload their craft closets on you. There is a place in the world for people afflicted with OCD.
Well, I can't do that kind of work, but I have been having the best time making "Chrismon" Christmas tree ornaments for my new church's new Christmas tree. The new building's higher ceilings inspired someone to pass the hat and buy a bigger tree, sadly artificial but still nicer than the old one. They need new ornaments in the 8- to 10-inch range. You know what that means? There are many, many more pixels in an ornament that size than the usual 3-inch range I shoot for. At least four times as much fun, and I still have five months till Christmas to work on these. My work table is fairly groaning with the weight of thread and beads and sequins crying out to be sewn and crocheted together. In fact, when the word goes out that you need beads and such, people start volunteering to unload their craft closets on you. There is a place in the world for people afflicted with OCD.
How About I Volunteer You to Lead a Discussion?
The comments under my recent Seven Books Every Conservative Should Read post made me think of doing some kind of read-and-discuss project here. I had thought about continuing my Common Ground series with something like this, but life got busy last fall and it didn't happen.
Would you be interested in such a thing? And if so, would you be willing to lead a discussion for a book you recommend and others were interested in? If you are not a blogger, maybe we could work something out where I post and then you pick it up in the comments.
It doesn't even have to be one person leading. If several bloggers were reading the same book, there's no reason we couldn't all be posting on different aspects of it as we read.
As for me, I am going to put off leading any read-and-discuss blogging for now. I would like to lead a discussion on the book Aristotle for Everybody, but I want to see how difficult this semester will be before making other time commitments. If there's time, I may try to get into it this fall, or maybe in December when classes are done. I would enjoy participating in your discussions, though.
What do you think?
Would you be interested in such a thing? And if so, would you be willing to lead a discussion for a book you recommend and others were interested in? If you are not a blogger, maybe we could work something out where I post and then you pick it up in the comments.
It doesn't even have to be one person leading. If several bloggers were reading the same book, there's no reason we couldn't all be posting on different aspects of it as we read.
As for me, I am going to put off leading any read-and-discuss blogging for now. I would like to lead a discussion on the book Aristotle for Everybody, but I want to see how difficult this semester will be before making other time commitments. If there's time, I may try to get into it this fall, or maybe in December when classes are done. I would enjoy participating in your discussions, though.
What do you think?
Compare
Grim mentioned that Nathaniel Rateliff most resembles the Blues Brothers.
For your consideration:
For your consideration:
Seven Books Every Conservative Should Read
Matthew Continetti, editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon and regular contributor to the Weekly Standard, discusses other famous Conservatives' reading suggestions and then gives us his own list. It looks pretty interesting. I've ordered Modern Times and put the rest on my Amazon wish list.
Alas, with classes starting up next Monday, I will have very little time to read things I choose.
Alas, with classes starting up next Monday, I will have very little time to read things I choose.
Why Beauty Matters
An hour with philosopher Sir Roger Scruton
Shamelessly stolen from Maggie's Farm.
Update: I don't remember running across him before, but from the Wikipedia entry about him and his website, he would appear to be one of Britain's foremost Conservative philosophers. During the Cold War, he helped establish "underground universities and academic networks" behind the Iron Curtain.
Shamelessly stolen from Maggie's Farm.
Update: I don't remember running across him before, but from the Wikipedia entry about him and his website, he would appear to be one of Britain's foremost Conservative philosophers. During the Cold War, he helped establish "underground universities and academic networks" behind the Iron Curtain.
Go, Mighty Bulldogs
You may have seen the graph showing that Texas has won as many medals as some nations. Did you know that the University of Georgia has won as many as Brazil?
"He is Conan, Cimmerian. He Won't Cry. So I Cry For Him."
I also detailed this duty. I find I can't. It is not for lack of love. Love is just channeled into duty, and so it is in the things done that I express my sense of loss. I have come to know that a very great deal was lost. So many have come to tell me, and to ask to help in ways they cannot. I have a list I am building of people who want to come to the funeral. We weren't even going to have one. Dad hated them. Now it looks like we will have a funeral with military and Fire Department honors, because it answers a demand.
The Fire Department stripped the flags from their stations, the police stopped traffic on all the streets, and the Firemen lined the streets with their trucks when they moved his body to the funeral home. No one asked them to do this. They needed to do it.
Such was my father.
New vistas in architecture
I love it when Bird Dog goes on vacation and lets Roger de Hautville post for him. One of today's excellent links is Ugly Belgian Houses, and as Roger says, Boy. Howdy.
"It's ugly house mating season"
"It's ugly house mating season"
Off Station for the Week
I want to thank you all for your condolences, as well as for the congratulations on the birth of my niece. I will be spending the week with my mother to help her get through all the many details that come with ending a 49 year partnership with another human being. In addition to mourning, as all of you know who have done it, there is a lot of paperwork, a lot of stuff to untangle, and of course personal effects to deal with.
On Saturday, however, I'm putting her on a plane to meet her new grandbaby. I'll be with her until I send her through security at the airport, and family will pick her up on the other side.
On Saturday, however, I'm putting her on a plane to meet her new grandbaby. I'll be with her until I send her through security at the airport, and family will pick her up on the other side.
Fire and Deep Water
Today, I am an uncle. My sister gave birth to a baby girl. Mother and child are well.
Also today, my father died.
Also today, my father died.
Trump vs. Chavez
As Venezuela enters its end-game, the news reports seem strangely unable to diagnose its problem. Could it be, for instance, that the country's destruction resulted from electing leaders with the wrong personality? That didn't help, I'm sure, but as this author points out,
Look, I’m as scared of a Trump presidency as any reasonably sane center-right pro-democracy millennial. But Trump is not surrounded by a loony team of Marxist advisors hellbent on destroying the economy for the sake of denying that there is such a thing as a market.In the meantime, I'm still not sure what the final cataclysm will look like, but Venezuelans already are beginning to eat their cats, dogs, pigeons, and zoo animals--those that haven't starved first.
Free Fire Zone
Uncle J and Kurt Schlichter cut loose, on a topic we've just been discussing here.
I mean really, really loose.
I mean really, really loose.
Kim Rhode: One of Us
She may tomorrow become the first woman to win six straight medals in an Olympic sport. Today, she's a spokesman for us.
Yet Rhode, who is funny and personable in conversation, doesn’t resort to typical athlete dodges when talk turns to gun control. “We should have the right to keep and bear arms, to protect ourselves and our family,” she says. “The second amendment was put in there not just so we can go shoot skeet or go shoot trap. It was put in so we could defend our first amendment, the freedom of speech, and also to defend ourselves against our own government.”
It’s a view Rhode plans to pass down her three-year-old son as he grows up. “I hope to have him out there shooting, when he becomes of age,” she says. “I started when I was like 7 or 8 years old, and it was something that was a big deal in my family, to gain that right of passage.”
I Believe I've Heard This Song Before
CENTCOM’s intelligence analysts already are concerned that the DoD IG report will not have as much teeth as the House Republican task force report. These military analysts told The Beast that the head of CENTCOM’s intelligence directorate, Maj. Gen. Steven Grove, and his civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman, had deleted emails and files from computer systems before the inspector general could examine them.I'm sure the servers won't be "cleaned in a manner designed to prevent complete forensic recovery." I mean, what are the chances of that?
"Not-So-Dark Ages"
The excavation of that Arthurian site at Tintagel reveals luxury goods, National Geographic reports.
Although only a few trenches in undisturbed areas of the site were excavated this summer, they exposed massive rock walls—some more than 3.3 feet (one meter) thick—that are the most substantial structures known from the period. Hundreds of small finds provide more evidence for imported luxury goods transported from the sunny shores of the Eastern Roman Empire to this blustery British outcrop.
Jesus, Outlaw?
The Art of Manliness is doing a series of interesting articles exploring masculinity and Christianity. I didn't plan to post here about it until I read the following paragraph:
That sounds familiar. Given his peripatetic life, I can easily imagine Jesus and the apostles riding down the road on motorcycles.
In fact, during [Jesus's] life critics called him a lestes — a word that meant an insurrectionist, rebel, pirate, bandit. Though the label was often associated with violent thievery, Jesus practiced what anthropologists call “social banditry” — groups of men operating on the margins of society who refuse to submit to the control and value system of the ruling elite, and who fight for the justice, independence, and emancipation of the common people. While the existing power structure considers them criminals, the exploited see these outlaws as their champions.
That sounds familiar. Given his peripatetic life, I can easily imagine Jesus and the apostles riding down the road on motorcycles.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)