The NY Observer reminds us of this leaked audio of Hillary Clinton claiming that we should have rigged a foreign election. (H/t: Outlaw Morgan)
I take her comments to be proof that we didn't rig that election, though also proof that she thought rigging foreign elections was a fine thing to do. Clinton's friends described her efforts in Putin's last election as "calling out his rigged election," but Putin saw them as efforts to rig it. The Wikileaks demonstration of how the DNC was rigging the Democratic Primary was nothing except an inversion of Clinton's own tactics against Putin: set up an allegedly independent NGO, and have it convey true information about your party's attempts to corrupt and control the outcome of what was allegedly a democratic process.
Wikileaks reminds us, in the wake of information that Russian intelligence targeted the Trump campaign, that the CIA performed the same maneuver with the French presidential campaign. "... the current ruling party, is not assured of winning the presidential election and, as a result, analysts are interested in the electoral strategy of the non-ruling parties listed below. Additional information on these topics will help analysts assess, and prepare key US policymakers for, the post-election French political landscape and the potential impact on US-France relations."
That's a perfectly fair assessment and a completely reasonable thing for the CIA to do. You can imagine the FSB, though, writing exactly the same memo to justify a move to get more visibility on what the Trump campaign was thinking. "The current ruling party is not assured of winning the presidential election... additional information on these topics will help analysts assess, and prepare key Russian policymakers for, the post-election American landscape etc."
The CIA also has a history of rigging the occasional foreign election. "The Christian Democrats eventually won the 1948 election with 48% of the vote, and the FDP received 31%. The CIA's practice of influencing the political situation was repeated in every Italian election for at least the next 24 years.[13]"
There's a long article on the history of the practice here. It's in the Washington Post, one of the same papers that has been worrying out loud that all this Russian influence means we don't have a real democracy.
I'm sure we all stand resolutely against foreign meddling in our elections. Noticing that turnabout is fair play doesn't mean that we shouldn't want our elections to represent only the will of the American people.
It does suggest that a more thoughtful dialogue should be engaged by our press here. Is the clandestine activity conducted by the CIA to improve its analysis and predictive capacity reasonable (as I argue)? If so, why shouldn't the Russians do the same thing? Is tampering in elections wrong? If so, why shouldn't other countries resent that we have done it to them -- and respond in kind?
Let's Agree That You Just Surrender
E. J. Dionne has a nice proposal. First, agree that Trump is unfit to be President. Second, have his attorney general "immediately recuse himself from all decisions about all aspects of the Russia investigation by the FBI and the intelligence services."
I was way more interested in "Donald Trump is unfit for the office" arguments before the election. This isn't a proposal for an investigation, it's a proposal for Republicans to take the brakes off the deep state. But if Jeff Sessions is unfit to exercise his office, surely so is everyone else in the administration. What's left? Impeachment based on Trump's performance at press conferences or in writing executive orders that he's apparently fine with having courts review? For Trump and his team to resign and... what? Paul Ryan to be President? Or does he need to resign too? Or should we just dispense with having a President, and leave "the FBI and the intelligence services" to determine what is right, with of course the informative blessings of the 9th Circuit Court?
Does anyone else have a more serious proposal?
I was way more interested in "Donald Trump is unfit for the office" arguments before the election. This isn't a proposal for an investigation, it's a proposal for Republicans to take the brakes off the deep state. But if Jeff Sessions is unfit to exercise his office, surely so is everyone else in the administration. What's left? Impeachment based on Trump's performance at press conferences or in writing executive orders that he's apparently fine with having courts review? For Trump and his team to resign and... what? Paul Ryan to be President? Or does he need to resign too? Or should we just dispense with having a President, and leave "the FBI and the intelligence services" to determine what is right, with of course the informative blessings of the 9th Circuit Court?
Does anyone else have a more serious proposal?
America's Third Century
Wretchard makes one of those historical analogies that Eric Blair hates, this time to the Third Century Crisis in Rome. Analogies always break, of course, as the only way an analogy would not break is if the two things being compared turn out to be the same thing and not different things. Otherwise, there are always differences that create a breaking point for the comparison.
Setting aside the usefulness of the comparison for discussion in the comments, Wretchard is not wrong that this is a moment in which Constitutional norms seem to have weakened. The "deep state" to which Bill Kristol pledges a kind of conditional loyalty has no Constitutional warrant for its existence.
While this 'deep state' fights with the Constitutional state, at a moment of the Constitutional state's supreme weakness, there is a third power -- for Wretchard, an analog to the barbarians.
Setting aside the usefulness of the comparison for discussion in the comments, Wretchard is not wrong that this is a moment in which Constitutional norms seem to have weakened. The "deep state" to which Bill Kristol pledges a kind of conditional loyalty has no Constitutional warrant for its existence.
While this 'deep state' fights with the Constitutional state, at a moment of the Constitutional state's supreme weakness, there is a third power -- for Wretchard, an analog to the barbarians.
If Trump is overthrown by the Deep State in a year, he's unlikely to be the last. If neither faction will suffer itself to be governed by the other, whoever succeeds Trump can expect his term to be short. America could have its own period of the 26 presidents. That will be good news for the Barbarians, waiting at the edge of Baltics, in the South China Sea and on Europe's borders, ready to move in.I think I'm going to have to go against Kristol on this one, and try to reinforce the Constitutional state. That's not the same thing as declaring loyalty to the Trump administration, but rather, to the explicitly Constitutional forms. The American solution is not unelected bureaucrats with powers the Founders never imagined but Congress, the courts in their proper role, and the officials that We the People can actually choose either directly or indirectly. If those options are inadequate, then the right thing to do is to call that Article V convention, and start planning a new Constitutional state (or states).
Rome's Third Century crisis did not end well. The new normal was not a return to the Golden Age, but the end of it. It resulted in a landscape with a broken internal trade network and a patchwork of locality.
Headline vs. Article
NYT Headline: "Trump Campaign Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence"
FTA:
FTA:
The headline to the first piece might have been, "Trump campaign targeted by Russian intelligence." That would undermine the idea that only the Democrats were targeted by a Russian intelligence that was friendly to the Trump campaign, though. As Manafort, who lost his job over accusations of ties to Russia, is quoted as saying when told he'd talked to suspected spies: “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”
FTA:
The intelligence agencies... sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.Guardian Headline: "Deutsche Bank examined Donald Trump's account for Russia links"
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.
FTA:
The internal review found no evidence of any Russia link[.]Seems like there's kind of a theme here.
The headline to the first piece might have been, "Trump campaign targeted by Russian intelligence." That would undermine the idea that only the Democrats were targeted by a Russian intelligence that was friendly to the Trump campaign, though. As Manafort, who lost his job over accusations of ties to Russia, is quoted as saying when told he'd talked to suspected spies: “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”
Flynn in Clear with FBI
"More: FBI says Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers."
That's it, then. The only possible criminal charges, given that the Logan Act is a non-starter, were if he lied to the FBI. If the FBI says that didn't happen, there's nothing more to the Flynn part of the story.
The felonious leaks, on the other hand -- that I expect we'll hear a bit more about. My guess is that Attorney General Sessions will find reason to take an interest in that matter.
That's it, then. The only possible criminal charges, given that the Logan Act is a non-starter, were if he lied to the FBI. If the FBI says that didn't happen, there's nothing more to the Flynn part of the story.
The felonious leaks, on the other hand -- that I expect we'll hear a bit more about. My guess is that Attorney General Sessions will find reason to take an interest in that matter.
Helping A Brother Out
According to the Times of Israel, the CIA's just doing their best for President Trump.
Thus, this is not an acceptable excuse for these leaks, many of which are actual felonies. Even on the most generous possible interpretation of their motives, what they're putting in front of the public is nothing but a raw feed that the public doesn't know how to interpret. It would be reckless of any intelligence officer to transmit such things without clearly labeling them as such, even if the recipient was a professional who knew how to read and handle intelligence. Journalists typically do not, in my experience often including journalists who allegedly specialize in foreign affairs or national security, and the public certainly has no reason to be expected to know how.
No, that excuse won't wash.
... veteran diplomatic correspondent Oren Nahari cited an Israeli official, who said a senior member of the US intelligence community told him the agency suspects that Russia has information on Trump that can be used to pressure the US leader. As a countermeasure, US intelligence operatives are quickly leaking everything they learn about ties between Russia and the Trump administration so that the information can’t be used as leverage against the president.That's not how the intelligence process works. "Everything we learn" is not intelligence, it's raw information. It becomes intelligence only through a process of analysis, as these Agency spooks know perfectly well.
Thus, this is not an acceptable excuse for these leaks, many of which are actual felonies. Even on the most generous possible interpretation of their motives, what they're putting in front of the public is nothing but a raw feed that the public doesn't know how to interpret. It would be reckless of any intelligence officer to transmit such things without clearly labeling them as such, even if the recipient was a professional who knew how to read and handle intelligence. Journalists typically do not, in my experience often including journalists who allegedly specialize in foreign affairs or national security, and the public certainly has no reason to be expected to know how.
No, that excuse won't wash.
National Security Professionals in at NSC?
If Admiral Harward comes in as the new NSA, we'll have General Mattis as SECDEF, his former CENTCOM #2 as NSA, and his former assistant division commander as Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a hardened team that knows how to work together from more than a decade's wartime experience.
There is a question about what will remain of the President's foreign policy agenda. Whatever else may be said about Trump, good and bad, he was not elected to continue inherited policies. On the other hand, it may be that the American people do not mostly care about foreign policy, and just want steady hands to keep that locked down so they can worry about the issues they do care about -- chiefly, among Trump supporters, immigration and domestic economic growth. (Immigration is often said to be a subset of 'domestic economic growth,' even, as one of the concerns about it is the degree to which it is suppressing domestic workers' wage growth. However, I suspect that the rapid and uncontrolled immigration of the last three decades has created immigration as a substantial issue in its own right -- relieving pressure and buying time for assimilation strike me as things people care about independently of economic consequences.)
The Secretary of State is still on board with a new foreign policy, and officially he is the chief of the President's officers in this regard. Still, the military and security aspects of the state have long since outgrown its weak diplomatic arm. As professionals, all these career Marines and Sailors will have the utmost respect for civilian control of the process. Still, there is going to be a weight on their side of the scale that even mindful respect of State's role won't be able to eliminate.
Of course, if you think Donald Trump's foreign policy ideas are no good, the idea of having seasoned military members in charge instead of the President and his Secretary of State must be attractive. They represent an apolitical, non-ideological, professional American government.
Nevertheless, I notice: "an apolitical, non-ideological, professional" government is exactly the opposite of what voters in both primaries demanded in 2016.
There is a question about what will remain of the President's foreign policy agenda. Whatever else may be said about Trump, good and bad, he was not elected to continue inherited policies. On the other hand, it may be that the American people do not mostly care about foreign policy, and just want steady hands to keep that locked down so they can worry about the issues they do care about -- chiefly, among Trump supporters, immigration and domestic economic growth. (Immigration is often said to be a subset of 'domestic economic growth,' even, as one of the concerns about it is the degree to which it is suppressing domestic workers' wage growth. However, I suspect that the rapid and uncontrolled immigration of the last three decades has created immigration as a substantial issue in its own right -- relieving pressure and buying time for assimilation strike me as things people care about independently of economic consequences.)
The Secretary of State is still on board with a new foreign policy, and officially he is the chief of the President's officers in this regard. Still, the military and security aspects of the state have long since outgrown its weak diplomatic arm. As professionals, all these career Marines and Sailors will have the utmost respect for civilian control of the process. Still, there is going to be a weight on their side of the scale that even mindful respect of State's role won't be able to eliminate.
Of course, if you think Donald Trump's foreign policy ideas are no good, the idea of having seasoned military members in charge instead of the President and his Secretary of State must be attractive. They represent an apolitical, non-ideological, professional American government.
Nevertheless, I notice: "an apolitical, non-ideological, professional" government is exactly the opposite of what voters in both primaries demanded in 2016.
VA Head Confirmed
I was under the impression that a unanimous confirmation was not permitted under current rules governing the Trump administration. Apparently, that's not correct.
Second Look at Moderate Islam?
In a sharp contradiction to what is common among Muslims, Khaled Al Gendy, a famous Islamic cleric and a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, stated that drinking liquor without getting drunk is not sinful.That sounds like a wholly reasonable standard.
“If the same alcoholic drink was consumed by one person without getting drunk, it is not haram, while being consumed by another person to drunkenness makes it haram [for this person],” the sheikh said, highlighting the difference between drinking liquor and getting drunk.
During a talk show on DMC TV channel, Al Gedy said that getting drunk is haram, sinful and forbidden in Islam, and all Islamic sharia laws related to the punishment apply to getting drunk as a consequence of drinking alcoholic beverages.
A drunken person is defined as one who cannot tell the bottom of a valley from its top, Al Gendy added.
Secretive Military Unit Offers Conditional Aid
In recent months, ill-informed Leftists who have spent the last 8 years repeatedly telling the public that they do not “need” guns and have no reason to fear the Federal Government (except of course for the police) have discovered that they are totally unprepared to carry out the violent overthrow of the Trump Administration and the revolution that they feel our country so desperately needs.The list of demands confirms that this offer is certainly legitimate.
Those pleas for a military-led coup had gone unanswered (and largely laughed at) by members of the Armed Forces until yesterday, when a little known Army Special Mission Unit responded to left-wing demands for a military removal of the Commander-in-Chief.
This is either never-before-seen footage of the Spec-4 Mafia and their list of demands, or Adobe Stock Art. We’re not sure which.
Known only as the “E4 Mafia..."
Could Frisco ISD Soon Use Students as Janitors?
This is part of the headline on an article about suggestions for the school district to cut costs.
This is normal in Japanese schools. Students finish their morning classes, eat lunch, clean the whole school, and then go to recess. Each class is assigned a particular area of the school to clean on a rotating schedule and the areas are inspected by their teachers before they are released for recess.
I think it might be good to make it normal here, as well, not just to cut costs, but also because it develops a sense of responsibility, work ethic, etc.
This is normal in Japanese schools. Students finish their morning classes, eat lunch, clean the whole school, and then go to recess. Each class is assigned a particular area of the school to clean on a rotating schedule and the areas are inspected by their teachers before they are released for recess.
I think it might be good to make it normal here, as well, not just to cut costs, but also because it develops a sense of responsibility, work ethic, etc.
Georgia Legislature Pondering Gun Rights
There are bills both expanding and contracting gun rights in Georgia before the Legislature right now.
NRA-ILA points to two bills that are restrictions. The more restrictive, HB 10, is an "assault weapons" ban that has very little chance of passage -- but if you're a citizen of Georgia, help kill it anyway.
HB 232 calls for concealed weapons permit holders to file some proof that they have received training in how to use a firearm. "House Bill 232 would require most gun license applicants to first complete a training course that would introduce the features of the handgun and a brief explanation of the loading, firing and unloading of a firearm. However, it would not require the applicant to actually fire a firearm. HB 232 does not provide specifically where the training would come from, nor does it provide a guide on potential costs associated with this training. All that HB 232 provides is that the instructor must be a law enforcement officer, nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety or a licensed firearms dealer."
The NRA is opposed to this, on the grounds that it would add to the cost of exercising a Constitutional right. I'm not actually convinced it's a bad idea, though. The concept of the militia is that it should be a trained fighting force, and I think that in the ideal case we would provide for such training for all able-bodied citizens. In the less-ideal case, it's not outrageous to suggest that you should have had basic training in the operation of a firearm before you carry one around; furthermore, the NRA stands to profit off this deal as the similar law in Virginia accepts NRA-licensed trainers as one of the options.
Finally, it brings the concealed weapons permit in line with Georgia's hunting licenses, which also require a hunter's safety course before issuance of the license. In Georgia, hunting is a right enshrined in the state constitution on the same terms as the right to keep and bear arms. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne," says the state constitution. I don't know that it merits an infringement to state that you must have proper training, as such training would not infringe upon your right but rather enhance your capacity to exercise it effectively.
Thus, on the merits I would almost be inclined to support this law. The only concern is that the government can't be trusted to get its nose under the tent wall, so to speak. I will leave the matter to your consciences, those of you who are fellow citizens of the Great State of Georgia.
On the pro-gun side, Campus Carry is back again. You'll remember that it was passed and vetoed last year by our esteemed Governor, who did at least file a reasonably worthy and articulate explanation for his veto. This is HB 280. In my opinion it is sensible; in the opinions of the whole universe of college professor types that I know, it's a horrible invasion of barbarity on their sacred ground. So, again, follow your conscience.
NRA-ILA points to two bills that are restrictions. The more restrictive, HB 10, is an "assault weapons" ban that has very little chance of passage -- but if you're a citizen of Georgia, help kill it anyway.
HB 232 calls for concealed weapons permit holders to file some proof that they have received training in how to use a firearm. "House Bill 232 would require most gun license applicants to first complete a training course that would introduce the features of the handgun and a brief explanation of the loading, firing and unloading of a firearm. However, it would not require the applicant to actually fire a firearm. HB 232 does not provide specifically where the training would come from, nor does it provide a guide on potential costs associated with this training. All that HB 232 provides is that the instructor must be a law enforcement officer, nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety or a licensed firearms dealer."
The NRA is opposed to this, on the grounds that it would add to the cost of exercising a Constitutional right. I'm not actually convinced it's a bad idea, though. The concept of the militia is that it should be a trained fighting force, and I think that in the ideal case we would provide for such training for all able-bodied citizens. In the less-ideal case, it's not outrageous to suggest that you should have had basic training in the operation of a firearm before you carry one around; furthermore, the NRA stands to profit off this deal as the similar law in Virginia accepts NRA-licensed trainers as one of the options.
Finally, it brings the concealed weapons permit in line with Georgia's hunting licenses, which also require a hunter's safety course before issuance of the license. In Georgia, hunting is a right enshrined in the state constitution on the same terms as the right to keep and bear arms. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne," says the state constitution. I don't know that it merits an infringement to state that you must have proper training, as such training would not infringe upon your right but rather enhance your capacity to exercise it effectively.
Thus, on the merits I would almost be inclined to support this law. The only concern is that the government can't be trusted to get its nose under the tent wall, so to speak. I will leave the matter to your consciences, those of you who are fellow citizens of the Great State of Georgia.
On the pro-gun side, Campus Carry is back again. You'll remember that it was passed and vetoed last year by our esteemed Governor, who did at least file a reasonably worthy and articulate explanation for his veto. This is HB 280. In my opinion it is sensible; in the opinions of the whole universe of college professor types that I know, it's a horrible invasion of barbarity on their sacred ground. So, again, follow your conscience.
A Record?
Mike Flynn just resigned as National Security Adviser, in what may be a record for shortest term ever in an NSA.
Standards have to apply to the powerful at least as much as to the weak, if things are to be any good at all. Hopefully that lesson is being learned.
UPDATE: Judging from the letter of resignation, Mike Pence is the one who put him down. Don't lie to the Biker in Chief.
Standards have to apply to the powerful at least as much as to the weak, if things are to be any good at all. Hopefully that lesson is being learned.
UPDATE: Judging from the letter of resignation, Mike Pence is the one who put him down. Don't lie to the Biker in Chief.
Meryl Streep on Honor
"Yes, I am the most overrated, over-decorated and currently, I am the most over-berated actress ... of my generation," she said to laughs.Leaving aside the particular political questions -- including whether or not her opponents are properly described as "brownshirts" -- her remarks about honor are themselves interesting. What compels her to speak is honors, she says: in other words, just because so many people have said nice things about her or presented her with awards admiring her work as an actress, her voice in politics is important and needed in the public debate.
She noted that she wished she could simply stay home "and load the dishwasher" rather than take a podium to speak out - but that "the weight of all these honors" she's received in her career compelled her to speak out.
"It's terrifying to put the target on your forehead," she said. "And it sets you up for all sorts of attacks and armies of brownshirts and bots and worse, and the only way you can do it is if you feel you have to. You have to! You don't have an option. You have to."
At first it seems as if this might be a sensible thing to say. After all, one is honored for excellence; she has received many honors; therefore, she must in some sense be excellent. Politics should in theory benefit if it draws excellence. Certainly Aristotle and Plato both argue that political roles are best filled by those with excellence. Our English word "virtue" is from the Latin, but the Greek word is arete, which really does mean "excellence."
Thus, it seems as if a woman of proven excellence really ought to play an outsized role in politics -- just as she says, the honors she has received prove that she has a greater capacity than most, and that implies a duty to exercise that capacity for the common good. Politics needs people like her.
Well... maybe that's not quite right.
The problem is that there are two different things going on, and Streep is conflating them. As an actress, she is highly honored (and has therefore outsized duties, presumably). As a citizen, however, she is properly the equal of any other citizen. It is wrong to claim that she has an outsized role to play in a sphere in which she is properly only the equal of all other American citizens, not their superior.
Her celebrity gives her a louder voice, so to speak, but she is reading her warrant the wrong way. Rather than her honors as an actress making it imperative that she speak publicly, they ought to disincline her to do so -- and this is true for all such celebrities, regardless of their political views. Knowing that the attention they will receive will drown out others to whom they ought only to be equal, they should be circumspect about their political views.
Certainly that does not mean that celebrities should not participate in politics, which they have an equal entitlement to do. They should just take care not to use the honors they have received in the fields of arts, or sports, to 'talk over' their fellow citizens. That is what honor really requires here.
Jim Webb on NBC
American politics needed a jolt, Webb says. Was it this one? What about the Democrats in 2018?
The journalist pins him early on the fact that he refers to Democrats as "they," not "we." Webb thinks about that for a minute and says that, you know, he's not really part of the system at the moment -- he's thinking about this all from the outside, as the journalist is himself, and as are all of us here. It's still an interesting observation.
UPDATE: Another piece on Webb today wonders what might have been.
The journalist pins him early on the fact that he refers to Democrats as "they," not "we." Webb thinks about that for a minute and says that, you know, he's not really part of the system at the moment -- he's thinking about this all from the outside, as the journalist is himself, and as are all of us here. It's still an interesting observation.
UPDATE: Another piece on Webb today wonders what might have been.
Islam, Reformation, the West
Andrew McCarthy proposes that we start asking politicians whether or not they think Islam needs reform. McCarthy's a thoughtful guy, and he has a point, but he hasn't reflected philosophically on the question. What does it even mean to ask "Does Islam need reform"? Islam is a religion. A religion either points to the true ground of the divine or it does not. If it does, then what sense is there to reform it? The structure of right and wrong, whatever it looks like, follows from the divine expression.
If it does not, then of course it ought to be reformed -- which is not to say that "it" needs reform. A religion that does not point to the divine is just a set of conventions, and a set of conventions has no needs. It's just something people do. People have needs. A longing for the divine is one of those needs for many people.
So the question really ought to be, "Do you think Islam is true?"
And, then, only if they answer in the negative, the second question is, "How should Muslims reform their faith so that they do in fact genuinely connect with the divine?"
Now, the proper thing to say about the second question is that anyone who is not a Muslim can only have an advisory opinion. We're not going to be the ones reforming Islam -- we're just going to be giving advice about it. Of course, what I said before holds for these. Even Muslims who want to reform Islam must first reject that it correctly captures the divine expression. They also must first admit, however tacitly, that they do not in fact believe what is taught by their faith.
The first question is the one that matters. It's only even sensible to talk about reform if you deny that Islam is true. Saying that has consequences we should face honestly.
If it does not, then of course it ought to be reformed -- which is not to say that "it" needs reform. A religion that does not point to the divine is just a set of conventions, and a set of conventions has no needs. It's just something people do. People have needs. A longing for the divine is one of those needs for many people.
So the question really ought to be, "Do you think Islam is true?"
And, then, only if they answer in the negative, the second question is, "How should Muslims reform their faith so that they do in fact genuinely connect with the divine?"
Now, the proper thing to say about the second question is that anyone who is not a Muslim can only have an advisory opinion. We're not going to be the ones reforming Islam -- we're just going to be giving advice about it. Of course, what I said before holds for these. Even Muslims who want to reform Islam must first reject that it correctly captures the divine expression. They also must first admit, however tacitly, that they do not in fact believe what is taught by their faith.
The first question is the one that matters. It's only even sensible to talk about reform if you deny that Islam is true. Saying that has consequences we should face honestly.
The Introduction of Beowulf in the Original
Apparently, he performs the whole thing live. He'll be up in the northeast in March and April if you want to catch him.
If, on the other hand, the northeast is a bit far, he sells a DVD on his website as well.
9th Circuit to Consider Reconsidering
Think one of the judges not on the 3 judge panel noticed they had completely forgotten to give an opinion on the relevant law?
Damned if you Do
So just a few days ago, I read in the Nation that Trump's nominee for the #2 spot at State was "an actual American war criminal."
Two different publications, of course, but it's still enough to make one's head spin.
As assistant secretary of state for human rights, Abrams sought to ensure that General EfraÃn RÃos Montt, Guatemala’s then-dictator, could carry out “acts of genocide”—those are the legally binding words of Guatemala’s United Nations–backed Commission for Historical Clarification—against the indigenous people in the Ixil region of the department of Quiché, without any pesky interference from human-rights organizations, much less the US government.So it now looks like the Abrams appointment is off. Is this evidence of Team Trump's good judgment? Of course not. In fact, the allegations against Abrams don't even appear in the piece about Trump shooting down the nomination. Abrams is presented in an unfailingly flattering light now that Trump doesn't want him.
As the mass killings were taking place, Abrams fought in Congress for military aid to RÃos Montt’s bloody regime.... Abrams not only supported the nonsensical official explanation (there was “no evidence indicating other than that the deaths were due to an accident”), he also denounced a spokeswoman for the group who demanded an investigation, insisting that she had “no right to call herself a human rights worker.” When The New York Times published an op-ed challenging the official State Department count of the mass murders under way—by a woman who had witnessed a death-squad-style assassination in broad daylight in Guatemala City without ever seeing it mentioned in the press—Abrams lied outright in a letter to the editor, even citing an imaginary story in a nonexistent newspaper to insist that the man’s murder had, in fact, been reported.
I don’t know about you, but intentionally helping the US government to aid and abet the commission of genocide, while attacking the character and reputation of those trying to expose it, strikes me as securely within the definition of “war criminal.”
Two different publications, of course, but it's still enough to make one's head spin.
Bad carbon math
More on the topic of how not to get bogged down in procedure when we roll back some of the dumber climate regs promulgated by the EPA. Apparently the agency's "social cost of carbon" calculation failed to distinguish between the domestic and foreign costs, in violation of OMB standards. Correcting this part of the procedure may be a quicker fix than others.
Judicial Review Suffers Self-Inflicted Wound
I don't object in the slightest degree to Trump's executive order coming under judicial review for its constitutionality. I do think the 9th circuit should probably have at least mentioned the law he was citing as granting him the legal authority.
Also, its reasoning would have to be that my protected exercise of free speech proved that I was such a bad person that I must be denied what would be legal for anyone else in my position.
Judicial review can be a good thing, but this is a poor example of it.
This would be roughly like me being brought into court for carrying a firearm in Georgia, presenting my license to do so, and citing the sections of the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated, that specifically permit someone with such a license to carry such a firearm -- and then having the court rule against me without acknowledging the law existed.(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by PresidentRemarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Also, its reasoning would have to be that my protected exercise of free speech proved that I was such a bad person that I must be denied what would be legal for anyone else in my position.
Judicial review can be a good thing, but this is a poor example of it.
Derailing Conversations: A Primer
This satirical site is meant to chide "Privileged People" in the interest of "marginalized groups," but it plays in surprisingly well with our recent conversation about journalists seeing themselves as members of the elite.
If you really want to excel as a privileged person you need to learn to value data, statistics, research studies and empirical evidence above all things, but especially above personal experiences. You can pretend you are oblivious to the fact most studies have been carried out by privileged people and therefore carry inherent biases, and insist that the marginalized person produce “Evidence” of what they‘re claiming.Their experience does not count as evidence, for it is subjective and therefore worthless.Well, fair enough -- blue collar guys are definitely a marginalized group, increasingly these last several years. I wonder if that's what they meant us to discover, though.
This is very important because it works in two ways: 1) it communicates to the marginalized person that their personal testament is disbelieved and of no value, causing them great hurt; and 2) it once again reinforces your privilege.
You see, the very capacity to conduct studies, collect data and write detached “fact-based” reports on it, is an inherently privileged activity. The ability to widely access this material and research it exhaustively is also inherently privileged. Privileged People® find it easier to pursue these avenues than marginalized people and so once again you are reminding them you possess this privilege and reinforcing that the world at large values a system of analysis that excludes them, and values it over what their actual personal experience has been.
The process of valuing “fact” over “opinion” is one very much rooted in preserving privilege. Through this methodology, the continued pain and othering of millions of people can be ignored because it’s supported by “opinion” (emotion) and not “fact” (rationality).
It is also important because it calls on the marginalized person to do something that is simply impossible, and that is to summarize the entirety of their group’s experiences into a definitive example. It is important that you establish this precedent for the next couple of steps.
An Interesting Question from AVI
In a post about reducing racism, AVI ends on a note that is worth further exploration. I'd like to put it before the Hall, even though there is a lot of overlap in readership. I'll give enough of the setup for context, and then the ending question.
When did we make our biggest gains in reducing racism in America? I think people would point to the 40's-60's.... It is at least co-incident with the period when we had much less immigration, 1927-1964. The common declaration is that all prejudices go together, and reducing prejudice against immigrants is just the same thing as reducing it against blacks, with the requisite accusations of white American disliking "brownness" in general....So why isn't it one of the cliches, do you think?
What if it's just not true? What if it would be better and more praiseworthy if human nature were that way, especially in aspirational, open-hearted America - but it's just not?...
We sometimes speak of immigrants making it harder for blacks to get ahead in terms of employment and wages - it was one of Bernie Sanders's core values until he gave all those away. We aren't supposed to mention that, but it is likely true for economic gain. What if it is also true in an emotional, associational sense? What if Universal Brotherhood is actually a dead end, and step-by-step changes of becoming a people are all that is possible?
I don't know this to be true. I simply note that it is possibly true but no one says it. Which in turn immediately leads to "Why don't we want this to be true? Why is it not one of the cliches of the discussion, rather than an unmentionable?" There are plenty of untrue cliches out there all over the political spectrum, but this one is not even a Facebook poster.
Less Defensible
The conflict of interest issues around the Trump businesses are not going away, and the Trumps do not seem very interested in even minimizing them. Maybe it doesn't matter today, because the opposition is too weak to do more than squawk about it, but someday that will change -- and indeed, the clear appearance of impropriety may help it change.
Paving the Way for that MB Designation
One of the red headlines on Drudge today is about Hamas sending a team of commandos to train with ISIS bomb-makers. Hamas, as I assume everyone knows, was founded as the Palestinian branch of the nearby Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
The Trump administration is reportedly mulling a move to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist (or terror-supporting) organization, following a bill introduced last year by Ted Cruz. Needless to say, all the smart people are against this proposal. It will damage academic research, say academics. It will fuel extremism, says a(nother) leaked CIA memo. It will lead to a witch-hunt, says the Council on American-Islamic Relations (which has some reason to fear it will be target #1 of that hunt, given that Ted Cruz's bill mentions them by name). Human Rights Watch tells us that the move would threaten rights to free association for Muslims in the United States.
The most interesting argument is that the designation would actually be illegal.
My guess is that the new Attorney General will be able to defend the decision if they decide to go forward with it, and this report only makes that defense easier to do.
UPDATE: Apparently Hamas could really use the help.
The Trump administration is reportedly mulling a move to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist (or terror-supporting) organization, following a bill introduced last year by Ted Cruz. Needless to say, all the smart people are against this proposal. It will damage academic research, say academics. It will fuel extremism, says a(nother) leaked CIA memo. It will lead to a witch-hunt, says the Council on American-Islamic Relations (which has some reason to fear it will be target #1 of that hunt, given that Ted Cruz's bill mentions them by name). Human Rights Watch tells us that the move would threaten rights to free association for Muslims in the United States.
The most interesting argument is that the designation would actually be illegal.
To qualify for a designation, the organization has to be engaged in terrorism or still has the capability and intent to do so, and it has to pose a threat to U.S. nationals or our national security. The Muslim Brotherhood as a whole obviously doesn’t qualify on either count. McCants and Wittes say that certain individual affiliates might qualify for such a designation, but the entire group cannot be defined as a terrorist organization:The decision by Hamas (which is already designated) to ally with ISIS seems to me to ease the path to designation. ISIS is not just a terrorist organization in the same way that Hezbollah is not. They also intend to run a state, and are organized in part to do so. Yet no one would argue that ISIS should not be designated as a terrorist or terror-supporting organization just because some elements of their organization are aimed at, say, provision of clean water.The short answer is that the Brotherhood is not in a meaningful sense a single organization at all; elements of it can be designated and have been designated, and other elements certainly cannot be [bold mine-DL]. As a whole, it is simply too diffuse and diverse to characterize. And it certainly cannot be said as a whole to engage in terrorism that threatens the United States.
My guess is that the new Attorney General will be able to defend the decision if they decide to go forward with it, and this report only makes that defense easier to do.
UPDATE: Apparently Hamas could really use the help.
Having the Wrong Fantasy Again
Slate demands to know why female superheroes take men down with their legs, instead of punching and kicking like male superheroes. "Is this even practical?"
There are two answers to that question, speaking as someone who has trained in and taught several martial arts. The harsh answer is that the impractical thing is the idea that a 120 pound woman is capable of beating the three or four men arrayed against her in hand-to-hand combat under any circumstances. She's going to need a weapon for the scene to be "practical" in any strict sense.
However, we're doing fantasy, aren't we? So if we're fantasizing, why not fantasize that she can do it? She's got 'spider-senses' or whatever.
The less harsh answer is that grappling arts -- which frequently use the lower body -- are much more female-friendly than "hard" striking arts. There are a lot of mechanical reasons for this. One is that female limbs are shorter, and the limb functions as a kind of lever in striking ('the longer the lever, the greater the force'). Another is that female limbs are lighter-weight on average, and with less muscle-to-bone, and force is a function of mass times acceleration. They both have less mass, and less muscle to accelerate it. Females also tend to have smaller bones in the striking surfaces, making them more prone to shattering or cracking on impact.
The leg grapples thus use the strongest part of their body to its greatest effect. Although the silly acrobatics that appear in these movies are not terribly practical -- nor, again, are they meant to be -- showing women fighting with a focus on leg-grappling is the most plausible non-weapon form.
But, I suppose, if you're going to fantasize, why not fantasize they can punch like Rocky? Why would you want the more-plausible still-implausible fantasy?
This policing of the fantastic is becoming tiresome.
There are two answers to that question, speaking as someone who has trained in and taught several martial arts. The harsh answer is that the impractical thing is the idea that a 120 pound woman is capable of beating the three or four men arrayed against her in hand-to-hand combat under any circumstances. She's going to need a weapon for the scene to be "practical" in any strict sense.
However, we're doing fantasy, aren't we? So if we're fantasizing, why not fantasize that she can do it? She's got 'spider-senses' or whatever.
The less harsh answer is that grappling arts -- which frequently use the lower body -- are much more female-friendly than "hard" striking arts. There are a lot of mechanical reasons for this. One is that female limbs are shorter, and the limb functions as a kind of lever in striking ('the longer the lever, the greater the force'). Another is that female limbs are lighter-weight on average, and with less muscle-to-bone, and force is a function of mass times acceleration. They both have less mass, and less muscle to accelerate it. Females also tend to have smaller bones in the striking surfaces, making them more prone to shattering or cracking on impact.
The leg grapples thus use the strongest part of their body to its greatest effect. Although the silly acrobatics that appear in these movies are not terribly practical -- nor, again, are they meant to be -- showing women fighting with a focus on leg-grappling is the most plausible non-weapon form.
But, I suppose, if you're going to fantasize, why not fantasize they can punch like Rocky? Why would you want the more-plausible still-implausible fantasy?
This policing of the fantastic is becoming tiresome.
A Journalist Getting the Facts Right
"How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?" Robart asked a Justice Department lawyer in court on Feb. 3. When the lawyer said she didn't know, Robart said, "Let me tell you. The answer to that is none, as best I can tell."I assume Byron York is a journalist, anyway. I gather from recent comments that some of you have very particular standards! I tend to think anyone is a journalist who contributes to these 'journals' (currently as much online or televised as written) of news and opinion, either reportage or punditry. I don't think of it as being very specialized, as those with 'real degrees in journalism' often don't do as good a job as local folks who decide they're interested in something and start going to the meetings about it.
It turns out the judge, and Nadler, and everybody else repeating the talking point had it wrong. Last year the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.
The "S" Stands For "Shut Your Mouth"
Apparently Harry S Truman laid some precedent for our current President's defense of his daughter.
Why Do They Hate Us?
It's a little late, but KSM has an answer for us. His letter to former President Obama is now available to be read by all.
Déclassé
Apparently Trump doesn't spell well, when engaged in midnight "tweets." Journalists, who think of themselves as part of the elite and for whom words are bread and butter, are appalled.
In spite of his wealth and formal education, Donald Trump most reminds me of the ordinary blue-collar guys I know. His approach to politics comes under a similar sort of criticism: he doesn't care very much about facts, and journalists are also all about facts. So they think he's an ignorant ass, as they think the blue collar guys are ignorant asses too. They're wrong on the merits about so many particular facts, demonstrably wrong.
What people miss is that guys like this are principled in a way that is sturdy and reliable. They don't care about the particular facts because they care about the universal principles. They have a principle that manufacturing jobs are what made America great, and therefore they want more of them. All the particular facts about a particular case you can muster aren't going to undermine that principle. ("The Carrier deal was not that great!") Their principles are what they believe in, and they're going to do what their principles tell them is right.
Given that principles are pre-judgments about cases of a certain type, they are in a literal sense prejudices. But when we say that someone is "principled," we don't mean anything negative as we do when we say that someone is "prejudiced." Normally it's taken to be quite a positive thing.
Nevertheless, it does present difficulties. You can't talk them out of doing what they think is right in a given case, even if it's not the ideal solution in that case, because they're not interested in particular facts about particular cases. They're governed by universals that stand above any particulars. Telling them that they're wrong about the particulars won't bother them because they don't care about the particulars at all. They have lasting ideas about the world and what right looks like, and that's where they put their faith.
It's a very different world from the one that journalists live in.
In spite of his wealth and formal education, Donald Trump most reminds me of the ordinary blue-collar guys I know. His approach to politics comes under a similar sort of criticism: he doesn't care very much about facts, and journalists are also all about facts. So they think he's an ignorant ass, as they think the blue collar guys are ignorant asses too. They're wrong on the merits about so many particular facts, demonstrably wrong.
What people miss is that guys like this are principled in a way that is sturdy and reliable. They don't care about the particular facts because they care about the universal principles. They have a principle that manufacturing jobs are what made America great, and therefore they want more of them. All the particular facts about a particular case you can muster aren't going to undermine that principle. ("The Carrier deal was not that great!") Their principles are what they believe in, and they're going to do what their principles tell them is right.
Given that principles are pre-judgments about cases of a certain type, they are in a literal sense prejudices. But when we say that someone is "principled," we don't mean anything negative as we do when we say that someone is "prejudiced." Normally it's taken to be quite a positive thing.
Nevertheless, it does present difficulties. You can't talk them out of doing what they think is right in a given case, even if it's not the ideal solution in that case, because they're not interested in particular facts about particular cases. They're governed by universals that stand above any particulars. Telling them that they're wrong about the particulars won't bother them because they don't care about the particulars at all. They have lasting ideas about the world and what right looks like, and that's where they put their faith.
It's a very different world from the one that journalists live in.
And the Right Doesn't Seem to Care Much for My Company Either
Col. Schlichter says the left hates me, but these days, the right isn't looking that friendly, either.
Here's our new Republican president on Bush, lies, and Iraq:
Of course, it turns out we did find WMDs, but whatever. The facts have almost reached the point of irrelevance, it seems. Time for the historians to take over.
Here's Rand Paul, who says a lot of sensible things, and then at 5:50 or so begins a slow slide into the "Dick Cheney pushed the Iraq invasion for Halliburton profits" shuffle.
That was back in 2009, but here's "Spengler" (David P. Goldman) at PJMedia a couple of days ago:
Here's our new Republican president on Bush, lies, and Iraq:
Of course, it turns out we did find WMDs, but whatever. The facts have almost reached the point of irrelevance, it seems. Time for the historians to take over.
Here's Rand Paul, who says a lot of sensible things, and then at 5:50 or so begins a slow slide into the "Dick Cheney pushed the Iraq invasion for Halliburton profits" shuffle.
That was back in 2009, but here's "Spengler" (David P. Goldman) at PJMedia a couple of days ago:
Trump said it best: the Iraq War was one of the dumbest things America ever did in foreign policy, the equivalent of "throwing rocks into a hornet's nest."
Grandiose blunders of this kind are not made out by stupidity, though, but by insanity. The American conservative movement was infected by a cult that eroded the common sense of its victims and instilled a messianic, fanatical commitment to nation-building and democracy promotion. What are broadly (and sometimes inaccurately) referred to as the "neo-conservatives" are a cult that succeeded in persuading the unfortunate George W. Bush to spend trillions in treasure and tens of thousands of casualties for the mirage of democracy in Iraq. Such was their influence that an entire generation of Republican foreign policy officials was vetted for cult loyalty.
Messianic? Yeah, whatever. Apparently he's been doing a whole series on this theme. And I'm seeing more commenters at right-wing sites spouting this kind of stuff.
I don't know what to say about all this. I disagree with all three of them, but I don't know that I'm right, and I don't have time to sort it out right now. Since I don't have time to figure it out, this just leaves me with the taste of being betrayed.
I like a lot of what Trump is doing, but I still don't like Trump. Paul has some very good ideas, but he always seems to end up in conspiracy theories. I'm sure Goldman is a smart, educated guy, but I know a lot of smart, educated guys who are blind when it comes to politics, so I'm not really impressed.
What I do know is, a lot of people apparently hate me, and it increasingly doesn't seem to have much to do with right or left, conservative or liberal.
Who's to Blame?
This guy thinks he knows.
President Obama either bombed, sanctioned or sent American soldiers to the seven nations on President Trump’s travel ban. Thus, the precedent for Trump’s stance on refugees correlates directly to policies from the Bush and Obama years. These policies helped create the refugee crisis that Trump has so awkwardly addressed with his draconian executive order.The article is titled, "Enjoying President Trump? Then Blame Democrats For Cheating Bernie Sanders." There's a lot more. Some of you, who really are enjoying President Trump to a greater or lesser degree, may find it light reading.
From Trump’s travel ban of Muslim majority nations to allegedly belligerent phone calls with world leaders, media and Democrats have reacted with outrage and disbelief. It’s as if the Democratic Party and loyal “lesser evil” voters didn’t think cheating Bernie Sanders would lead to such political turmoil. When Debbie Wasserman Shultz resigned from the DNC and friendly journalists covered-up the crime, it was too late; Bernie was forced out of the primary. The only chance for Democrats to defeat a populist Republican nominee, during an anti-establishment year in American politics, was destroyed along with Hillary’s yoga emails and Anthony Weiner’s self-portraits.
92% of Left-Wing Activists Live with their Parents
These findings are limited to Berlin, please note. I'm sure it's totally different here.
DeVos Confirmed, Opening Path for Sessions
This bit of Senate Kabuki theater really got the hopes up of several left-leaning people I know, who thought they had a chance of beating DeVos just because the Republican leadership chose to protect the maximal number of their Senators from the consequences of voting for her.
Nope. Lucy & the football.
Now that Jeff Session's vote is no longer needed immediately, I guess he'll be confirmed soon too.
Nope. Lucy & the football.
Now that Jeff Session's vote is no longer needed immediately, I guess he'll be confirmed soon too.
ATF White Paper
The second-highest-ranking official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has written a proposal to reduce gun regulations, including examining a possible end to the ban on importing assault weapons into the United States....Well, repealing the ban on imported rifles is hardly a 'giveaway to the gun industry.' The American gun industry flourishes in part because of the artificial scarcity created by the ban.
“Restriction on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States,” Turk wrote of the ban on imported AR-15s and AK-style weapons.
“This white paper offers a disturbing series of giveaways to the gun industry that would weaken regulatory oversight of the gun industry without adequate consideration of the impact on public safety,” said Chelsea Parsons, vice president of guns and crime policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
Cf.
Right-wing pundit Kurt Schlichter:
They hate you.Tucker FitzGerald, self-described as "deeply curious about justice and equality":
Leftists don’t merely disagree with you. They don’t merely feel you are misguided. They don’t think you are merely wrong. They hate you.
Universities aren’t bereft of conservatives and Evangelicals because of a vast left-wing conspiracy. They’re bereft of those people because people committed to those world views so rarely have anything to offer to an open-minded, inquiring, growing community. Universities are lacking in conservatives and fundamentalist Christians because the amount of education that it takes to become a professor is likely to expose Evangelicals and conservatives to enough good ideas that they’re no longer fundamentalist or conservative.Ah, yes. If only I'd been exposed to more left-wing -- I mean, "good" -- ideas in my education. That's probably what's holding me back. Lack of exposure.
Morons
Republican hawks took to Twitter and the Sunday political shows to attack President Donald Trump for his latest comments defending Russian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal regime.This O'Reilly guy is talking to a man who ordered a hit on al Qaeda just days earlier. He sent a team of highly-trained commandos who killed 14 Qaeda fighters on purpose. They also apparently killed at least one little girl not on purpose, and she was the sister of a 16-year-old American citizen Barack Obama killed with a drone strike. Obama also killed their father, an al Qaeda honcho with ties to terrorist attacks inside the United States, in the same way.
Pressed by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly about how Trump could respect a “killer” like Putin, Trump said, “We got a lot of killers [too]. What, you think our country is so innocent?”
“I don’t know of any government leaders that are killers in America,” O’Reilly retorted.
Both Presidents are killers in a sense, the same sense in which the President of Russia is a killer: they order killing done. The SEALs are killers in a more direct sense. The separation from the gun doesn't make the Presidents better people than the SEALs -- I would wager any sum, based on the SEALs I've known, that the opposite would prove true if the SEALs' identities were known for comparison.
Do these media jockeys think their world would survive without killers? Are they so blind that they can sit down and talk with one and not even know it?
Manifestly.
For Readers in Washington State
I can't remember if Raven is currently living in Washington state or not, and it may be that others of you are. Your legislature is considering a bill, HB 1553, that could make life a little bit easier for bikers.
The law is supported on a bipartisan basis. It simply forbids using the wearing of "motorcycle-related" clothing and gear as part of a profiling decision by police. Thus, while engaging in unlawful activity would still make you subject to being stopped, questioned, and so forth, merely wearing a biker shirt or a club vest (or something that could be mistaken for a club vest) would not.
If you're a Washington state resident, you can consider the text of the bill and inform your representatives of your opinion on it.
The law is supported on a bipartisan basis. It simply forbids using the wearing of "motorcycle-related" clothing and gear as part of a profiling decision by police. Thus, while engaging in unlawful activity would still make you subject to being stopped, questioned, and so forth, merely wearing a biker shirt or a club vest (or something that could be mistaken for a club vest) would not.
If you're a Washington state resident, you can consider the text of the bill and inform your representatives of your opinion on it.
The Dubliners' Guide to Dublin
Ran across this this evening. Haven't watched it all, but it seems interesting.
So, Atlanta Had A Good First Half
Brother-in-law is a huge Pats fan, so I'm enjoying the affair more than usual.
So far.
UPDATE:
Turns out that scoring 21 unanswered points in the first half won't save you if you give up 31 unanswered points in the second half plus Sudden Death overtime.
So far.
UPDATE:
Turns out that scoring 21 unanswered points in the first half won't save you if you give up 31 unanswered points in the second half plus Sudden Death overtime.
Problems with Statistics on Refugees
Matt Y. over at Ricochet makes the argument that American Christians should welcome the refugees from the Middle East instead of opposing their resettlement here. He does make some good points, but he also uses the following statistic, which seems irrelevant to this argument:
I think there are three problems here, and this is the second article I've seen these same three problems show up in, so I'd like to address it.
First, there is no real opposition to "refugees," but rather "Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems." In fact, among Americans who oppose taking in more Muslim refugees, I suspect there would be a strong willingness to take in Christian and Yazidi refugees from these same regions. The conflation of terms here implies a general xenophobia rather than specific concerns about a specific population, and although I don't think it is intentional, it is insulting.
Second, limiting the geographical area to the United States is also problematic because most of the Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems have gone to other places, such as Europe. So, to be relevant, one should include all nations that have accepted these refugees.
Third, the fear of taking large numbers of these particular refugees is not limited to terrorism. When Europe began taking in large numbers of these refugees, there were immediate problems with sexual assault and other crimes.
Because of these factors, it seems to me that the only really meaningful statistic would cover the particular refugee populations in question regardless of geographic area of resettlement and it would include all crimes, not just terrorism. If that statistic were used, I suspect the argument would look very different.
All that said, I have yet to see anyone arguing for bringing in 100,000 Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems address some of the deeper concerns of their opponents, including issues of long-term assimilation and the radicalization of second and third generation Muslims in Western nations. These are also important issues, and if someone wanted to change my mind about bringing in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems, they would have to address them as well.
The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack from a refugee in the United States has been calculated at 1 in 3.6 billion.
I think there are three problems here, and this is the second article I've seen these same three problems show up in, so I'd like to address it.
First, there is no real opposition to "refugees," but rather "Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems." In fact, among Americans who oppose taking in more Muslim refugees, I suspect there would be a strong willingness to take in Christian and Yazidi refugees from these same regions. The conflation of terms here implies a general xenophobia rather than specific concerns about a specific population, and although I don't think it is intentional, it is insulting.
Second, limiting the geographical area to the United States is also problematic because most of the Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems have gone to other places, such as Europe. So, to be relevant, one should include all nations that have accepted these refugees.
Third, the fear of taking large numbers of these particular refugees is not limited to terrorism. When Europe began taking in large numbers of these refugees, there were immediate problems with sexual assault and other crimes.
Because of these factors, it seems to me that the only really meaningful statistic would cover the particular refugee populations in question regardless of geographic area of resettlement and it would include all crimes, not just terrorism. If that statistic were used, I suspect the argument would look very different.
All that said, I have yet to see anyone arguing for bringing in 100,000 Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems address some of the deeper concerns of their opponents, including issues of long-term assimilation and the radicalization of second and third generation Muslims in Western nations. These are also important issues, and if someone wanted to change my mind about bringing in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from nations with Muslim terror problems, they would have to address them as well.
Frog spit
Frog tongues are incredibly soft, which helps them glom onto prey. Apparently, though, the saliva is even more ingenious:
A mixture of cornstarch and water becomes solid if you hit it. Ketchup becomes runnier if you shake the bottle. Saliva is like ketchup: Forces makes it less viscous. But while human saliva becomes around ten times less viscous if you apply force to it, frog saliva becomes a hundred times less viscous.
So when a frog tongue strikes an insect, its saliva flows freely and readily seeps into every crack and gap. When the tongue slows down and starts retracting, the saliva thickens again into a paste, the equivalent of a closed fist grasping the insect for the journey back.
“The analysis helps to explain many bizarre observations, like why frogs use the backs of their eyeballs to push prey down their throats,” says Kiisa Nishikawa from Northern Arizona University. When the insect’s in the frog’s mouth, the frog has to get it off its tongue. Fortunately, all of its adhesive tricks work best in the perpendicular direction—it may be really hard to pull the insect off, but it’s comparably easy to slide it off. The frog just needs something to push against the insect—so it uses its eyeballs. Twelve years ago, Robert Levine used X-ray videos to show that a frog swallows, it retracts its eyeballs inwards, and uses these to push victims off its tongue.Cat tongues are another kettle of fish.
MS treatment advance
A new treatment for multiple sclerosis, using the patient's own stem cells from the bone marrow, shows surprising promise.
Gunsmoke Blues
Ran into this while listening to a bunch of old blues on YouTube:
Big Mama Thornton was the first to record "Hound Dog," made famous by Elvis, and we get to hear her sing it in this video somewhere a bit after the 50-minute mark.
During a production hiatus of the popular TV Show "Gunsmoke", the film crew decided to take off and film a barnstorming blues revue making it’s way across the country and they ended up in Eugene, OR, with cameras rolling to film Muddy Waters, Big Mama Thornton, Big Joe Turner and George "Harmonica" Smith as they performed in a music hall. Date: October 20, 1971.
Big Mama Thornton was the first to record "Hound Dog," made famous by Elvis, and we get to hear her sing it in this video somewhere a bit after the 50-minute mark.
Opening Up the White House Press Briefings to Local News Reporters
Saw this on Ricochet. A recent White House press briefing was set up for Skype and four local newsfolk* who were not in DC were able to ask questions.
This was great. First, it further breaks the monopoly of the national media on the president. Second, it allowed the news people to ask questions about how national policy might influence their local situations. Third, it brought in points of view not often seen in the national media, such as a pro-coal publisher who framed his question in terms of the damage being done to the Kentucky economy by anti-coal regulations.
Wiley at Ricochet has videos set up so you can watch while the questions are asked and answered.
*Technically, one was the publisher of a local paper, not a reporter.
This was great. First, it further breaks the monopoly of the national media on the president. Second, it allowed the news people to ask questions about how national policy might influence their local situations. Third, it brought in points of view not often seen in the national media, such as a pro-coal publisher who framed his question in terms of the damage being done to the Kentucky economy by anti-coal regulations.
Wiley at Ricochet has videos set up so you can watch while the questions are asked and answered.
###
*Technically, one was the publisher of a local paper, not a reporter.
That "Netherlands Second" Video
Apparently there are now a bunch more, as European nations jump on the bandwagon.
They are strangely self-critical, these videos. They seem to be mocking their own patriots almost as much as Trump. At some point, the series becomes a mocking of the idea of patriotism itself.
They are strangely self-critical, these videos. They seem to be mocking their own patriots almost as much as Trump. At some point, the series becomes a mocking of the idea of patriotism itself.
Knife Rights in Georgia
The Georgia Legislature is in session. Our friends at Knife Rights are seeking support for a Senate Bill that would alter the definition of a "knife" in Georgia. I'm not sure it's a good idea, though I completely support the right to carry knives of any kind.
SB 49 would change the definition of a knife, for the purposes of a carry permit, from "a cutting instrument designed for the purposes of offense and defense consisting of a blade that is greater than five inches" to "a pointed or sharp-edged instrument consisting of a blade that is greater than 12 inches," with both of them specifying that such a blade has to be attached to a handle. (Is a hatchet now a "knife"? Only if its blade is greater than 12 inches, I suppose. Perhaps an axe is.) There are no laws restricting the carrying of a "knife" per se; rather, a further definition is that a "weapon" means a "knife or handgun," and the law restricts the carrying of a "weapon."
Now, read the code section where this definition would apply.
I think the argument is that this would simply eliminate any standard by which knives shorter than 12 inches are barred from being carried. However, it seems to me it would also remove the clarity that the knife I am carrying is specifically authorized by our laws.
SB 49 would change the definition of a knife, for the purposes of a carry permit, from "a cutting instrument designed for the purposes of offense and defense consisting of a blade that is greater than five inches" to "a pointed or sharp-edged instrument consisting of a blade that is greater than 12 inches," with both of them specifying that such a blade has to be attached to a handle. (Is a hatchet now a "knife"? Only if its blade is greater than 12 inches, I suppose. Perhaps an axe is.) There are no laws restricting the carrying of a "knife" per se; rather, a further definition is that a "weapon" means a "knife or handgun," and the law restricts the carrying of a "weapon."
Now, read the code section where this definition would apply.
(a) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a weapon or long gun on his or her property or inside his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business without a valid weapons carry license.It sounds to me as if the Senate Bill in question narrows the protections of the weapons carry license rather than expands them. As the law stands, with my weapons carry license I can carry a Kabar (8" blade) and it's covered. Under the proposed revision, a Kabar wouldn't be considered a knife. While that is (a) absurd in itself, (b) that means my carry license no longer explicitly licenses me to carry it.
(b) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a long gun without a valid weapons carry license, provided that if the long gun is loaded, it shall only be carried in an open and fully exposed manner.
(c) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry any handgun provided that it is enclosed in a case and unloaded.
(d) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun who is eligible for a weapons carry license may transport a handgun or long gun in any private passenger motor vehicle; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of private property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such private property shall have the right to exclude or eject a person who is in possession of a weapon or long gun on their private property in accordance with paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-7-21, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135.
(e) Any person licensed to carry a handgun or weapon in any other state whose laws recognize and give effect to a license issued pursuant to this part shall be authorized to carry a weapon in this state, but only while the licensee is not a resident of this state; provided, however, that such licensee shall carry the weapon in compliance with the laws of this state.
(f) Any person with a valid hunting or fishing license on his or her person, or any person not required by law to have a hunting or fishing license, who is engaged in legal hunting, fishing, or sport shooting when the person has the permission of the owner of the land on which the activities are being conducted may have or carry on his or her person a handgun or long gun without a valid weapons carry license while hunting, fishing, or engaging in sport shooting.
(g) Notwithstanding Code Sections 12-3-10, 27-3-1.1, 27-3-6, and 16-12-122 through 16-12-127, any person with a valid weapons carry license may carry a weapon in all parks, historic sites, or recreational areas, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-3-10, including all publicly owned buildings located in such parks, historic sites, and recreational areas, in wildlife management areas, and on public transportation; provided, however, that a person shall not carry a handgun into a place where it is prohibited by federal law.
(h) (1) No person shall carry a weapon without a valid weapons carry license unless he or she meets one of the exceptions to having such license as provided in subsections (a) through (g) of this Code section.
(2) A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon without a license when he or she violates the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection.
I think the argument is that this would simply eliminate any standard by which knives shorter than 12 inches are barred from being carried. However, it seems to me it would also remove the clarity that the knife I am carrying is specifically authorized by our laws.
I do hope so
I read somewhere last week that Scott Walker was meeting with President Trump to discuss union-busting. Mike Gecan opines in the New York Daily News that the President's opponents are making the same mistakes that Walker's did:
The Trump team is following the Walker playbook, with some variations. Like Walker, it is running aggressive plays right from the start. It doesn’t have to feel out the opponents’ soft spots and tendencies. It knows them.
The difference is that it isn’t just running one play. It’s running a series of them, one right after the other, to keep the defense confused and on its heels.
Second, it’s counting on the opposition to fall into the same trap that the Wisconsin opposition did — to rely on massive demonstrations and to ignore the need to do hard, local, person-by-person organizing back in the local towns, villages and counties.Trump doesn't seem like a guy who loses sight of the difference between showy and effective actions. If he's showy, it's because he expects to achievable an effect. I supported Walker in the primaries because he'd mastered tactics to achieve his goals, and I was so tired of D.C. Republicans who couldn't seem to navigate their way out of a closet, if indeed they genuinely cared about the goals they claimed to be pursuing. Trump turns out to share a lot of my goals, to my enormous surprise, and I look forward to his implementing them systematically, while his opponents mistake squawking and violence for persuasion and the pursuit of concrete influence.
Fake News
NYT:
Nor was this the only way in which Iran violated the so-called 'deal.'
I'm not sure the whole Obama administration had a "pillar" among them. This certainly wasn't one.
President Trump, after promising a radical break with the foreign policy of Barack Obama, is embracing some key pillars of the former administration’s strategy, including warning Israel to curb construction of settlements, demanding that Russia withdraw from Crimea and threatening Iran with sanctions for ballistic missile tests.I'm sorry, was I supposed to believe that new sanctions on Iran was a "pillar" of the Obama administration's foreign policy? I would have described them as 'something they did their very best to fend off, but finally recognized was going to happen whether they liked it or not.' The Obama administration opposed new sanctions on Iran throughout its second term as it sought its so-called 'deal' with Iran. Iran engaged in multiple ballistic missile tests after the so-called deal, which even the UN viewed as violating the terms of the arrangement.
Nor was this the only way in which Iran violated the so-called 'deal.'
I'm not sure the whole Obama administration had a "pillar" among them. This certainly wasn't one.
The Ship May Have Sailed on That, Sarah
I'm guessing a certain NSW unit is getting chewed today, not that they will probably care all that much.
Rethinking the Probabilities on Harley-Davidson
President Trump meets with Harley-Davidson officials at White House
So, in light of today's very public meeting, I'd have to say the probability of the CNN story being true has declined substantially. It's not impossible that the visit to Harley's factory or museum was in some planning stage and then dropped because of fear of protests. However, this is a very public visit that took some trouble to visually associate their products with the President.
The man had something to say about bikers, by the way.
He greeted the five bikers warmly, saying, “Made in America, Harley-Davidson.”Apparently there remains a background issue in that Harley-Davidson has recently outsourced some of its IT work. President Trump didn't make a big deal of it in the photo-op, but there is some reason to think they might have discussed it inside.
Mr. Trump added that during the campaign, bikers “were with me all the way.”
But he did not hop on for a ride. Pres. Trump joked to the journalists gathered to watch the welcome: “Boy, would you like to see me fall off one of these!”
About 125 positions were eliminated at Harley-Davidson in the process — and workers who lost their job are now suing, claiming they were discriminated against in favor of South Asian employees."Made in America" is not just about manufacturing jobs. I wonder if it came up. Likely we will know soon.
According to the complaint, most of the workers Infosys brought on had H-1B visas, which are intended for highly skilled fields in which there are a shortage of American workers. But the suit argues that there were plenty of qualified workers available: the ones who just lost their jobs at Harley-Davidson.
Quasi-markets in education
I thought Thomas might appreciate this article about the difference between regulating a market and regulating a monopoly. One of his arguments is that we can use some market tools even in a heavily regulated area, and that the likelihood of a tool's usefulness will alter depending on who exercises the choices and with what degree of freedom. He makes the interesting suggestion, for instance, that most ventures fail, and that it makes more sense to employ a strict standard on the back-end, in deciding what failed ventures to withdraw public support from, than to regulate strictly what sorts of ventures can be started in the first place.
What kind of conservative is Gorsuch?
AEI is on fire today. Here is a careful analysis of where Gorsuch is and is not in line with traditional conservative judicial trends. The bottom line: "If Gorsuch is confirmed, he is likely to be a vote for deference to state governments and to Congress but not to government agencies." He may be skeptical of the "dormant Commerce Clause" doctrine, as Scalia was; in other words, he may be inclined to support federal control over arguably interstate commerce only where Congress has explicitly occupied the field, not in every area where Congress might conceivably opt to occupy the field someday. Also like Scalia, he is skeptical of government agencies' attempts to usurp the legislative function and might be inclined not to grant them the usual deference when they do so. In these areas he is in line with the most recent developments in conservative judicial theory.
He may be a bit of an outlier, however, in his principled refusal to override state or federal legislative authority in any other areas. That may make him a bit like Justice Roberts: not inclined to rescue voters from the bad effects of their decisions where there is any doubt at all about the Constitutional issue implicated.
He may be a bit of an outlier, however, in his principled refusal to override state or federal legislative authority in any other areas. That may make him a bit like Justice Roberts: not inclined to rescue voters from the bad effects of their decisions where there is any doubt at all about the Constitutional issue implicated.
Nuts and bolts of deregulation
Here is a fine, detailed article about how federal regulations are made and how they can be unmade. Not everything achieved by the stroke of a Presidential pen can be instantly undone the same way. Nevertheless, there are well-understood pathways for clearing out bad regulations, and there are signs that Congress and the White House are well started on their task.
The right way to dissent
Paul Wolfowitz opined in the New York Times (but this link is to AEI) on the delicate problem of disagreeing with your boss in federal service. He's talking about the State Department, not the DOJ, but it's still interesting. I wasn't aware of any of his examples of private and public dissent.
Significantly, when a draft of the dissent channel cable objecting to President Obama’s Syria policy leaked to The New York Times last summer, William Harrop, a distinguished career ambassador who strongly believes in the dissent channel, condemned the leak, saying that the Foreign Service officers’ “oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution, but they are not free to debate publicly with their president.” He added, “If they wanted to go public they should have resigned.”
Another diplomat, Chas Freeman, said at the time that “the channel can only work if it is ‘internal use only,’ i.e., it does not become part of the political diatribe or embarrass the administration.”
Diplomats confronted with an immigration policy that they believe is harmful to national interests should not abuse their government positions to undermine or sabotage the policy, no matter how strongly they feel about it. They do have three courses they can follow in good conscience:
They can seek reassignment to a position that is not affected by the policy, as John Negroponte did in leaving the White House and accepting reassignment to Ecuador after objecting to what he considered a betrayal of South Vietnam; they can continue working to mitigate the effects of a policy they object to, as Ryan Crocker did with extraordinary effectiveness in Iraq; or they can resign and go public with their objections as the Bosnia dissenters did and as Ann Wright did over Iraq and Ambassador Robert Ford did over Syria.
Whether they also have a First Amendment right to go public with their opposition while still serving in official positions is a question that lawyers can no doubt debate for a very long time.
Of Course He Did
Headline: "Trump's Supreme Court pick founded and led club called 'Fascism Forever' at his elite all-boys Washington prep school."
Well, I guess we can stop worrying about that Anthony Kennedy drift.
Well, I guess we can stop worrying about that Anthony Kennedy drift.
What Does Reuters Imagine the President Does?
What to make of this silliness?
Brigade commanders don't do that. These guys have no idea how this stuff works.
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.I'm sorry, but what does Reuters imagine the President does in reviewing a proposal for action? Do they think he reads the CONOP? Do they think he personally reviews the ISR for evidence of landmines?
As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.
Brigade commanders don't do that. These guys have no idea how this stuff works.
Joe McCarthy as an Object Lesson for Trump
Mona Charen over at Ricochet points out that, although it turned out that Joe McCarthy was correct about communists having infiltrated high levels of the US government, the way he went about trying to fix the problem actually discredited his cause. She then argues that Trump should consider that when it comes to how we handle immigration from the Muslim world.
She has some other things to say as well:
She has some other things to say as well:
The parallel to our times is the Islamist threat. President Trump is right that we face a threat from Islamists. He is right that careful vetting of immigrants, including refugees, is necessary in light of that danger. The worry is that his ham-fisted approach to a delicate problem may wind up discrediting the effort to vet immigrants, alienate our friends in the Muslim world, and empower the self-righteous left.I have to agree with that. I think foreigners who have put their lives on the line for the US deserve to be treated well by us, and I have the sense that they often have not been. In the "no better friend, no worse enemy" formulation, we don't seem to be doing well at either. I hope Trump will correct both sides of the formula.
...
Alas, instead of stressing that our goal is to separate extremist Muslims from the majority of peaceable Muslims, President Trump’s slapdash executive order showed complete indifference to the distinction. Even green card holders, who have already been vetted and granted the right to live in the United States, were to be stopped at the airport with no notice. Why the rush? Would 48 hours notice have been too much to ask? Translators and military leaders from Iraq and Afghanistan, who had worked with U.S. forces at risk to themselves (and who were badly treated by the Obama administration), were originally offered no dispensation from the blanket order. That’s dishonorable and unwise, as it alienates all Muslims who might be inclined to side with us in a future struggle.
Solid Point
One problem with hyperbolically calling it a "Muslim ban": you end up with headlines like "Most Americans support Muslim ban."We had a similar thing happen with the waterboarding and stress-position debate in the Bush administration. Opponents insisted it was "torture." So, that close to 9/11, of course the headlines: "Most Americans support torture."
A Contradiction
A Turkish friend of mine argues, sometimes, that Americans just can't understand that the same Islam we encounter as a persecuted minority in our country is a very different animal in her homeland where it is the majority. For her, and she is far more anti-Islam than any American conservative I know, Ataturk's mistake lay in not finishing the job. The Turkey she grew up in, as a member of the educated and secular elite, has been washed away by the current regime.
This failure of imagination creates a kind of contradiction in the contemporary progressive movement. They have come to see themselves as the heroes of a story about America in which the forces of oppression of minorities have been resisted by a few brave people of good will. As heirs to these few brave people of good will, they inherit a project of moving America away from irrational prejudice against those who are different, and toward a future in which all are treated as genuine equals. This is what they mean when they speak of 'the arc of history,' citing Dr. King, and for many of them it is not a poetic metaphor. It's an article of faith that history really is moving this way, and they are really its heroes.
So, the contradiction my friend is trying to draw: On the one hand, Muslims (here) are a minority exposed to at least sometimes irrational prejudices. On the other hand, Muslims in places like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so forth are the major violators of minority rights. To support Islam is, my friend believes, to lay the groundwork for future violations here too as Muslims become stronger and more numerous. Thus, in defending minorities they strengthen the chief enemy of minorities, because it is -- here, for now -- also a minority.
I would like to believe that this is an overstatement, although she has drawn out the contradiction nicely. Certainly I am ready to support any Muslims who are interested in reforming their faith so that this future conflict might be avoided. There are a few different ways in which this might happen, and none of them are at all easy. I'm not under any illusions about how difficult that will be. The theology and history are all against them, as well as what have so far been the best minds of the whole history of their faith. Their task must appear as impossible to us as the task of winning freedom of conscience must have appeared in Christian nations before the 30 Years War. Yet that happened, of course.
In any case, here's another author who makes a very similar argument. She is an atheist, pro-choice, and apparently feminist. She's trying to frame roughly the same point.
It's a good point.
This failure of imagination creates a kind of contradiction in the contemporary progressive movement. They have come to see themselves as the heroes of a story about America in which the forces of oppression of minorities have been resisted by a few brave people of good will. As heirs to these few brave people of good will, they inherit a project of moving America away from irrational prejudice against those who are different, and toward a future in which all are treated as genuine equals. This is what they mean when they speak of 'the arc of history,' citing Dr. King, and for many of them it is not a poetic metaphor. It's an article of faith that history really is moving this way, and they are really its heroes.
So, the contradiction my friend is trying to draw: On the one hand, Muslims (here) are a minority exposed to at least sometimes irrational prejudices. On the other hand, Muslims in places like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so forth are the major violators of minority rights. To support Islam is, my friend believes, to lay the groundwork for future violations here too as Muslims become stronger and more numerous. Thus, in defending minorities they strengthen the chief enemy of minorities, because it is -- here, for now -- also a minority.
I would like to believe that this is an overstatement, although she has drawn out the contradiction nicely. Certainly I am ready to support any Muslims who are interested in reforming their faith so that this future conflict might be avoided. There are a few different ways in which this might happen, and none of them are at all easy. I'm not under any illusions about how difficult that will be. The theology and history are all against them, as well as what have so far been the best minds of the whole history of their faith. Their task must appear as impossible to us as the task of winning freedom of conscience must have appeared in Christian nations before the 30 Years War. Yet that happened, of course.
In any case, here's another author who makes a very similar argument. She is an atheist, pro-choice, and apparently feminist. She's trying to frame roughly the same point.
It's a good point.
No Grandmothers Died Because of Trump's Order
A woman died, to be sure: but she died before the order was issued, and the pathetic story concocted by her son was a lie.
Philosophically speaking, it hardly matters. Trump's order made possible such a scenario, even if it didn't play out. It's one of the hard problems you take on with that kind of authority: your decisions have unintended consequences, and sometimes they can be awful. You have to bear responsibility for them even though you may never have imagined them.
By sad coincidence we have a real life example of that in the other story about the new President today. He left the White House with no destination announced, apparently shocking lots of people. It turns out he was flying out to meet the body of the Navy SEAL who died in the raid in Yemen, the first military action Trump has ordered. The family requested no publicity, which is hard to make coincide with a Presidential visit, but he somehow made it happen.
So this other thing didn't happen, but it might have; he avoided the guilt of it, but only by accident. This is one reason I've never sought power over the lives of others, only the power to hold my own. It's an awful responsibility.
Philosophically speaking, it hardly matters. Trump's order made possible such a scenario, even if it didn't play out. It's one of the hard problems you take on with that kind of authority: your decisions have unintended consequences, and sometimes they can be awful. You have to bear responsibility for them even though you may never have imagined them.
By sad coincidence we have a real life example of that in the other story about the new President today. He left the White House with no destination announced, apparently shocking lots of people. It turns out he was flying out to meet the body of the Navy SEAL who died in the raid in Yemen, the first military action Trump has ordered. The family requested no publicity, which is hard to make coincide with a Presidential visit, but he somehow made it happen.
So this other thing didn't happen, but it might have; he avoided the guilt of it, but only by accident. This is one reason I've never sought power over the lives of others, only the power to hold my own. It's an awful responsibility.
Dat brier patch
No, please! Anything but that!
As Ed Morrissey says, this is a proposal that can unite Americans across the political spectrum.
As Ed Morrissey says, this is a proposal that can unite Americans across the political spectrum.
How Big An Influence was SCOTUS on the Last Election?
Vox:
By following through on his pledge here, I expect Trump has won himself some ground with any voters who did choose him to protect the Supreme Court. Keeping your word builds credibility, and credibility is the currency. If he keeps doing this, the next time he seeks their vote he might get it on his own account. Of course, he'll have to keep it up.
The Supreme Court was one reason for wavering conservatives to back Trump in November. More Republicans than Democrats said the Supreme Court was a major factor in their vote. Trump has pleased them with this choice.The election was close enough that a lot of things might have swung it. Certainly I spoke to people who said that they were single-issue voters this last time around, and that single issue was the Supreme Court. I suspect many people who had serious concerns about Trump nevertheless saw in Clinton's potential election the end of the Constitution as they understood it. If Scalia had still been alive and on the court as a guardian of that Constitution, would it have been enough to swing enough votes to the other side?
He has also given himself a rare breath of normalcy in a turbulent first two weeks on the job. Amid continuing chaos over the refugee ban and increased resistance from Democrats to Trump’s Cabinet nominees, picking a well-respected jurist with a solid conservative reputation might be the most traditionally presidential thing Trump has done in office.
By following through on his pledge here, I expect Trump has won himself some ground with any voters who did choose him to protect the Supreme Court. Keeping your word builds credibility, and credibility is the currency. If he keeps doing this, the next time he seeks their vote he might get it on his own account. Of course, he'll have to keep it up.
The Feast of St. Brigid
The stories about St. Brigid as a girl sound surprisingly familiar. She gave her father's stuff away without asking, so he tried to sell her to the king. While he was there negotiating the sale, she appropriated the king's sword and gave it away without his permission.
Brigid died before the founding of the Catholic Church in Ireland, and in fact it's unclear how much of her story can be separated from pre-Christian myths. The story about the cloak, for example, is a commonplace one. Sometimes it's an ox-hide, and the way it gets bigger is by being cut into strips that can then surround a much larger portion of land.
Habemus Scotam
He didn't make Trump's list from last summer, but it does look like the President has kept his word to give us a nomination in the mold of Scalia.
UPDATE: Apparently he made the cut in later lists -- see the comments.
UPDATE: Apparently he made the cut in later lists -- see the comments.
Harley Davidson Wimps Out?
UPDATE: There is some debate about the facts. See the comments.
UPDATE: Due to the events of a few days later, it looks as if the CNN story was 'fake news.'
A Former Operator Writes on Yemen
During a recent raid on an al Qaeda compound in Yemen, a Navy SEAL was killed. The linked post is in memoriam.
Stop Having Unacceptable Fantasies!
Those modest and moderate souls at PeTA have come up with another winner: ban fur in a fantasy game, in which of course all of the fur is make-believe anyway.
Not that I'm too surprised to discover such an interest in regulating fantasy. Not after Tex's post about "expectant mothers," I'm not. It's pretty clear that they intend for us to live full-time in fantasy worlds, so naturally it is important that they be in charge of regulating such things.
Not that I'm too surprised to discover such an interest in regulating fantasy. Not after Tex's post about "expectant mothers," I'm not. It's pretty clear that they intend for us to live full-time in fantasy worlds, so naturally it is important that they be in charge of regulating such things.
Just An Idle Thought
Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter): Notice that not one leftist panicking over a "coup" or "fascism" has said "Gosh, maybe we should decrease the power of the govt"?
"Betrayed the Department of Justice"?
It's one thing for a President to fire someone who serves at his pleasure but refuses to back his play. It's another thing to use the language of treason in describing her conduct.
Of course, it's easier for me to make this point than for many on the left, given how readily they've resorted to the language of treason aimed at Trump himself. That doesn't make it less wrong in this case.
Of course, it's easier for me to make this point than for many on the left, given how readily they've resorted to the language of treason aimed at Trump himself. That doesn't make it less wrong in this case.
Or Maybe Not So Divided
If you believe Rasmussen's poll instead of the last one, a solid 57% support Trump on his temporary visa order. Rasmussen reminds us that "These findings have changed little from August when 59% of voters agreed with Trump’s call for a temporary ban on immigration into the United States from 'the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism' until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)