You're Probably Not Going to "See the Evidence," Baer

A former CIA officer should know that the evidence he's asking for, to be of use in evaluating the truth of the claim, would have to reveal the sources and methods of collection. Otherwise, you'd have stuff that reads like, "We assess with high confidence that Russia had the goal of electing Donald Trump, and here's the evidence: [Redacted] and on [Redacted] date [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]..."

All you'd end up with evidence of is that the CIA had produced an assessment.

Now, one of the immediate and pressing problems facing American intelligence is these Russian information warfare programs. Giving up our sources and methods would cripple our ability to address these programs. We would have to start all over from zero.

Of course, President Obama could choose to do that anyway. Or he could reveal only part of the evidence, sacrificing only part of our collection efforts in order to make what he thought was the strongest aspect of the case.

The bipartisan group of Senators speaking to this issue, by the way, are talking more sense.

'While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society.

'Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks.

'This cannot become a partisan issue. The stakes are too high for our country.

'We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security.'

Richard Fernandez recommends a two-step solution as an initial measure to prevent future concerns:

1) Go back to paper ballots,

2) Require a secure ID to vote on Election Day.

If you do those two things, the concerns about the vote being hacked largely disappear. You still have the Tammany Hall concerns, but not the computer hacking issues. Nobody would be able to electronically alter vote totals: you'd have to get physical access to the election sites, and the ballots themselves.

UPDATE:

Apparently Baer is not the only former CIA officer who has not thought through the ramifications of publicizing our sources and methods, on the very topic we are most sensitive about right now. This one does, at least, know who is at fault for the information not being public already.

Obama knew before any other policy maker that the Russian government attempted — and possibly succeeded — in altering the outcome of an American presidential election to Russia’s (at least theoretical) advantage. So, the obvious and deeply troubling question is this: why did Obama not make the CIA assessment, and all supporting raw intelligence used in its production, public within a day of receiving it? It’s possible he believes the CIA’s case is not as strong as the CIA asserts....

The mistake the seven Senators made in their declassification request letter to Obama was in not giving him a deadline to make the information public. They should do so now and tell him that if he has not made the information public by close of business on December 12 — one week before the Electoral College meets — they will take to the Senate floor during Tuesday’s pro forma session and read into the record everything in their possession on Russian interference in our election.

I’m not holding my breath that they will do this, but if these same Senators truly believe the CIA’s evidence of Russian interference — or even steering — of our 2016 presidential election is credible, they have a duty to communicate that evidence to American voters, and now.

You want highly classified information touching on how we know about Russia's efforts to influence our election systems read into the public record? Leaving aside the legal questions related to intentionally exposing Top Secret information -- after the continued support of the Democratic Party for Hillary Clinton, I have to assume that we just don't care about the laws pertaining to handling classified information any more -- are you sure that's really the best way to proceed here? At least Nancy Pelosi's daughter is calling for "temporary security clearances" for Electors, although I doubt she has any idea what would be involved in cranking out 535 of those in a week.

Get a Grip, Please

Michael Tomasky calls for "World War III: Democrats and America vs. Trump and Russia."

Republican leaders, he kindly allows, are not actually traitors. But they are a hair's breadth from traitors. Those are his exact words.

A foreign government may have determined the outcome of a presidential election. And not Canada or Costa Rica, but Russia: the United States’ chief historic adversary and an oligarchy ruled by a tyrant who has systematically taken away rights.... On top of all the above, leaders of one of our two political parties—I’ll let you hazard a guess as to which one—argued against letting the American public know about all this before the election, reportedly saying it would be too partisan. That’s not hardball politics. That’s a hair’s breath away from treason.

Not one person in the Republican leadership had any authority to block the declassification of that CIA report. Also, not one person in the Republican leadership had any authority to require it to be declassified. Their "arguing" was purely advisory. The head of the CIA could have done it. However, given the politically explosive nature of the revelations, he likely deferred to his boss, the President of the United States, whose original classification authority is broad enough to have ordered the review partially or wholly declassified before the election.

For some reason, a man well known for unilateral actions taken without any Congressional approval elected not to do it.  Barack Obama chose not to go public with this without Republicans providing him with political cover.

McConnell, according to the Post story, showed no concern about the truth of the allegations. And bear this nugget in mind: This was not Barack Obama trying to persuade him to join in this bipartisan effort. This was Lisa Monaco, the president’s counterterrorism adviser; and Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security secretary; and FBI Director James Comey. McConnell told Comey, in essence, to go take a jump in the lake. McConnell was interested only in party, not at all in country. That’s not treason, but it sure isn’t patriotism.

So Obama decided he didn't want to do this on his own. Again, though, that was completely his decision alone.  Barack Obama didn't need to persuade anyone to join in any bipartisan effort. He had the full power to do what he decided to do independently, and no Republican could have stopped him.

All the Republican leadership is plausibly guilty of is refusing to give the President political cover to destroy their candidate in the last days of an election. Why would they refuse this tremendous opportunity to show their patriotism? Perhaps because the FBI isn't on the same page as the CIA.

And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.

A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.

The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media.

The agencies’ differences in judgment may also reflect different methods of investigating the Russian interference. The F.B.I., which has both a law enforcement and an intelligence role, is held to higher standards of proof in examining people involved in the hacking because it has an eye toward eventual criminal prosecutions. The C.I.A. has a broader mandate to develop intelligence assessments.

Having said that, I think the CIA is perfectly correct here. Of course Russia was involved in influence operations to try to sway the outcome of the election, and there's every reason to think that they wanted Trump to win. As I wrote yesterday, this preference makes sense just given Clinton's repeated devotion to a No-Fly Zone in Syria that would have put American warplanes flying against Russian warplanes, creating an extreme risk of war between these nuclear powers. The fact that Trump thinks of Russia as a great place to do business is icing on the cake. They didn't need any additional reason to prefer him: the Syria policy difference is fully sufficient to explain the Russian support. They have invested heavily in a major strategic push there, which at best would have been badly endangered by Clinton's policy; at worst, they'd have found themselves with a nuclear exchange over downed warplanes.

So, to recap:

1) Republican leaders are not only not traitors, they didn't have any power to betray you. They couldn't do anything to stop this from being declassified. Talk to Barack Obama. He's the one who made the call.

2) The FBI dispute with the CIA gives Republicans plausible reasons to question the wisdom of suffering a huge political blow, even though I think the CIA is quite right. It's not ridiculous to think the FBI is right, and given the dispute, I can see why ordinary rational people would not elect to pay a huge cost to get this out there right before an election.

3) That Russia supports Trump in no way implies that Trump has been suborned or bribed by Russia. There are perfectly rational strategic reasons for them to support Trump that are more than adequate to account for their support. Clinton represented a serious threat to Russian interests, and maybe a serious threat to the Russian mainland if things escalated into full-scale nuclear war. Indeed, Russia's reaction to our election is perhaps the most fully rational thing that the 2016 election has produced.

So let's tone down this talk of 'treason.'  It's not wise, and it's not warranted.

Lot of Hacking to Go Around

Why would someone at DHS hack the state of Georgia, though? Presumably they could get whatever information they wanted, either just by asking or certainly with a Federal court order.

The Real Threat to Science is on the Left

So writes John Tierney:

First, there’s the Left’s opposition to genetically modified foods, which stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. Second, there’s the campaign by animal-rights activists against medical researchers, whose work has already been hampered and would be devastated if the activists succeeded in banning animal experimentation. Third, there’s the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience. Each of these abuses is far more significant than anything done by conservatives, and there are plenty of others. The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left.

He goes on to argue that "two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse." The first is confirmation bias, which is getting worse as the sciences follow the arts in sorting out conservatives in favor of those with left-leaning minds.

The second, obviously related, is the threat that comes of mixing science and politics.

Dostoevsky vs. Socrates

It's interesting to me that this article in the Guardian leaves Dostoevsky's question rhetorical.

Oh, tell me who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble because, being enlightened and understanding his real advantage, he would see his own advantage in the good and nothing else?

It was Socrates, of course -- he makes that argument in the Protagoras, at the very beginning of the philosophical tradition. It's presented as part of a utilitarian argument -- i.e., that good and evil cash out in terms of pleasure or pain -- that Socrates doesn't seem very wedded to in other dialogues. But his idea that evil is a kind of ignorance is something that appears very regularly in his words as Plato reports them. I won't reproduce the long argument here, but if you want to follow it, scroll to "When men are overcome by eating and drinking and other sensual desires which are pleasant..."

We have firmer reason to think that Socrates held this view, too, because Aristotle also ascribes it to him in the Nicomachean Ethics (scroll to section two of this part, which is Book VII).

Also it is interesting to me that the Guardian author, Pankaj Mishra, seems to regard the rhetorical question as adequately forceful to settle the matter -- at least in the light of, as he cites them, Nietzsche, Max Weber, and Freud. In fact, Socrates has kind of a good argument. Aristotle devoted a substantial part of a book to considering the problem.

We know that people do act in ways that they certainly must know are not in their best interests. The classic case is addiction, but that medicalizes the problem in a way that may make it seem as if the moral philosophy no longer applies. Rather, many who drink as if they were alcoholics prove to have no physical addiction to alcohol. They know, of course, that there is a long term harm that is all but certain if they continue in this manner; the only thing that can save them from it is dying young.

But of course dying young is a possibility, in which case the harm is completely avoided, and whatever pleasures came from the drink were obtained free of charge. So you have a case of an immediate certain gain (at least of pleasure) in return for an uncertain future harm. However, the gain is marginal, and the harm is extreme.

This is one kind of calculation that Nassim Taleb says human beings regularly make badly. So it may be the answer is not that humans are irrational, but that this is a place where human reason regularly leads to a conclusion that is in conflict with itself. The best choice is regularly indicated by reason to be just what a more formal examination of the case would suggest it is not. That is, we very regularly choose the short-term certain gain and dare the uncertain (but quite likely) immense future harm. But our formal examination suggests this is not the wise way to proceed, even though it is how we do in fact reason.

Perhaps it is that we came up in a more dangerous world, one in which the probability of living long enough for those future harms to materialize was not so very high. Socrates, though, was an old man when he died (of execution, not illness). Life spans haven't grown that much in recorded history; it's just that more people died of things like childbirth and childhood. And it would seem that both of those examples would favor an evolutionary response that mitigated against pursuing immediate pleasures in favor of longer-term gains.

So let's not treat this as an easy or settled matter. It's still an interesting question.

A Journalist and the Principle of Distinction

A Marine-turned-journalist was suspended by the Blaze for taking some shots at ISIS while on assignment for them:

Jason Buttrill, a former Marine and a foreign affairs correspondent for the Glenn Beck-owned Blaze ... fired six times at ISIS fighters with a rifle while on the Mosul front.

 

"Exclusive: TheBlaze’s Jason Buttrill shoots at ISIS members and shares footage from the Mosul front," reads the headline. The story is still live on the site despite The Blaze's recalling Buttrill from Mosul and suspending him from the publication. 

 

The reprimand by The Blaze comes after Jason Stern of the Committee to Protect Journalists warned Buttrill that his actions could be deadly for other journalists in or near war zones. 

 

“Jason, journalists are detained and killed all over the world over false accusations of being combatants,” Stern tweeted on Friday. “This doesn't help.” 

I don't care much for the argument Stern is making. America's enemies haven't respected non-combatant roles like that of the journalist for at least half a century, so the idea that some journalist's misconduct will lead to more problems is a bit blind, I think.*

 

No, my question is about the ethics and legality of it. Mr. Buttrill was there as a journalist; should he be taking part in combat? I don't know the details, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that this was not self-defense. If someone isn't officially part of one of the combatant groups, and it is not self-defense, should that person engage in the fighting?

There is part of me that wonders what right-minded person would not shoot at members of ISIS, given the opportunity. But another part of me is bothered by this. Doesn't it violate the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants? If that's right, then Buttrill might have been an unlawful combatant.

Or, maybe I don't really understand this. I am not any kind of lawyer, so this is quite likely. Or, maybe in a war like this where the enemy doesn't make even a pretense of following the law it just doesn't matter. And, of course, whether it's lawful or not doesn't necessarily answer the ethical question.

 

Any thoughts?

 

###

 

*I have the same problem with arguments against torture that go "if we do it, they'll do it." I am not supporting torture, but that particular argument against it doesn't make sense since pretty much every enemy we've faced for the last century has used torture against captured American soldiers. Maybe the Nazi's were an exception, but the Japanese certainly did, and every enemy since.

My Theme Song for the Last Several Months

Just a bit further, then time to catch up. Think I might head out to the woods for a while.

However, I'm a bit afraid I'll go away for a week and come back to find Hillary's taken over in a CIA-led coup. :-(

Bad Advice From The Boss

Headline: "Obama Urges Troops To “Criticize Our President” & “Protest Against Authority” In Final Address."

Servicemembers wanting to take the President's advice here might want to brush up on a couple of articles of the UCMJ, just to be safe. A servicemember can criticize the President, and it sometimes may even be that one should, but some of the things that President Obama has said about his successor could merit significant punishment.

Don't worry, though: I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism of the President to go around.

Not Exactly a Russia Hawk

On the other hand, our apparent next Secretary of State does have extensive experience working closely with Russia on oil and gas contracts. He has shown himself capable of getting things done with Putin's government, in other words.

In the wake of yesterday's revelations that Russian hacking was aimed at benefiting the Trump campaign, I suppose the appointment of someone with close business ties to Russia must be troubling to Trump's critics. On the other hand, it nicely explains why Russia would have supported him against Clinton. Clinton's stated intent was to throw up a No Fly Zone in Syria that would have had American warplanes flying against Russian ones, the very next step away from war. Trump, like this new Secretary of State nominee, thinks of Russia first and foremost as a business partner.

Why would Russia try to put its finger on the scale of America's election? This is why. It is, from the perspective of statecraft, quite a sharp set of moves: for the cheap price of some influence operations, they avoided the immediate risk of a hot war with the United States, and gained an opportunity to advance their business interests in a more favorable environment.

I do not take seriously the suggestion that Trump or his new nominee are Russian pawns -- but they don't have to be. It was a good move for Russia if they are just not quite so eager to start a new war, and interested instead in economic development. The fact that both men have extensive business interests in Russia also gives the Russians levers to work against them (which is one reason Trump really should put his stuff in a blind trust, though I doubt that he will -- I expect him to pass the business to his children, where it will still serve Russia' interests). You don't need to bribe them or suborn them. You just give them reasons not to want to fight, because there's so much to gain by not fighting.

Putin is a vicious man, but he's also a very smart one. Russia has a weak position but he has played it excellently. Without in any sense excusing his acts of tyranny, it is easy to admire his skill. I wonder if anyone on our team is going to be as good at this game, or if we even have anyone who sees it as a game of strategy in the same way.

"Combatting Political Islam"

A piece by two experts on the subject, David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler.

For decades, a bipartisan American foreign policy consensus has endorsed engagement with and promotion of Islamists in an attempt to use them as a counterweight, to either other Islamic terror groups or larger geopolitical adversaries.

Seeking to engage Muslim Brotherhood officials or franchises has a long historical pedigree within our foreign policy establishment. As Ian Johnson documented in his outstanding history, A Mosque in Munich, America first turned to Islamists in the early days of the Cold War in order to nurture alternatives to the Soviets. During that time, however, many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment seemed to recognize that, ultimately, the long-term objectives of the Islamists were both anti-democratic and harmful to American national interests. An internal analysis from the period noted that leading Muslim Brotherhood figure Said Ramadan—then a guest in the Eisenhower White House who was backed by the CIA—was “a fascist” and obsessed with seizing power.

Unfortunately, such a blunt assessment of the U.S. government’s Islamist interlocutors seems as quaint today as a 1950s TV commercial. By 2009 skepticism of Islamists’ long-term goals had been thoroughly abandoned, as President Obama formally announced the full-throated promotion of political Islam as the legitimate expression of democratic will throughout the Middle East.

In addition to the piece, you should really read that Mosque in Munich book. It goes sadly well with the immediately previous post. It's a great story of an early CIA mission with all the swagger they used to have in the postwar period, and it provides a helpful introduction to the deep history of some of the current conflicts involving political Islam. If you know someone who likes such stories, it might make a good Christmas gift.

At Least Someone Has A Sense of Humor About It

Courts to "Install" Clinton?

As far as I know, nobody is even thinking about filing a suit along these lines -- but the thought has crossed the mind of a writer at the Huff Po. This approach would not end well.

...at least one court decision suggests there is some federal authority to invalidate the election outcome after the fact.

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the ruling of a federal district judge in Pennsylvania that invalidated a state senate election and ordered the vacancy be filled by the losing opponent.

The Pennsylvania state senate held a special election in November 1993 to fill a seat that had been left vacant by the death of the previous democratic senator, and pitted Republican Bruce Marks against Democrat William G. Stinson for the spot. Stinson was named the winner, but massive fraud was later uncovered that resulted in litigation.

Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury the story. The narrative recalls the Washington Post’s revelation that Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians had intervened and opted to do nothing.

In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, a federal judge ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that [his opponent, Bruce Marks] be certified the winner within 72 hours.”

Stinson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but ultimately, this was the first known case in which a federal judge reversed an election outcome. In January 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand.

On what basis could a Federal court claim the power to decide who would run a co-equal branch of government? Or do we not recognize any limits on Federal courts now?

We're getting into dangerous waters.

Obama on the South

"I think there's a reason why attitudes about my presidency among whites in Northern states are very different from whites in Southern states," Obama told Zakaria.

I assume there's some polling to back that up, but I notice that Northern states voted against his chosen successor in spite of his personal endorsement of her. States that have voted Democratic every election for decades went against him. Maybe race was the reason; certainly the demographics suggest it was a factor. But why beat up on the South when you lost Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania?

Stop parodying yourself

That was Morgan Freeberg's response to the "snowflake" microaggression meltdown, but it applies equally to this self-knowledge-free-zone WaPo article about how Big Brother is not the real problem; the real problem is the overwhelming noise of thousands of angry children:

This is Little Brother — millions of irrational people spreading lies, sowing doubt and fomenting violence. Thanks to Little Brother, the government — Trump and his incoming administration, in this case — doesn’t have to directly threaten the political opposition or spread propaganda on its own. Leaders only need to find indirect ways to validate supporters’ most vile emotions and make lying acceptable, as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) did recently when he said it was all right for Trump to spread falsehoods. Little Brother and his NRA-protected guns can take it from there.

So what is Little Brother?

Like the pack of wild children in “Lord of the Flies,” Little Brother is unsupervised, isolated from civilization and potentially murderous. And thanks to the Internet, the vicious, dog-eat-dog world of Little Brother is impossible to escape.

Little Brother screams so loud, no one can think. When human beings experience anger and fear — the dominant emotions of Little Brother and his Internet clickbait — their IQs drop. People cannot use their rational minds when thousands of angry children are shouting at them online. That’s Little Brother.

I guess we need some of that anti-dog-eat-dog legislation.

I'm melting

Stop calling me a snowflake you big meanie.

In related news, how much fun is it when your hyperliberal cousin posts her Facebook outrage over a November Congressional vote to steal $150 million from the Social Security fund by linking to an impassioned speech by an unnamed person identified as one of the 35 brave Senators who cast "nay" votes, all while expressing outrage that the media buried the story, hmmm, very suspicious . . . .

. . . And it turns out the vote was in November 2015, the outraged speaker was Mike Lee (R-Utah), the President signed the bill, and all 35 "nay" votes were from Republicans.

The fact that Lee credited Rand Paul with a principled opposition to the bill might have been a tip-off.

So What Happens Now?

Headline: "Bombshell Secret CIA Report Says Russia Aimed to Steal White House for Trump."

We've gone the full distance, now, from 'It's irresponsible and dangerous to try to discredit election results' to 'this rigged election was stolen by a conspiracy led by a hostile foreign power.'

The Electoral College hasn't voted yet. The President of the United States has ordered the results of the election to be reviewed in full, with the results of the review kept secret from the American people. That link, by the way, is to Russia Today -- a site the President's team would tell you was part of the very conspiracy he is citing. So the emphasis on his refusal to come clean with the American people is Russian propaganda designed to undermine our faith in the government.

It's also the truth.

I have no idea what's going to happen next.

Trump Airline

My wife ran across this.

Eric Hines

Nailed it

They might be describing me personally.  Lately I've been loving his cabinet picks, but before the election I didn't dare hope for so much in that area, or any other.  Nevertheless, at my nadir of enthusiasm for the Republican candidate, I loved that for once we had a guy who didn't whimper in the face of a partisan and close-minded press:

The public took the media's vitriol and hate directed at Trump as the highest recommendations he could possibly get. That's why the media, the pundits, the celebrities and even the polls were all in mass denial about Trump's chances until the very night of the election.

"For many Republicans who weren't enthusiastic Trump supporters but wanted something to like about him, his refusal to give the media a free pass on their combative bias was a big thing," wrote Stephen Kruiser at the PJMedia website. That, by the way, is why Trump spent so much less than Hillary Clinton on his campaign. The media covered him heavy and hard, thinking it would take him down. The over-the-top, saturation coverage did just the opposite.

Sports humor, from me, yet

I'm still so happy about the EPA pick I could bust.  Today is a lighter-hearted choice, the Ambassador to the Court of St. James.  Jim Geraghty muses that Woody Johnson may change the names of the N.Y. Jets to the "Concordes," but otherwise hopes that this new appointment will lead to benign neglect on the home front:

Keep in mind, under Woody Johnson, it is entirely possible that the U.S. Embassy in London will sign a lot of really expensive free-agent diplomatic staff who will perform well for a year and then decline in production rapidly.

Dontcha just hate those white guys

This sour and humorless GQ piece can't hide the fascinating quality of an eccentric group's spoofy effort to create a non-PC libertarian utopia on the Croatian border.  When the journalist can't think of any cogent criticism, she drips with contempt over the white-male aspect and whines about the boredom and discomfort of her trip.  Throwing in a bit of Trump snark is obligatory, of course.

This attempt to create a modern Galt's Gulch doubtless is pretty nuts; its flaky youngsters, like residents of George Washington University and Burning Man East in South Dakota, will have a lot to learn about defensive borders for their little piece of paradise.  Unlike the author, though, I find the underlying impulse refreshing.

Who Knows Who John Glenn Is?

Language warning: this Gunny talks like a Marine.

Greatest Success

Well, that's not how he put it, but it's the biggest single thing we've accomplished during his governance.

If you ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common sense gun safety laws.

You're too modest, sir. You've seen us flourish, under your leadership. Respect for the Second Amendment has come to be taken seriously by the Supreme Court, during your tenure, and you've helped to ensure a similar court will endure for decades to come. We're on the cusp of seeing gun permits treated like, dare I say it, marriage licenses. All 50 states will now respect one issued by any of the 50 states.

And, of course, we've seen record levels of gun purchases during your tenure as well. You're passing on to the future an America that is not only more respectful of the civil right to keep and bear arms, but far better armed as well.

To think that's happened maugre your head, as Malory would put it. And you the President, and everything.

Damn Few, and They're All Dead

John Glenn is now among the heroes. He was a man.

This Is What They Think Trump's Going To Do

...and in fairness, it is something that was done even here in America. It was done by a Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, otherwise considered the greatest president of the modern age by the same people afraid that we'll start doing this sometime next month.

We Should Be Protected from Outsiders

I lost control of my laughter at about 45 seconds in.

OMG there really is voter fraud you guys!

Not that I don't think it's hilarious that half of Detroit ballots (which went 95% for Clinton) can't be recounted under Michigan law, because the votes sent to the Secretary of State don't match the number of voters ostensibly signed into the poll books on election day, but I really can't understand how that law is supposed to work.  It seems to freeze in place whatever overcounted vote was produced by the Detroit machine.  How would anyone ever succeed in throwing out the votes that exceed the number legitimately signed into the poll books?

In many years of working the polls and serving as an election judge, I can remember exactly one instance in which my cast-ballot total differed from the poll-book total by exactly one vote.  People, it is just not that hard when you're making an effort to be honest.

Do These People Not Realize They're Leaving the White House in about a Month?

Why would they want to expand this power?

Josh, this administration has made a huge priority out of responding to online threats from jihadists. You have a whole set of people at the State Department; you have them at the Pentagon; you’ve got people who have gone after those who posted these messages and killed them in the Middle East.... You had an entire set of businesses up here on Connecticut Avenue for months getting direct death threats, and they said that nothing was done about them. Is it only a priority if these are jihadi threats? And is it not a priority for this administration if businesses and normal people are getting death threats and being terrorized for months with no action on the part of this administration? Help me understand the difference there.

Union leaders, too, I guess. Shall we assassinate the people making those death threats, like we do jihadis in Yemen?

Or is the point just to bend the whole Federal government toward going after the fringe political enemies of the administration's allies? That seems like a power that couldn't possibly be abused in, say, a month and a half. If you really think Trump is running a fascist movement, why would you be asking the administration to exert new power? Shouldn't you be arguing for it to accept binding handcuffs, which could only be a minor inconvenience in your last month or so, but that might hamper the incoming administration?

I Want This Man's Job

Pearl Harbor Day

Seventy-five years ago, Japan lost itself a war.

Tyranny or Raucous Debate?

Donald Trump is at it again. A left-leaning friend contacted me earlier tonight to ask me to call my Senators to get them to stand up against Trump's "threatening" of an American citizen. This ended up in an unsatisfying discussion of whether or not what he said constituted a threat, or protected free speech. Here's what he wrote:

Chuck Jones, who is President of United Steelworkers 1999, has done a terrible job representing workers. No wonder companies flee country!... If United Steelworkers 1999 was any good, they would have kept those jobs in Indiana. Spend more time working-less time talking. Reduce dues

I don't see any "threat" here, nor even an "attack on a private citizen." To me, this looks like criticism of the job performance of a union leader and his leadership of his union. Should a President engage in debate with union leadership on the best way to keep American jobs? Well, yes, I would have to say. It would be great if we could have a committed public debate on that topic.

I would think most union leaders, even at the cost of being crosswise with so powerful a person as a President Elect, would be delighted at the chance to have that discussion. When the President Elect, or even the President, deigns to 'punch down,' it has the effect of elevating you to his platform. I'd take that all day if I could get it. But even leaving that aside, it would be great if we could just get our various political factions arguing about how to protect American jobs. That itself would be a great change for the better.

The alternative position comes from the claim, which could certainly be true, that the union leader who criticized Trump is getting death threats in the wake of this counter-criticism. On this view, Trump supporters are a kind of informal brownshirts who only wait for a hint from their leader to deploy violence against those who dare speak against that leader.

Well, there has certainly been violence. It hasn't been one-sided, though. Trump has at times seem to encourage it, which is blameworthy: but not in a while, and not this time.

Probably the leadership of both sides should consider the effect of their words, but not at the cost of ending even a raucous debate on these issues. The President is not a king, but primus inter pares. He has all the rights of free speech of any other citizen, even if he has the responsibility of remembering that more people are listening to him (and, even, that not all of those people are completely together).

Still, just as I would oppose a Lèse-majesté law that would protect a President from criticism, I would oppose a standard that would prevent the President from arguing with other citizens as an equal. He is an equal. Surely the most likely good to come from the Trump presidency is the reminder that the President is not our better.

I'll be happy to stand up for the ideal that Presidents should not wield police authority to suppress dissent, nor brownshirts either. But I don't think the President should be above criticism, nor above debating ordinary citizens as an equal. Not only does it benefit the union leadership to be drawn into a direct debate with a President, it benefits all of us not to think of the President as above such a debate. He's just a guy, no better than any of you. Maybe not as good as many of you! But he's an American, so he is in a sense our equal: and he'll be the President, so in a sense he'll be the first among equals. And that's all.

They won't like this, either

Here is a strangely sanguine article from American Thinker about microwave technology that could improve even on fracking production from shale formations.  The author believes even environmentalists will like it, because it uses less water than fracking.  I predict it won't be more than a few weeks before we start seeing articles complaining that microwaves trapped in the rock will produce earthquakes, autism, heteronormative bathrooms, and income inequality in affected counties.

Another Marine General to Head Homeland Security

John F. Kelly is the man who, asked by a reporter if he would consider the possibility that his forces would be defeated in Iraq, said: "Hell these are Marines. Men like them held Guadalcanal and took Iwo Jima. Baghdad ain't shit."

Report: Trump Establishes 61-Member Adviser Group on 2nd Amendment

It will be headed by the CEO of SilencerCo.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Time magazine's covers featuring Donald Trump:

Codevilla on PC

We've knocked a hole in it, for the moment, but it's still a strong thing in many parts of America. You might want to read Dr. Codevilla's history of a poisonous concept.

The Feast of St. Nicholas

Today is the feast day of St. Nicholas:

Saint Nicholas (Greek: Ἅγιος Νικόλαος, Hágios Nikólaos, Latin: Sanctus Nicolaus); (15 March 270 – 6 December 343), also called Nikolaos of Myra, was a historic 4th-century Christian saint and Greek Bishop of Myra, in Asia Minor (modern-day Demre, Turkey). Because of the many miracles attributed to his intercession, he is also known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker (Νικόλαος ὁ Θαυματουργός, Nikólaos ho Thaumaturgós). His reputation evolved among the faithful, as was common for early Christian saints, and his legendary habit of secret gift-giving gave rise to the traditional model of Santa Claus through Sinterklaas.

The historical Saint Nicholas is commemorated and revered among Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox Christians. In addition, some Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and other Reformed churches have been named in honor of Saint Nicholas. Saint Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors, merchants, archers, repentant thieves, children, brewers, pawnbrokers and students in various cities and countries around Europe.

The historical Saint Nicholas, as known from strict history: He was born at Patara, Lycia in Asia Minor (now Turkey). In his youth he made a pilgrimage to Egypt and the Palestine area. Shortly after his return he became Bishop of Myra and was later cast into prison during the persecution of Diocletian. He was released after the accession of Constantine and was present at the Council of Nicaea. In 1087, Italian merchants stole his body from Myra, bringing it to Bari in Italy.

Were they repentant thieves, I wonder?

In any case, according to the venerable and often-amusing volume, Drinking with the Saints: The Sinner's Guide to a Holy Happy Hour, appropriate beverages for the feast include:

• The traditional Bisschopswijn, a spiced wine
• Anything with rum (patron saint of sailors, you know), but the book recommends a rum toddy
• A "St. Nicholas's Helper" of hot chocolate and peppermint schnapps
• A Sankt Nikolai Abbey Tripel beer
• A Saint-Nicolas-de-Bourgueil wine

The traditional toast: "To the real Santa Claus, scourge of heretics and champion of the poor: May he help us defend the faith and assist the needy."

"Scourge of heretics"?

In 325, he was one of many bishops to answer the request of Constantine and appear at the First Council of Nicaea; the 151st attendee was listed as "Nicholas of Myra of Lycia". There, Nicholas was a staunch anti-Arian, defender of the Orthodox Christian position, and one of the bishops who signed the Nicene Creed. Tradition has it that he became so angry with the heretic Arius during the Council that he struck him in the face.

 ###

Photo: Erlend Bjørtvedt (CC-BY-SA)

"Shredding on a Shotgun Guitar"

You've heard of a cigar box guitar, but how about a shotgun guitar?



It's fully functional, and the guy is just as good at the one skill as the other. Admirable.

Just for fun, here's the cigar box guitar again too.

Retrospective

Speaking of people whose service earned them a space for having unpopular opinions, I came across this 2008 bit of mine citing the Rev. Mr. Wright. It was a rumination on what was, at that time, an open question about whether Obama was really more of a Chicago-way liberal, or more of a New Republic liberal.

At this juncture I would have to say that he proved to be a TNR liberal after all, but with numerous Chicago-way connections. We can see the evidence of the corruption and power worship in the IRS scandal, the misuse of the Department of Justice to protect friends and allies from investigations and prosecutions, and the abuse of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to try to force a punitive form of 'social justice' on American campuses. His rise empowered those people, even if he was not fully one of them.

We can see the TNR aspect in the rest of it. The world is burning as he leaves office, and it is burning because of American weakness. Fuel for these fires came from his desire to fight a 'clean hands' war with drones and surgical strikes, his flight from Iraq, his refusal to stand up to his own red line in Syria, and his rush to give Iran everything it could ask in order to get any kind of a treaty. The Chinese have found him easy to push, so much so that America stands in some peril of watching the Philippines defect to their sphere. Russia is feeling expansive. All of this comes from the fact of weak hands.

The Democrats Need to Square Up on "Islamophobia"

A phobia is an irrational fear. In the wake of regular worldwide terrorist attacks in the name of numerous interpretations of Islam, it's hard to see how concerns about Islam and political power are any sort of "phobia." But let's accept for a moment that it can be possible to be unfairly concerned about a particular Muslim, even so.

That still leaves two questions:

1) At what point does a concern become valid? Vox defends Ellison against charges arising from his association with worse characters, especially Louis Farrakhan. What we have learned about radicalization indicates that much less close contact than this is necessary for it, though. Perhaps it's not fair to hold Ellison to blame for his associations, but there has to be a point at which it would be fair. At what point would it become fair? That's a question I'd like to have answered.

2) If we're to be excessively careful not to criticize individual Muslims for associations with others who may be more radical than they, why doesn't this point apply -- say -- to Hindus? Consider Tulsi Gabbard. Isn't she being treated exactly the same way, by the left, that they're concerned that Ellison is being treated by the right?

What's the difference? Gabbard is a Hindu, and she knows lots of other Hindus (and Indian Americans) who have inherited or developed concerns about Islam and/or Muslims. Ellison is a Muslim, and he knows lots of other Muslims (and African Americans) who have inherited or developed concerns about Judaism and/or Jews. These seem like parallel cases to me. So why promote Ellison to the leadership of the DNC, and run down Gabbard?

I suppose you could reverse the polarity on that question, and ask me why I'm more inclined to defend Gabbard. But I know why: because she's an Iraq War veteran. She's earned a space for considering her unpopular opinions, whatever they are. I don't have to agree with her every time to know we're on the same side when it counts. Ellison offers no such evidence of service that would counteract his associations.

A Skeptic on Petraeus

I will always have a place in my heart for David Petraeus, who commanded the Surge and won back a chance for Iraq to succeed. However, while I can and do fault President Obama for his squandering of that chance, I don't fault him for his handling of the end of Petraeus' career. Both in his handling of classified information, and in his handling of his relationship with his wife, he showed himself to have fallen away from the standards and virtues that properly belong to those entrusted with the lives of Americans.

Now Christine Brim comes to suggest that he is really a Clintonite Democrat as well. Perhaps -- or perhaps he is just one of those generals, of whom there are many, for whom doing what the politicians want becomes a guiding star. If he looks like a Clintonite, it's only because he expected them to win and aligned himself accordingly.

Still, I'm afraid that it is best for David Petraeus to remain in retirement. With respect for the good that he did, this is not the hour to elevate someone to high position with his track record on handling classified information. That was a valid and good reason to avoid elevating Hillary Clinton to the Presidency, and it is just as good a reason not to make Petraeus a Secretary of State. That he also may have participate in other Clintonite scandals, such as the provision of false information on Benghazi, only underlines what is already adequately determined by that fact.

How Real is this Taiwan Thing?

According to a report by the nonpartisan (and quite respected) Congressional Research Service, China doesn't have the logistical chops to pull off an invasion.

They could do something unexpected, like pressing a bunch of fishing ships into service. But that has its limitations, and even once you move the army, you've got to keep it supplied.

John Stewart: You know, a Lot of First Responders Voted for Trump

“The same people that voted for Trump ran into burning buildings and saved whoever.. no matter what color they were, no matter what religion and they would do it again tomorrow.... So, if you want to sit and tell me that those people are giving tacit approval to an exploitative system ― I say, 'OK, and would you put your life on the line for people who aren’t like you? Because they did.”

This Complies With the 4th Amendment How?

The Economist reports on a violation of the Constitution by the Federal government. Kudos to the Congressional committee for bringing it to light. Now let's see what they do with it.

Also, I note that this part seems to fit a pattern: "We have no idea as to the extent of the problem because the DEA did not keep records" of the program. Now why would a bureaucracy choose not to keep records of a program, if only to audit it and see how successful it was?

The Counterfeit State Department

One has to wonder how good American intelligence in Africa could possibly be.

Over the weekend, the U.S. Department of State announced it had shut down a fake embassy in Ghana this summer with the help of local authorities... The criminals weren’t just in it for the adrenaline rush of processing consular paperwork, though. It was a lucrative enterprise that charged unknowing marks about $6,000 each for “fraudulently obtained, legitimate U.S. visas, counterfeit visas, false identification documents,” and other services, the State Department said.

It operated for about a decade in part because local authorities were paid to “look the other way,” the State Department said.... The fake embassy had an American flag flying out front and a photo of President Barack Obama and embassy signs inside. The criminal ring running the scam even advertised its services in neighboring Togo and Ivory Coast.

Did we really not know about this? None of our open-source intelligence people noticed the advertised access to American consular documents from a location that wasn't legitimate, not for ten years?

Or was the Obama administration happy to accept the additional semi-documented migrants? Are they just shutting this down now so that the Trump people won't look into it and realize they were letting it roll?

Neither possibility is encouraging.

The Importance of the Constitution

Would-be Presidential spoiler Evan McMullin says Donald Trump doesn't know enough about the Constitution to refer to it. That may well be true, of course.

And I wouldn't argue against any of this.

We must never forget that we are born equal, with basic, natural rights, including those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are inherent in us because we are humans, not because they are granted by government. Government, indeed, exists primarily to protect those natural rights; the only legitimate power it has is that which we grant to it.

We can no longer assume that all Americans understand the origins of their rights and the importance of liberal democracy.

I've said little else in this space for more than a decade, but clearly that hasn't moved mountains.

Even A Great Surgeon Has Bad Days

Robert Liston was one of the greats of the pre-anesthesia age. In those days, surgery was best performed fast, as that minimized pain and made it more likely that patients would survive the procedure. But...

The assistants tried hard to hold [a thrashing patient] but, he was too strong. In that chaos, Liston started to move so fast that he accidently cut his assistant’s fingers off and also slashed a spectator’s coat.

The spectator thought that he was hurt and died of terror on the spot. The patient and the assistant died a few days later from infections of their wounds.

This is the only surgery in known history with a 300 percent mortality rate.

Bluegreen Jobs

The New Republic is trying to figure out how to make environmentalism cool with the white working class.

Environmentalists must fight alongside unions for full employment in a green economy that uses union labor. American steel produced by United Steelworkers members must be used to make wind turbines erected by Laborers members. Unfortunately, most green energy capitalists hold anti-union positions, but environmentalists have to demand a change.

It's interesting how Blue Model this vision is, to use W. R. Mead's term.

The uncool kids

The Sultan of Knish advises Republicans to quit trying to make the cultural powers-that-be approve of them:

The GOP is not the cool party. It’s never going to be. It’s the party of the people who have been shut out, stepped on and kicked around by the cool people. Trump understood that. The GOP didn’t.

The GOP’s urban elites would like to create an imaginary cool party that would be just like the Democrats, but with fiscally conservative principles. That party can’t and won’t exist.

Notice How Ordinary This Is

Andy McCarthy is one of those hard-core right-wingers who regularly raises concerns about Islam's compatibility with Western values. So, let's hear him out on the question of whether or not President Trump needs a waiver from Congress to appoint Mad Dog Mattis as SECDEF.

It is true that the Constitution assigns the president the sole power to nominate and appoint officers of the United States. It is also true that the Senate’s power of advice-and-consent is the principal constitutional check on the president’s appointment power. (U.S. Const., art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2.) It does not necessarily follow, however, that Congress may not impose qualifications that any nominee must meet when the office in question has been created by Congress.

What are now the Department of Defense and the position of Secretary of Defense are creatures of statute. The 1940s-era statute to which Shannen refers as the source of the limitation on the president’s appointment power is the National Security Act of 1947. It is section 202 of that act that establishes the Secretary of Defense – the office, the qualifications to serve in it, and the attendant duties.

That doesn't sound like he's looking for a totalitarian leader to make him safe by imposing a fascist worldview and brooking no opposition. It sounds like he's thinking seriously about the constitutional separation of powers, and a due and proper role for Congress as well as the Executive.

Such are the terrifying creatures with which the Left now has to reckon.

And These Are Amusing As Well

SNL's Target Ad Skit

A bit old, but still relevant, apparently, sadly.

 

I wonder how much blue Play-doh has been destroyed since ...

Uncomfortable Arguments

A university professor in Canada tries to show his students what they do not want to see:

I got interested in ideology, in a large part, because I got interested in what happened in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Cultural Revolution in China, and equivalent occurrences in other places in the world. Mostly I concentrated on Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. I was particularly interested in what led people to commit atrocities in service of their belief.... One of the things that I’m trying to convince my students of is that if they had been in Germany in the 1930s, they would have been Nazis. Everyone thinks “Not me,” and that’s not right. It was mostly ordinary people who committed the atrocities that characterized Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Well, but people learn from history, right? Does he have any good examples of a similar ideology that is crushing freedom and that his students are rushing to embrace?

Yes, he does.

The university has told me that that every time I insist that I won’t use those [gender neutral] pronouns [like 'xe' and 'xir'], the probability that I’ll be teaching in January decreases.... My opponents say ‘you’re just scare-mongering. We don’t really have that much power.’ Then why change the criminal code? Why put the hate speech amendments in there? The final word in law is incarceration.

There is no question about this. When I made the video on September 27th, and I said, ‘probably making this video itself is illegal’. Not only that, the university is as responsible as I am for making it, because that’s in the human rights code. The university read the damned policies and had their lawyers scour it, and concluded exactly what I concluded. That’s why they sent me two warning letters.

No free speech, no free expression, no free association, and no earning a living if you deviate from the imposed speech codes. Your employer is on the hook for you, so they can't afford to employ you if you won't comply.

This is where they were trying to go here, too. McArdle was just talking about that.

“Sure, the government won’t actually shut your church down. But the left will use its positions of institutional power to try to hound anyone who attends that church from public life. You can believe whatever you want -- but if we catch you, or if we even catch you in proximity to people who believe it, we will threaten your livelihood.”

I’ve heard from a number of evangelicals who, despite their reservations about the man, ended up voting for Donald Trump because they fear that the left is out to build a world where it will not be possible to hold any prominent job while holding onto their church’s beliefs about sexuality. Discussions I’ve had in recent days with nice, well-meaning progressives suggest that this is not a paranoid fantasy.

Well, just look north.

Of Course California Should Secede

Politics are about shared values as much as they're about anything else. As the author points out, California is completely out of step with the country, and provided Hillary Clinton with 100% of her margin of victory in the popular vote.

Of course, if we could agree to abide by the 10th Amendment there'd be no reason California should have to leave. They could live by their own values in perfect accord with their nearby neighbors' living in accordance with more traditional values.

Yet in the wake of Trump's election, I have seen no signs at all of any softening of the idea that the Federal Government Should Rule All. I have seen calls to abolish the electoral college, calls that are completely removed from the reality that Democrats now control none of the capacities that would enable them to amend the Constitution. I have seen calls to abolish the states, even though state governments like California's (and there are less than a handful of such states) provide Democrats with their only practical shelter against whatever Trump's Federal government may do.

If I were inclined to view political disagreements in medical terms, I would think this pathological. This insistence on imposing one-size-fits-all solutions on a big and diverse nation is what lost them all of those state governments. It's a major contributing factor to what lost them this Presidential election. It's also lost them a bunch of House and Senate seats. Yet they continue to double down on the strategy, determined to knock down all remaining laws between them and a fully centralized power. They do this without apparently realizing that these are load-bearing walls, and the power will be centralized like a roof being brought down on their heads.

So yes, by all means, let them go. I will gladly support any Constitutional convention or amendment aimed at freeing California to pursue its own destiny. We would all be happier, and our politics would be healthier, if we could make this happen.

How's that going, Duncan?

Apparently we're not making this up:  a city attorney in Philadelphia, clad in a blazer and ascot and carrying a glass of wine, tagged a fancy grocery store with the message "F**K TRUMP."  I mean, really, he doesn't seem to be a paid plant or anything, and it's not part of a Jimmy Kimmel video or an SNL skit.

Elie Mystal, who writes the almost equally absurd and pathetic blog "Above the Law," also is skating right out at the edge, in a cri de coeur that's located almost entirely in self-loathing and -mockery territory, without quite achieving self-awareness:

When Duncan Lloyd vandalizes your city, it’s part of his larger campaign of finding a way to crawl out from under his covers in the morning. . . . He just wants to be able to look his cats in the eye without feeling ineffectual and ashamed. “I made a statement today, Odysseus and Penelope. I’m not going to let this be normalized.”

I know, you think I lifted that from an alt-right site engaging in a scathing satire.  I really didn't.

I have to assume that Progressive America has more effective minions than this, perhaps flying under the radar for now, but sometimes you truly have to wonder.

The MSM might as well be mute now

H/t Maggie's Farm, the MSM "pouts about lost norms" (so many links popped up I couldn't begin to include them all), when what's really bugging it is a lost leverage:

Imagine this … we now live in a world where the media has zero leverage. They can't blackmail Trump into behaving a certain way because 1) they have nothing he needs -- to reach the people, he can easily go around them; and 2) they can't put pressure on him by hammering him with coordinated narratives because they have lost all moral authority with the public. Nothing they say matters. Nothing they do moves the needle.

Sure, there could be a downside here. If the Trump administration gets wrapped up in a legitimate scandal, we might not listen to eunuchs who cried "disqualified" thousands of times already. But to me, that's like lamenting the lack of trains running on time after the death of a dictator. Whatever downside that comes will be well worth the defeat of outright evil.

I think he's angry

This puling piece of work keeps showing up on my Facebook page:

The Democratic negotiating position on all issues put before them while they are in the House and Senate minority for at least the next two years should be very simple: You will give us Merrick Garland or you may go die in a fire.

Not only that, but they should do what they should have done the day Antonin Scalia died: Make it clear that the next time the Democrats control the Senate while the Republican Party controls the presidency, whether that is in 2019 or 2049, there will be an extraordinarily high price to pay for what just transpired. The next Republican president facing divided government will get nothing. This president will run the entire federal government by himself. Zero confirmations. No judges, not even to the lowliest district court in the country. No Cabinet heads. No laws. Budgets will be approved only after prolonged and painful crises. Whoever this GOP president is, he or she will be forced to watch while their presidency and everything they hoped to achieve in government is burned down while the Democrats block the fire hydrant and laugh.

And Democrats should be confident knowing that American voters will never, ever hold them accountable for it. On the contrary, they will almost certainly be rewarded with sweeping power.

This is apparently what Democrats need to do now that they've learned that magnanimity doesn't work.  Well, as Dennis Miller says, keep it up.  People love this stuff.

Brothers Bearing Arms, Virginia and Georgia

You may recall that last year the Virginia governor had a brief fit of gun-controllery, in which he declined to recognize the permits of very many states. That was fixed. Now, the honorable and glorious Virginia Citizens Defense League -- long may their fame endure -- has convinced the state to recognize the permits of all other states that grant permits to carry.

Under Georgia law, we recognize the permits of any state that recognizes our permit. Or so the plain text of the law says. Our Attorney General has elected to refuse to recognize Virginia permits.

Now, having had both sorts, I can tell you that this is silliness of the extreme sort. Not only does Virginia require all the background checks that Georgia requires, it also requires a proficiency examination equivalent to at least a basic NRA-certified course in firearms. The Virginia permit holders are, in other words, by statute better qualified than our native ones are required to be.

The matter has come to court. VCDL, and the Georgia Packing group, are set against the state government. If they do not win their case, they must nevertheless win the point. These Republican politicians in Georgia at the state level are dogs, but we'll teach them yet.

Nordic Roots

Tom gave us a start on it. It's not an unworthy thing to chase, near the Yuletide.



I note that the video seems to be drawn from a retelling of Beowulf's second battle, against the Mother of Grendel.

Give a Moff His Due

Finnish Folk Music

From Gjallerhorn, a good name for a band.

John F. "Jack" Hasey

Wandering around, reading about Finland, I ran across this remarkable-sounding American. Here's the brief Wikipedia entry:

John F. "Jack" Hasey

John Freeman "Jack" Hasey (3 November 1916 – 9 May 2005) was an American captain in the French Foreign Legion during World War II and a senior operations officer with the CIA afterwards. Hasey was one of only four Americans, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, to have been named a Companion of the Ordre de la Libération, France's highest World War II honor.

...

Birth

Hasey was born in Brockton, Massachusetts in 1916. In 1936, Hasey headed to France, where he intended to study at the Sorbonne. Hasey, a Columbia University graduate, instead decided to become a salesman for the French jeweler Cartier.

Military career

When the Russo-Finnish War broke out in 1939, Hasey, along with other Americans, formed an ambulance unit, the Iroquois Ambulance Corps, and headed to the war front to help aid the Finns. Later, some time in the 1950s, Finland awarded him the Liberty Cross. After the war, and having recovered from a wound to his arm, Hasey planned to return to his work at Cartier.

With the German invasion of Western Europe, Hasey promptly volunteered to join the Free French Forces led by General Charles de Gaulle. During fighting around Damascus, Syria on June 20, 1941, Hasey's right jaw and larynx were shot away by enemy machine gun fire. He was decorated by de Gaulle as "the first American to shed blood for the liberation of France." After his recovery, Hasey became a liaison between de Gaulle and Eisenhower. During 1942, he co-wrote a book, Yankee Fighter: The Story of an American in the Free French Foreign Legion with Joseph F Dinneen. In August 1943, he became an aide-de-camp on the staff of General Marie Pierre Koenig, and remained with Koenig during his term as military Governor of Paris, August 1944.

Post-War

In 1950, he joined the CIA and worked in 17 countries until his retirement in 1974.

In 1996, French President Jacques Chirac named Hasey an officer in the Légion d'honneur.

On May 9, 2005, Hasey died at age 88 from complications after a stroke.

Honors

•     Order of the Cross of Liberty
•     Compagnon de la Libération
•     Knight of the Légion d'honneur
•     Croix de guerre 39-45 with four citations
•     Insignia for the Military Wounded

What Does the Infantry Actually Do All Day?

Task & Purpose highlights a Redditor's answer. Here's the opening:

It’s starts at a practical time in the morning with good, well rounded PT tailored to each individual Soldier’s physical fitness level. Stretching is a priority and proper technique in all exercises is emphasized. That’s followed by a nutritious breakfast served by a friendly cook.

You then get practical hands on training in the art of modern infantry tactics by qualified and motivated subject matter experts. The training is up to date and perfectly in line with our current global combat missions. Another healthy and delicious meal is followed by a motivating and morale lifting pep talk from your inspiring First Sergeant ...

Jim Webb vs. Entitled Elites

Jim Webb gave the keynote speech at the American Conservative Magazine's conference. He spoke a week after Trump's victory, but before everyone had time to sort out what they thought about it. It's a speech rooted in that moment, and is I think a useful criticism for Democrats for whom "conservative" is a curse word.

Here it is.

Lars Walker Sermonizes

As another Advent post, here is our comrade Lars Walker on the ruthlessness of Jesus Christ.

Should We Profile Women Who Join ISIS?

Vice has a story profiling 25 young women who have elected to join the Islamic State or similar Islamist movements. If you're an FBI agent or someone similar, it makes sense to read these profiles carefully and look for patterns. Trying to figure out how radicalization works is a big deal, and one on which we have made almost no progress. Indeed, our best ideas so far have failed dramatically.

For most Americans, though, I wonder if learning about the lives of these women is the right thing to do. Have they not elected to join a movement in which they will be rendered literally faceless in the public space? Who cares who they are, or what they wanted? Refusing to see them is honoring their personal and individual choice about who they wanted to be. It is at once an act of respect they may not deserve, and a fitting and proper punishment.

Against Censorship

Glenn Reynolds writes that, while the right could now use the Department of Education to censor speech the way Obama has done, that should really be avoided.

Some folks on the right may feel that turnabout is fair play. The left, lately, has gotten into the habit of treating words it disagrees with as if they’re somehow wrongful acts to be punished. The meaningless term “hate speech” — which just means speech that lefties don’t like — has been used to attack the free speech of, well, people that lefties don’t like.

But as satisfying as some might find it to turn those tactics around, the truth is that we all benefit from people’s ability to speak freely. One reason why the Democrats were blindsided by Trump’s victory — and why the British establishment was gobsmacked by the Brexit vote — is that people didn’t feel they could speak freely on those subjects. A society in which people are forced to hide their views is a society in which a lot of things remain hidden.

And the very notion of having to watch what you say lest you lose your job, get expelled from school, or face social ostracism is offensive, more evocative of communist hellholes like North Korea or Cuba than of a free society.

If he's right that the reason we were blindsided by Trump's victory is that many supporters did not feel free to express or discuss their support, that's significant. For one thing, it will have prevented some of the debate in which the worthiness of a candidate is tested. Instead of facing considered arguments against their candidate, supporters will have simply remained silent rather than face charges of racism (and possible firing).

Not that any amount of considered criticism would have caused me to vote for Hillary Clinton. That's the other part of that discussion, which mostly we are not having. Democrats who want my vote had better give me a candidate I can vote for in good conscience. Giving me the choice between two bad candidates is not enough.

To return to the main point, I'm all about doing the right thing. Under no circumstances should we try to censor speech in the way our speech has been censored. But I would like to see some DoE programs aimed at explaining to the opposition just why their efforts constitute censorship, and not -- as they would prefer to believe -- "cleaning up hate from the public space" or something similar. I think they continue to believe that we are evil, and feel perfectly righteous about suppressing our thoughts and words. They are only sorry not to have gotten away with it.

Pull Yourself Together

You can check yourself into a psych ward over Hillary losing the election if you want to do, but we're not going to kill you. You're just being silly. The odds of a civil war in this country fell through the floor when Trump won. Clinton was apt to provoke one with her commitment to Australian gun control and Supreme Court nominees who would have voided the Second Amendment. We'd have fought over that, some of us.

I'm not going to spend ten minutes thinking about you or how to ruin your life after I finish typing this post. You're totally safe from me. I don't care about you the least little bit. I certainly don't hate you. Go do whatever it is you do, and stop worrying so much about your fellow Americans.

Mad Dog

Bob on the FOB (who is Iraq War famous, at least), sends as follows:

"Handlebars, handlebars, handlebars, chaos, I say again, chaos."

Mattis will probably hate the job, and his work has been cut out for him by the Obama administration's utter failure in foreign policy. But he's a good man, and he knows war.

Advent

H/t: D29.

Another Bad Marketing Decision

This presents itself as being for nearly fearless men, but no man worth the name would wear this -- especially if it were true.

As it often is. I keep telling people that they should be a lot more afraid of the wife than they ever are of me.

Nothing New with Levi's Jeans

Their brand is an American classic, but they've been donating heavily to gun control groups for years. What do you expect from a San Francisco company?

Now they say, 'Don't come in if you're carrying -- even legally.' There is, "of course," an exception for "authorized" members of law enforcement.

This points to the clear misunderstanding prominent on the left that the police are a separate class from the citizenry. Every citizen has the right to enforce the law, to make arrests and bring lawbreakers before a magistrate. Those of us who are also authorized to carry weapons -- after a background check and, in many states, a demonstration of proficiency -- are "authorized... law enforcement" in the strictest sense. We just don't do it full time.

Police and the citizenry should be lined up, not divided against each other. But that depends on a view in which we're both of us committed to the same end -- the common peace and lawful order. If what you really want are police who will suppress your fellow citizens of whom you are terrified, well, that's going to cause problems for all of us.

A Comic for the Era

I just discovered this webcomic called "The Ism." Initial review of the last few strips suggests it's pretty solid, but I haven't gone that far back.

The New Yorker 'splains it all.

This is a much less obnoxious article than many that have recently explained to us how the forces of evil inexplicably took over the polling booths last month.  It's nevertheless very nearly as clueless as the rest.  Here is our President's take on the social justice challenges the country faces as automation proceeds on the same track it's been on for the last several hundred years, if not the last several millennia:

[A]t some point, when the problem is not just Uber but driverless Uber, when radiologists are losing their jobs to A.I., then we’re going to have to figure out how do we maintain a cohesive society and a cohesive democracy in which productivity and wealth generation are not automatically linked to how many hours you put in, where the links between production and distribution are broken, in some sense. Because I can sit in my office, do a bunch of stuff, send it out over the Internet, and suddenly I just made a couple of million bucks, and the person who’s looking after my kid while I’m doing that has no leverage to get paid more than ten bucks an hour.”

In other words, the problem with the distribution of wealth in this country is that the people who receive and pay for services with their own money have a different judgment of their worth than the valuation that the smart and virtuous people would like to impose on the rest of us. How else can you explain why some guy who writes popular material enjoyed by millions of people with disposable income can get paid more than someone who provides a straightforward temporary service to a single family that can be pulled off by almost anyone? Why not pay the childcare worker $10 million and the popular author $10? Surely they'd both keep doing their jobs tomorrow and next week, right?  (Not to mention, Mr. President, that if you feel guilty about accepting the $10 million you could always decline it instead of bragging about it.)

Much of the rest of the article bemoans the fact that voters don't have to agree with the smart people any more, as if they ever did.  The President is appalled that certain things can be said publicly now without the speaker's losing any chance of public support.  He can say something like that without reflecting for a moment on how surprised half the country was to find that a man could win the White House after being exposed as the acolyte of Saul Alinsky or the Rev. Wright.  I'm not sure it will ever occur to him that those parallel situations could ever be more than a "false equivalence."

Daddy Was...

Not my daddy, nor his daddy. But they'd have recognized elements of the story. We all would.

It's a song about all of us, sung through one of us.

The Feast of St. Andrew

Patron Saint of Scotland (which is sort of an oddity, since he never went to Scotland and Scotland has a number of excellent saints of its own), St. Andrew's Day comes as a welcome chance to listen to the pipes instead of Jingle Bells.



It falls during Advent, which is a season of fasting and preparation. In America, it overlaps with what we more usually call "the Christmas Season," when everyone is already singing carols and selling various wares in red and green. We have the habit of feasting in preparation for the feast, which is a bit odd when you think about it.

Still, if you are fasting, a feast day honoring so high a figure as St. Andrew must be welcome. It is a minor relief in a season of preparation for the great relief, which is a fair model of the relationship of human saints and the Incarnations.

Cuba and Israel

Jonah Goldberg on the valentines to a chic dictator recently departed from this life:

As much of the American Left is openly mooting whether or not the American president-elect is a dictator-in-waiting, one has to wonder whether they would take that bargain: No more elections, no more free speech, no more civil liberties of any kind, but socialized medicine and literacy for everyone! American political dissidents, homosexuals, journalists, and the clergy, just like in Cuba, can languish in prison or internal exile, but at least they’ll be able to read the charges against them. To listen to some Castro defenders, you’d think the scales of justice can balance out any load of horrors.

Such un-nuanced arguments always make leftist eyes roll. In a blog post titled “Castro: It’s Complicated!” University of Rhode Island professor Eric Loomis cautioned against thinking “in terms of simplistic moral judgments.” It seems to me that when people want to ban simplistic moral judgments, it’s usually because simple morality is not on their side.

* * *

But among serious leftists, Castro’s radical chic is secondary. For them, Fidel’s revolution provided the slender hope that America was on the wrong side of history. It was a symbol of resistance — intellectual, political, and spiritual — to Western yanqui hegemony. They loved Cuba for many of the reasons they hate Israel (despite its exemplary literacy rate and universal health-care system).

Post-Clinton-Victory Media Coverage As Bad As You Thought

Maybe a little bit worse.

I think we have the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship. But let's be real. I'm not that into you, and you're not that into me. And I know the kind of woman you are. You play hard to get; you're fickle; you say one thing and then do the opposite.... I've seen the way you look at Republicans. The way your face lights up when Henry Kissinger walks into a room. You never look at me that way. To be fair, I don't get that hot and bothered by you... Now, Hillary, you are the president-elect. And as much as a catch as I may be, it would be silly to pretend your being the most powerful person in the entire world doesn't give you a bit of an upper hand.

It still remains to be seen if the media can get to a position of "detached professionalism" even now, but at least with Donald Trump we will be spared the media positing their relationship with the new President in terms of a torrid love affair. (And this was one of her would-be critics.)

How To Encourage Tourism to the United Kingdom

...in one map.