NYPD Calls for Federal Cash

The Trump budget, which is causing much wailing and gnashing of teeth, has a lot to like about it if you are one of us who really wants the Federal government to stop doing a lot of things. Some of those things are worth doing, of course: but it isn't the Federal government who ought to be doing them. Case in point.

“Under the president’s proposal, nearly all federal funding to the NYPD would be eradicated. This funding is absolutely critical. It is the backbone of our entire counter-terrorism apparatus,” NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said during a press briefing....

The White House budget proposal states that it reduces or eliminates $667 million for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) programs "that are either unauthorized by the Congress ... or that must provide more measurable results."

The blueprint lists the Homeland Security Grant Program as an example of a program requiring "more measurable results." The program had more than $1 billion in overall funding in 2016, according to FEMA's website.

For a billion dollars, I would certainly like to see measurable results. The larger point, though, is that it should very rarely be the case that a local police department -- even the NYPD -- should be Federally funded. There are two levels of government between the NYPD and the Feds. New York is a tremendously rich city, the home of Wall Street and many millionaires. It can't pay for its own police department? The state of New York can't make up whatever shortfalls remain?

If taxes need to go up, raise taxes. Once we've cut the Federal government down to size, especially if we ever manage to tackle entitlements, there should be plenty of room for taxes at the state or local level to go up a bit.

I understand that the NYPD's counterterrorism division provides an important service. However, they work for the city of New York. That's who should pay them. It makes no sense to push the cost off onto the American taxpayer more broadly, nor is 'providing funds for local police' anywhere to be found in Article I, Section 8.

A Word from The Spokesman of Marines United

We've considered various takes on this USMC photo-sharing scandal. It turns out the group has appointed a spokesman, who would like to address concerns about his organization.

The headline is unfair to his argument, I think: it suggests that he is opposed to women serving. That's not actually what he said at all.

Murder is illegal on the streets of America, but people still do it. So sexual crimes are still going to happen in the military regardless of how they [Pentagon and Congress] try to clamp down on it or revise [policies]. It’s still going to happen and at that point, I don’t really question the physicality of women. I question the logistics of the Marine Corps and if they will be able to keep up with it...

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren was a prime example, pushing for a co-ed boot camp and she questioned the commandant on why we’re not doing that,” he told the Daily Beast. “So I think it’s coming down from civilian leadership and I think the Marine Corps should stand up for itself and say, ‘Look, we have been winning wars for America since 1775. Why should we continue to change the wheels when they’re not broke? We need to look at American defense first before looking at integration.”

This would be a strong point if and only if the complications of integration are going to be long term problems and not (as with racial integration) short term problems; and if and only if those complications are going to make the Marine Corps less effective as a fighting force. Are either of those 'if and only if' criteria implausible?

Paglia in Tablet

This is a fairly compelling interview at times. This part sounds to me a lot like some of Tex's regular points:

The Industrial Revolution, a capitalist phenomenon, created low-level jobs for women that allowed them for the first time to be truly self-supporting, freed from economic dependence upon father or husband. Over the past century, women have gained access to higher-status jobs, many with real power and authority over men. But the main issue is that men and women are working side by side in the workplace in a way they have never done before, except in outdoor field work during the agrarian era. This is something new in human experience, and I believe it is destabilizing sexual relations in ways that we have scarcely observed, much less analyzed.

First of all, too much familiarity may undercut sexual passion. When mystery goes, so does the sizzle. Second, despite a brief fad in the 1970s for the asexual uniform of John Molloy’s “dress for success” look, affluent women professionals today (with their svelte skirts and pricey Louboutin stilettos) are clearly still using their own sexual appeal to gain power in the workplace—while at the same time oddly forbidding male co-workers to notice or, Venus forbid, comment (which would spark an instant kangaroo court). What I have been saying throughout my work is that sexual tension and conflict may be built into human life (by virtue of women’s monopoly over procreation) and that women, in order to be truly free, must stop relying on the bureaucratic regulatory state to manage their relations with men. Men too have an inherent right to be free—to think and express their own views and desires without women’s hectoring oversight and censorship. However, the workplace must remain a neutral zone, where the professional (and not the personal) should rule.

Keeping the workplace 'neutral' may be impossible, though, if she is right about her broader argument. Sexuality is at least partially irrational, arising without will from the subconscious. Control over expression can be rationally determined, at least sometimes and to some degree, but stripping it completely out of any area of life may be a bridge too far.

Especially this is true for the young, I think: past a certain age it is easier to set aside. The young need jobs too: indeed, they need them more, as they lack the stored or inherited wealth of the older. And we need them to have jobs more, too, if we expect them to pay for their elders through various entitlements or public pension programs.

You can tell people in their 20s and early 30s that they have to act completely asexually in the professional environment, but telling them that it is obligatory doesn't make it attainable. At minimum, you need to support them with standards that minimize the temptation to think sexually about those with whom they share a workplace. Yet even the military, considered as a workplace, has failed to do this. How will the civilian workplace manage what military discipline has failed to accomplish, or even in many cases to find the will to attempt?

Rights for Rivers

New Zealand has just granted legal personhood to a river.

In a world-first a New Zealand river has been granted the same legal rights as a human being....

On Wednesday, hundreds of tribal representatives wept with joy when their bid to have their kin awarded legal status as a living entity was passed into law.

“The reason we have taken this approach is because we consider the river an ancestor and always have,” said Gerrard Albert, the lead negotiator for the Whanganui iwi [tribe].

“We have fought to find an approximation in law so that all others can understand that from our perspective treating the river as a living entity is the correct way to approach it, as in indivisible whole, instead of the traditional model for the last 100 years of treating it from a perspective of ownership and management.”

The new status of the river means if someone abused or harmed it the law now sees no differentiation between harming the tribe or harming the river because they are one and the same.

Unborn children in New Zealand do not enjoy legal personhood, but rivers do. Got it.

UPDATE: A piece from my cousin, who is a pro-life doctor, on why unborn children might plausibly be extended legal personhood.

Bygones

Not bygone.

This is Inefficient

Want to shoot down an off-the-shelf drone that cost a few hundred bucks? Why not use a $3 Million Patriot missile?

If anybody wants a better answer, I know a falconer who can train eagles to take the things down. I don't know what the range of an eagle is compared to a Patriot, but I figure it's got to be good enough to kill a drone.

Trump to Honor Andrew Jackson, American Muscle Cars

Pony car lovers will celebrate the change in fuel efficiency standards.

After the speech, Trump will head to Nashville, Tennessee, to lay a wreath at President Andrew Jackson’s tomb to mark what would have been Jackson’s 250th birthday, before holding a campaign-style rally in the city.

Trump will tour Jackson’s home, according to Howard Kittell, president and CEO of the Hermitage mansion. Jackson has enjoyed something of a resurgence thanks to Trump. During the campaign, some of Trump’s aides took to comparing him to the former president — a fellow populist outsider who took on a member of the Washington establishment and ran a campaign railing against corrupt elites.

Trump mused during his first days in Washington that “there hasn’t been anything like this since Andrew Jackson” and hung a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office.

At least in terms of American muscle cars, maybe we are going to Make America(n) Great Again.

Speculative Fiction

Today's claim that Steve Bannon is a "white supremacist" turns on his praise of a work of speculative fiction, The Camp of the Saints. I have never read this book, so I can neither praise nor condemn it. However, the description and excepts make it sound like it falls squarely within a genre of books that includes some highly celebrated on the Left: The Handmaid's Tale, for example, or 1984, or Brave New World, or Fahrenheit 451.

Each of these includes awful images of a highly undesirable future, for the purpose of criticizing present trends with dangerous conclusions. According to Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth, this piece was written in 1973, and was widely praised by intellectuals at the time of its publication. That it is of lasting interest more than forty years after its original publication suggests there might be something to the book; that it provokes such discomfort among its critics, likewise.

I haven't read it. Perhaps it's awful. Still, what an odd ground for criticism. The quite-Left American Library Association organizes a "Banned Books Week" every year, and maintains a part of its online store devoted to banned and challenged books.

Yet here is the alleged proof of Bannon's evil: "He likes a disapproved book."

A Problem with Chesterton's Fence

In general, I agree with G. K. Chesterton's principle here:

Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from Chesterton’s 1929 book The Thing: Why I am a Catholic, in the chapter entitled "The Drift from Domesticity": "In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

There are a couple of problems here. The first is that, over time, the reason a very useful institution was created may get lost so that no one really knows why it was created or how exactly it is useful, or it may have developed empirically over centuries or millennia to be the best way of doing things but no one ever fully articulated the reasons why. When the modernizer challenges it, the conservative isn't ready with a good explanation, and the modernizer then assumes there isn't one.

Another issue is that Chesterton's statement of his maxim assumes the conservative (i.e., "more intelligent") reformer has the power to stop the modernizer, but that's often not the case. Often in society both put their arguments out there and a bunch of fence-sitters cast the deciding votes.

As a result, some important American institutions have been torn down in part because conservatives seemed unable to adequately explain their purpose. When they tried to preserve them, they seemed tied to dead traditions, stupid, or bigoted. Decades later the negative effects of the destruction become apparent; in hindsight we can see the purposes of those institutions fairly clearly, but we can't go back in time to deliver our now-learned retort.

Some human institutions, like government, are consciously created and we have something like the Federalist Papers that explains them. However, some are not consciously created. They developed empirically, by accumulated experience, over many generations. That's what living tradition is, the accumulated experience and wisdom of a culture.

Wisdom, though, can be ineffable. Sometimes you know something is right, but you cannot intellectualize why. That is the problem in miniature: How can we tell the difference between ineffable wisdom and baloney? It's a difficult problem.

Plato vs. Aristotle

Joel Gehrke gives an interesting review and discussion of Arthur Herman's The Cave and The Light: Plato versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization over at the Federalist.

Herman sets out to show that the debate between these two thinkers, who lived about 400 years before the birth of Jesus Christ, provides the distinctive, even governing, feature of Western civilization.

“One path – Plato’s path – sees the world through the eyes of the religious mystic as well as the artist,” he writes in The Cave and the Light. “The path of Aristotle, by contrast, observes reality through the sober eyes of science and reveals the power of logic and analysis as tools of human freedom.”

Western civilization depends on both for its vigor, according to Herman. “It’s the constant tension between these two ways of seeing the world – the material versus the spiritual, the practical versus the insightful-intuitive side – it’s the creative tension, like the drawing of a string of a bow, that creates the dynamism that’s been so characteristic of western culture throughout its history,” he said ...

I enjoyed the review and the book sounds pretty good, though Gehrke points out some problems with the argument.

You Might Pack A Separate Sock

I mean, I always carry one pair of extra socks when backpacking just to sleep in. One more additional single sock would not be the end of the world.

Maddow Gets Played

So Donald Trump's 2005 tax returns just 'show up' in one of her people's mailboxes, with no names attached. And she gets all excited, goes to press with it, and -- it just so happens -- team Trump is ready to release the documents themselves that afternoon in order to scoop her. And then she goes over the top, of course, trying to tie this to various conspiracy theories. Then the returns prove mainly that he paid a massive amount of taxes that year, hundreds of times more than the average taxpayer will pay in a lifetime of paying taxes.

I'll bet I know who mailed those tax forms to Maddow's assistant.

And now Trump is immunized against the whole "show us your taxes!" issue.

"Are We Raising Racists?"

Since this article appears in the New York Times, I guessed before reading it that the answer was "Yes." It turns out that the answer may be, 'No, but we should be.'

Parents of black and Latino children have long made thoughtful choices about when and how to engage in difficult and nuanced discussions about difference. Studies show that such parents are two to five times more likely than whites to teach their children explicitly about race from very young ages to counter negative social messages and build a strong sense of identity.

Is that really what you want me to do? Raise my children to think "explicitly about race" and to have a "strong sense of [racial] identity"? Have you thought this through?

I Certainly Hope This Is True

Attack on the administrative state allegedly planned by Trump's legal team. That might go a long way to restoring the Constitutional order.

The Chieftains

Tonight, at the University of Georgia, the greatest remaining Irish band came to play. They are celebrating their 55th year of playing as a group, which might lead you -- as it did me -- to expect the concert to be a sort of sober greatest-hits affair, suitably slowed down to respect the needs of aging performers.

I was wrong. They were off the chain. In a lifetime of going to concerts, symphonies, and shows, I have never seen their equals.

For the encore, following a standing ovation, they did a Medieval piece from Brittany called "Andro." Dancers who had come to join the concert, just kids from a local school, came out and formed a "snake dance" line with the Chieftains' own dancers. It wound through the audience, pulling in anyone who wanted to join. All these old hippies with beards who had come to see the show joined in, holding hands, dancing up and down. The Chieftains ensemble's performance was joined by the Atlanta Pipe Band, with a sextet of Great Highland Bagpipes paired to military drums, perfectly blended into their work -- apparently without rehersal, as the Chieftains just rolled into town and had a wedding to go to last night.

The whole was a performance of high energy and spirit from first to last. I wish I could recreate any part of it here, but no recorded performance of theirs even implied to me how powerful their live performances really are. What a treat to see them after all these years, and to find them so strong.

Tenth Amendment Lawsuit

The state of Tennessee is suing over the refugee resettlement program, arguing that it violates the Tenth Amendment.

Given all the areas where the Federal government is manifestly violating the Tenth Amendment, they had to pick this one to test the principle? I suppose one could argue that the Federal government has the power to admit anyone to the United States that it wants to do, but that states can't be required to participate in resettlement programs. Still, this has to be the least clear case for reasserting the Tenth that I can think of given that the Federal government does have a legitimate, outward-looking role to play here.

Are You Kidding Me?

This is the sort of news story that should never get published. Freedom of the press is a cherished value. All the same, publishing the details of a secret unit's training exercises can do no good whatsoever, and might get some fine Americans killed into the bargain.

We Apologize for Providing Your Refuge

A small town in Iowa has forced its high school students to apologize for wearing red, white, and blue attire to a sporting event. "The Valley High School students' USA-themed attire was seen as offensive because some of the rival school's players were from refugee families."

Oh, well, instead let's wear colors to celebrate whatever place was so hellish that you fled halfway around the world to get here.

Longing for the Klan

The Washington Post would just love it if Southerners would play along with their script by demonstrating a resurgence of racism. This story from Dahlonega -- home of Georgia's military college, North Georgia University, and a place where I have spent many of my days -- shows how much they want this.

They actually did figure out the real story, if you read far enough -- they just put it in paragraph twenty-five.

By evening, though, people had found out who was really responsible: It was one of their own, an 84-year-old white woman named Roberta Green-Garrett, the owner of the building in question who lives in a brick mansion with four white columns on a hill overlooking the town.

Offering no explanation and declining to speak with reporters, she had told town officials that she had allowed the banner to go up and might try to put it up again. She had been seeking permission to build a hotel on the square, and people speculated that it was all an audacious ploy to embarrass the town into approving her plans.

That's basically the whole story. There's forever been this one a guy who runs a booth in one of the antique/thrift stores who is a Klan fan -- in addition to ordinary antiques and Confederate flags it used to be you could buy old copies of Song of the South from him, because Disney wouldn't sell them to you any more.

Then there's this one 84 year old woman, who would like to be even richer than she is, but the town won't go along with her hotel plans. So, here's a way she can pressure the town government. 'Don't like the Klan signs? Well, I can think of a way to convince me to stop approving them.'

I guess that "Town in Georgia Has Two Bad People" wasn't enough of a headline to justify flying somebody down here, though, so they put in 24 paragraphs of 'atmosphere' in front of it, and what looks like another hundred paragraphs of '...and people were really upset' behind it.

But it's not a story, not really. It's just these two very old people, only one of whom actually cares about the Klan in the slightest degree. The other one only cares about herself.

Crusaders

In World War One, a group of Crusaders in chain mail appeared to ask how to join the war. It happened in Georgia, of course.

Say it Ain't So

Another federal judge has scalded the unprofessional conduct of Justice Department lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division.... Now it's unprofessional behavior and bigotry toward the South[.]

...

"[T]hey entered these proceedings with arrogance and condescension. One of the Department’s lawyers even exhibited her contempt for Texas and its representatives and her disdain for these proceedings by regularly rolling her eyes at State witnesses’ answers that she did not like, and she amused herself by chewing gum while court was in session.

It was obvious, from the start, that the DoJ attorneys viewed state officials and the legislative majority and their staffs as a bunch of backwoods hayseed bigots who bemoan the abolition of the poll tax and pine for the days of literacy tests and lynchings.

Why, I can't imagine. Well, frankly, what I can't imagine is them doing anything else.

The Riddle of Steel

I've Been Chewed Out Before

The Navy punished the SEALs who flew the Trump flag from their Humvee.

According to the documents, the commanding Seals officer directed a teamwide remedial training on safe convoy operations and partisan political activity.

Yeah, I've seen that movie.

Jury Rules on Malheur Militia

A jury refused to convict on any Federal charges in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge case last year. This year, on a different set of charges, the jury came to a split decision. The decision is a little strange, but at least one felony conviction came back against each participant -- even though the minor players seem to have gotten off worse than the leaders, and people who plainly did the same things were sometimes convicted and sometimes not.

Njardarheimr

A Viking re-enactment society in Norway is building a Viking village in a truly beautiful setting.

Hemingway: Commie Spy

Apparently he even had a KGB code name -- "Argo."

Fortunately, he wasn't any good at it.

DB: "Black Hawk Down" Reboot

Changes to the original story include adding a number of LGBTQI+ soldiers to the cast who try to make friends with enemy fighters instead of shooting them, while Medal of Honor recipients Master Sgt. Gordon and Sgt. 1st Class Shugart will be played by Chinese actors....

Still, the film will include nods to the original film [including] a version of the compelling speech given by the character "Hoot," who explains why he serves in the Army at a time of war.

"When I go back home, people ask me, 'why do you do it, man? Why? Are you some kind of war junkie?'" the character says in the new film. "I just tell them no. War is a terrible thing and nothing good ever comes from violence."

I imagine it'll do as well as the Ghostbusters reboot.

Incitatus

It's never a good sign for the IRS when the judge's very first step is to compare their conduct to Caligula's.

Batman Meets Galadriel

Understanding the Left in One Picture

I Guess If You Were Going to Play One Leningrad Cowboys Song for Lent

... it might be this one.

But probably not these ...

The Political: Not So Personal

Hot Air looks at a study on the recent campaigns for President, and it finds that Hillary Clinton's was run in almost entirely personal terms. Oddly enough, the Trump campaign was far more policy-oriented both in its positive message and its criticisms of its opponent's.

The CIA's Bad Week Continues

This will do wonders for American-French relations.

Be grateful the lights are on

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychologist with a conservative bent.  From Maggie's Farm, this is a lovely short clip in which he explores the idea that life includes a good bit of irreducible suffering, and maybe our job is to quit pretending there's a world in which that won't be so if everyone stops oppressing us, and if we can finally fractionate down to the very last citizen exactly where we all fit on the oppressed-victim spectrum so we can calculate the reparations we are due.  Then we can get to work trying to pull ourselves together and make small, incremental improvements in how we act.  We can control whom we oppress, in other words, though we can never control who oppresses us--only our response to them.

Best Amazon Reviews EVER

Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide

The blurb:

The most exhaustively researched and coherently argued Democrat Party apologia to date, "Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide" is a political treatise sure to stand the test of time. A must-have addition to any political observer's coffee table. "Thorough" --Ben Shapiro, nationally syndicated columnist and New York Times bestselling author

Here are a couple of shorter reviews:

A phenomenal piece of literature. Knowles really captures the heart of the reader with his background as a black, gay Grammy and Oscar award winner. A must read for all Americans. And liberals, too. -- Amazon Customer

I gave it four (4) stars. While I appreciate that I was able to read the whole book AND make it to my local "Day Without A Woman" protest by 10:30 am, the cover contains an American flag and American flags are a trigger for me. The ass who thought it would be a good idea to put the American flag on the cover forced me to retreat to my safe space for a half-hour to compose myself. I ended up being late and I didn't get my favorite spot at the protest. -- Mandyesque

Here's a snippet of one of my favorite longer reviews, by Coriolis:

A few years ago, as I was studying for my master's degree in engineering, I had the inspiration to sit in on a Women's Studies lecture. Never in my academic career have I been so profoundly affected. Truly, the depth of logic, critical thinking, and openness to challenging views displayed by the professor was unlike any other educator I had ever encountered. Having been exposed to the quality of scholarship one can only find at my university by auditing one of its Women's Studies lectures, I knew I would never be able to truly comprehend the subject because of my thrice-be-damned white cis-gendered male heterosexual privilege. Wallowing in full-time employment and chained to my role in the patriarchy as a husband and father, I had given up on ever truly grasping the profound moral and philosophical core behind the modern social justice movement, progressives, and those who understand the true worth of pursuing diversity for its own sake. ...

There's nearly 1,200 reviews right now. This should be days of good reading.

We Should Encourage This "Day Without Progressive Princesses" Phenomenon

It was interesting perusing the comments to Grim's post about this year's International Women's Day strike. Although I hesitate to offend any regulars at the Hall, let me suggest you are viewing this event through a certain, well, myopia.

You see, when all of these Progressive Princesses (and I use that title with its full measure of royal respect), these Social Justice Warrior Womyn, are absent, it leads to reflection on the part of those of their co-workers who suffer a certain lack of Progressivity or SJ Warriory-ness. Yes, this denial of Progressive Princess presence engenders a certain bittersweet sensation somewhat reminiscent of ... well, vacation.

In their absence, one feels the weight of freedom, the sense that it might be possible in some plebeian utopia to discuss world affairs out in the open, like free men and women, without triggering tearful displays of reality denial at the words "President Trump," or snippy reminders that some of us feel deeply oppressed, or the sotto voce jokes about incipient fascism that we're not supposed to hear but are. It makes one pensive.

So, allow me to suggest that we ... empathize with these courageous Womyn Warriors, praise them, even. Suggest, if we may, that they make this a quarterly event, even a monthly one, because womyn are worth it, yo!

Well, no, we couldn't join them; we are too mired in the internalized oppression of the patriarchy, you see. We could never do that! But we are inspired by them! In fact, because of the obvious strength they displayed with their absence, we even felt a little tug to break free ourselves ...

Responsible Blue-State Government

The Rhode Island Statehouse is full of drunk legislators doing shots inside the capitol, newly elected Providence Democratic Rep. Moira Walsh alleged this week....

“I am probably gonna get in a lot of trouble for saying this but the drinking, it is the drinking that blows my mind. You cannot operate a motor vehicle when you’ve had two beers, but you can make laws that affect people’s lives forever when you’re half in the bag?” she said. “That’s outrageous.”

When asked to clarify if lawmakers are drinking during session Walsh demurred, though she did say they took shots together on the floor on at least one occasion.

“Dude they put shots on our desk for the Dominican Republic day and we all just did shots on the floor,” she offered.

Rolling Stone: This Russia Story is Dangerous to the Press's Credibility

The magazine that gave us Hunter S. Thompson has begun to publish queasy second-thoughts about all this Russia stuff.

This is the former Director of National Intelligence telling all of us that as of 12:01 a.m. on January 20th, when he left government, the intelligence agencies had no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin's Russia. Virtually all of the explosive breaking news stories on the Trump-Russia front dating back months contain some version of this same disclaimer....

Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate" reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface. There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations....

These constructions are an end run around the [NYT']s own reporting standards. The Times by itself could never have run that "explosive" Steele dossier, or mentioned the "embarrassing videos" – because the dossier material can't be confirmed....

[W]hat if there is nothing else to find?

Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.
In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.

Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media.

There is a real danger to the press in proving the spirit of Trump's accusations against it: that it is an enemy, if not of 'the People,' certainly of him personally and his administration in general. Credibility is the currency, and the media's is in grave danger here. If it becomes obvious that they allowed themselves to become the willing puppets of administration opponents within the security state, the press has a lot to lose.

I Love This Plan

We've heard the sanctimonious "Blue States pay more in taxes!" arguments for more than a decade now, and of course the moralizing about how Red States are full of losers is old hat. Still, the actual plan here is wonderful.

We give up. You win. From now on, we’ll treat the animating ideal on which the United States was founded—out of many, one—as dead and buried. Federalism, true federalism, which you have vilified for the past century, is officially over, at least in spirit. You want to organize the nation around your cherished principle of states’ rights—the idea that pretty much everything except the U.S. military and paper currency and the national anthem should be decided at the local level? Fine. We won’t formally secede, in the Civil War sense of the word. We’ll still be a part of the United States, at least on paper. But we’ll turn our back on the federal government in every way we can, just like you’ve been urging everyone to do for years, and devote our hard-earned resources to building up our own cities and states. We’ll turn Blue America into a world-class incubator for progressive programs and policies, a laboratory for a guaranteed income and a high-speed public rail system and free public universities. We’ll focus on getting our own house in order, while yours falls into disrepair and ruin.

That's fantastic. In return, let's cut Federal taxes to the bone so that it has the money it needs to take care of the military and its other few explicitly Constitutional functions. That'll leave more money for blue states to redirect to all those local projects.

Frankly, I think much of that spending done in Red States is harmful anyway. The opioid epidemic is paid for by Federal welfare money: poor people can't afford all those pills. However, they get food stamp money that can launder, and they get subsidized pills thanks to Federal medical aid. So ending all those transfer payments would ultimately be of benefit to our society: the transfer payments and welfare schemes often cause harm, however much they are intended to do good. Likewise, I don't worry too much that industry will flock only to blue states (with their high state taxes) and avoid red states (with their far lower ones).

This is what I think of as "true" Federalism -- the Federal government has a few, specific, explicitly stated duties. It has all, but only, the powers it needs to do those few things. Everything else is reserved to the states, or to the people, as the 10th Amendment plainly says.

So by all means, let's get to work on this new idea of theirs.

"Preach what you Practice"

A reasonable point on the virtues of the virtuous:

Murray’s upper-middle-class professionals are not the callous and un-American “Davos Men” of Steve Bannon’s rhetoric. They’re guilty of some mostly benign neglect, but in general their lifestyles are fairly admirable.

They’re disciplined and hard-working. They embrace healthy life habits. They are conscientious parents who get involved in their (bubbled) communities. It’s also interesting to note that Murray sees his upper middle class as a genuine cognitive elite.... In short, Murray in “Coming Apart” seems to regard the residents of “Belmont” as fine exemplars of many core American values. He doesn’t want to see them deposed. He just wants them to try harder to reach out to their less-fortunate compatriots, which is especially critical because “Fishtown” needs some help in this regard....

We don’t have to choose between a theory suggesting that “Fishtown” needs more and better professional and educational opportunities, and one suggesting that Fishtowners need more discipline and better life habits. These claims can easily both be true.

But if they are both true, then we won’t be able to lift “Fishtown” up just by tearing “Belmont” down. Populism likes to lionize the common man, but that wasn’t Murray’s impulse. He wanted the elite to “preach what they practice,” negatively judging Fishtowners’ misbehavior for their own good and the good of our shared society.

It's fair to draw a distinction between decent 'elites' and the "Davos Men" (and women, including especially the recent Democratic candidate for President). But let's not lose the fair criticism, either: how many of these don't preach what they practice? How many preach that the traditional family structure is a kind of trap for women and children, or that marriage is a very fluid concept, or that really it's fine if the best jobs go to strangers overseas? They don't practice this way. They practice as if their marriage and family are sacrosanct, and their children need to position themselves to get the increasingly few good jobs that exist in a changing economy.

They say the popular things to say, not the hard things. If the poor and the weak hear these things from the righteous and successful, how many of them will find the heart to say that the righteous and successful are wrong? Well, they are wrong: not so much in what they do, but very often in what they say. Very often, likewise, in what they consent to their government saying.

Down the Rabbit Hole

A secret Knights Templar cavern, discovered in just that way.

This is a Strange Day for this Argument, Comey

Default powerful encryption "breaks the bargain" between citizens and government, argues the head of the FBI.

I'm pretty sure we just this week had it confirmed that you have backdoor capacities to turn on the microphones in like everything we own, which means that encryption of voice calls is useless. Malware that lets you read keystrokes captures data before the start of the end-to-end encryption process, and if you can seize control of the computer you can read the data on the other end anyway.

Besides, encryption is a branch of mathematical logic. You can't ban it any more than you can ban people from doing math. If you made it illegal to manufacture commercial encryption, anyone with a computer could still brew it up if they bothered to learn how. At least this way you can bribe the tech companies to give you a backdoor or to leave vulnerabilities for you to exploit in the system (as the Vault 7 documents claim your friends at CIA have been doing).

If anyone has a right to complain about the bargain being broken, I would think it was the citizenry. The right to be secure in 'person and papers' without your having to get a warrant seems to be fading in this technological age. If there remain ways of defending yourself from intrusive surveillance, good.

SoA: Celebrating the Kurdish Female Peshmerga

Spirit of America has chosen to celebrate "International Women's Day" with this series of interviews. By virtue of necessity, 40% of the Kurdish fighting force is female as they struggle against ISIS and are surrounded by regional aggressors.

NSA Wiretap Whistleblower: Of Course Trump Is Right

Eat the rich? No, we eat everything.

He's almost twenty years out of date as a man in the service, which either makes this better or worse. If a 36 year member of the service says this is plausible based on nearly 20 year old data, then it's way more plausible today. On the other hand, he's been out of the game for a long time.

Pineapple Pizza

I once bought a friend a pineapple pizza that he didn't eat at all, because he hated the stuff. I meant it kindly.

This happened in Iraq, in 2008 or 2009. My friend was a Warrant Officer in the US Army, and I had recently observed him -- on a trip to Victory Base Complex, where there were multiple Pizza Hut trailers as well as a real-life pizza restaurant on the west side -- to bring back several pizzas, including a Hawaiian pizza. This kind of pizza is not really Hawaiian. It's actually Canadian.

Anyway, I assumed he wouldn't have bought the thing if he didn't like it, so the next time I got over there I brought one back for him. He thanked me very kindly, and never once mentioned that he hated the idea of pineapple on pizza. I only found that out later. I felt bad at the time, although the only sad thing was that I guess the pizza was wasted. He appreciated that I'd tried to do something nice for him, and that was the really important thing.

I personally like very many things on pizza. This attitude is described by the author from the first link as proper to "[o]thers from pizza wastelands such as Australia and Atlanta [who] extolled the virtues of complementing pineapple and ham with even more revolting toppings such as... jalapenos." Why, yes, I would also like jalapenos on that pizza.

I mean, where pizza is concerned, I'm fairly broad-minded.

In any case, I didn't bring this up to offer a binding opinion on the question of what ought to be on a pizza. I was just appreciative of the occasion to remember a friend I haven't ever seen since he boarded a helicopter on FOB Falcon, to rotate back to Germany after a long and honorable service in Iraq. I hope he's doing well.

Anybody 'On Strike' Tomorrow?

I asked my wife if she knew that she was supposed to be on strike tomorrow. She said, "No, what's tomorrow?"

"International women's day," I said.

"That sounds like some UN Commie bull****," she might have said.

"Well, you're supposed to refuse to go to work tomorrow," I told her, "and also not to do any work here around the house. It's a way of protesting Donald Trump."

Her response to that was unprintable.

What about those of you around the Hall of the feminine persuasion? Don't take my ferocious wife to be off-putting. Thomas, who met her recently in Dallas, can tell you that she's a woman of her own mind (as well she ought to be). If you've chosen to strike, that's just fine. Feel free to tell us about your reasons, assured of a respectful discussion according to Hall rules.

Georgia Legislature Update

Religious freedom is dead this year, having been referred to languish until it was too late to act upon. Last year it passed and was vetoed by Governor Deal. Support for religious freedom is even weaker in the legislature this year, while corporate opponents of religious freedom have proliferated.

SB 49, the 'redefine what a knife is' bill, also appears not to have managed to "cross over" to the House by the required deadline. It will not become law.

However, three gun related bills did cross over, and are still in the running. This includes this year's version of Campus Carry, HB 280. You will remember that Governor Deal, who is still the governor, vetoed that bill last year as well. However, Rep. Powell of Hartwell, Georgia, says he believes this year's version addresses the governor's concerns. We'll see, maybe.

USMC Scandal, Continued

American Military News has interviews with some female Marines, at least one of whom appears in the database of nude female Marines. At least the ones they spoke to all agree that this is a problem with male Marines, period. At no point do any of them appear to entertain any idea that there's any additional discipline that might be imposed on the exercise of sexuality in general.

Maxmilian, the creator of Terminal Lance, agrees. The idea that discipline should be imposed on sexuality is right out:

To the first point, everyone sends nudes in 2017. There are so many photos of my modestly large penis out there that you could fill a 7-ton if you printed them out. The argument that women are asking for it is rapey as hell and straight up victim-blaming. Nude photos sent or received, unless otherwise specified, have a pretty clear implication of privacy involved in it.

That's a pretty big generational shift. Even 20 years ago, the mere existence of nude photos -- physical ones, which couldn't be instantly transmitted around the globe -- was pretty racy stuff.

This is an area where the law is really not very helpful. In general, if I take a photograph that photograph is my intellectual property and I can share it if I want to do. If I share it with you and you, without my consent, publish it widely I can sue you for copyright infringement. But if you took the photo -- even if it's a photo of me taken without my consent, if I was in a public place at the time -- you can do whatever you want with it. It's your intellectual property.

One woman in another context tried to copyright the image of her own breasts as a method of using copyright infringement law to get her images taken down from 'revenge porn' sites. The method seems clumsy and impossible to extend to a broader set of cases, and may only have worked because she herself took the photos. If her boyfriend had taken them, it's not clear to me that she would have had a claim to copyright his photos (taken with her consent) even though they were images of her.

It may also be the case that copyright law, which is how we usually control images, really misses the point of what's going on here. We have stalker laws that punish what is otherwise perfectly legal behavior, for example, taking photos of someone in a public place. Perhaps the nature of the offense here is such that the ordinary laws shouldn't apply.

Maximilian speaks to this issue:

There’s an underlying reality that needs to be addressed, and that male Marines need to really internalize here.

Female Marines are female.

We can talk about one team, one fight and all of that, but at the end of the day they are still women.

He goes on to note that women are only 7% of the Marine Corps, and thus can't effect changes in the culture on their own. Male Marines will have to help them, if it is to be done.

Nevertheless, I still think that the coed combat arms are going to present a very real readiness concern that earlier integration did not. The Marine Corps' leadership was prescient about it, but they were told to shut up and stop thinking by Secretary Ray Mabus. Here are the first fruits.

UPDATE: The DB takes another swing.

A Little Revival

Big Stories, Small Time

There are two huge stories today: Paul Ryan's Obamacare-lite bill, which will surely die as it is opposed by CATO, the Club for Growth, Paul's libertarian faction, Cruz's conservative faction, all Democrats, but not Susan Collins. It deserves more attention, but won't get it because...

...of the second big story, Wikileaks' huge CIA dump. This purports to come from a leaker within the intelligence community itself, and to give away the store on the CIA's hacking techniques. Allegedly they can take over your car (or a big truck near your car) for assassination purposes, and listen in to your conversations through your iWhatever or smart television. This, likewise, is huge news if true and needs to be carefully studied, but we won't get to do that because...

...of yesterday's big story, the new EO on immigration and refugees. It is supposed to be a significant improvement over the first one, and Trump's legal team is in place to fight challenges as they arise. Opponents are swearing to combat it, but most of us won't have time to pay attention because...

...of the weekend's big story, on 'wiretapping' accusations, which threatens to turn into an all-engulfing war between the two leading political factions in America. This is likewise an intricate story that needs very careful parsing, but we won't get to do that because...

...of all the other stories, and the ones that will come starting tomorrow.

Nakbah

Gun sales down by double digits every month since Trump elected.

Privileges Abound

A couple of experiments that both involve switching the sex of a person to see how it impacts how people receive them. It turns out that, liberal though the professors and their audience both were, switching the sex in the second Trump/Clinton debate only proved why Clinton lost.



Clinton's mode of trying to smile off serious charges, backed with carefully-worded responses that are technically true but completely misleading, turns out to look even worse on a man. The audience described him as “really punchable.” The kind of smarmy 'I think I'm smarter than you so I'm going to give you an answer you know is false but can't prove is false' mode is completely unacceptable from a man, so much so that it provokes the impulse to give him a sock in the chops for trying it.

I wonder if it isn't only our society's very strong mores forbidding violence against women that allows someone like Clinton -- or Pelosi, or DWS -- to get away with this mode. Maybe Obama could do it, protected by a similar set of mores among educated Americans against similar lashing out at African-Americans. The protections extended to them, out of a kind of respect for the vulnerability of their position, can turn out to enable bad behavior. Not voting for one of them, though, isn't violence against them -- and it isn't sexist or racist, not if you'd reject the same mode in a white man (and indeed, even more strongly reject it).

The female Trump stand in, meanwhile, was not rejected (as the organizers expected her to be) for being too 'pushy' or outspoken. Instead, people were suddenly able to see in her answers what they had been unable to see in the same answers given by Trump himself.

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics”...

I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, "I kind of want to have a beer with her!"

The second one is about a lesbian feminist who undertook the experiment without telling people she met she wasn't the man she was pretending to be. You've probably seen this one before, but it compares and contrasts nicely with the NYU experiment around Trump/Clinton.

Clarance Thomas on Civil Asset Forfeiture

“This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” wrote Thomas. “I am skeptical that this historical practice is capable of sustaining, as a constitutional matter, the contours of modern practice.”

Thomas went on to outline his concerns, noting that legal precedent ― most recently in the Supreme Court’s 1996 Bennis v. Michigan decision ― has been based largely on “early statutes” involving property related primarily to piracy and customs.

That's a good originalist objection: that the original justification for the practice no longer applies to the way the practice is currently being used. Piracy and customs involve things moving into the jurisdiction of the United States that, for example, you might have reason to believe were stolen goods. "Prove that these goods were not stolen if you want to bring them here" is much more reasonable than "prove that this money in your pocket was not stolen" when you and your money were always here. The burden of proof much more obviously falls on the government when the whole affair has happened within the jurisdiction of its courts and law enforcement officers.

Not your circus, not your monkeys

Or as Ace says, don't buy tickets on the crazy train.  He likens the psychic dislocations of 9/11 to those of 11/9.

Raising babies

Here's a theory that has a superficial appeal, especially to someone like myself with such ingrained anxiety about (and hostility to) dependence:

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has found:

Children in full-time day care were close to three times more likely to show behavior problems than those cared for by their mothers at home.

…

The more time in child care of any kind or quality, the more aggressive the child.

The result is young people who, a decade and a half after daycare, scream at the parent/State for not protecting them sufficiently. It is no coincidence that “safe spaces” resemble daycare centers.

Granted, I recognize the behavior, but I can't reconcile it with my own experience of motherlessness. Maybe you have to combine daycare with the other silly trends in child development, which my full-time working father and stepmother were, to put in mildly, not into.

I'm much more drawn to the approach of this sensible lady, Brene Brown, who has my number when it comes to the fear of vulnerability.

Irish Unification

Sinn Fein did very well in the recent Ulster elections, and is now the second-largest party in the North -- second by only one seat. But that's not enough. It's time to re-unify, says Martina Devlin.

A united Ireland, a free Scotland, a newly-liberated England and an end to EU international socialism. All thanks to Brexit.

UPDATE: Coincidentally, there's a new documentary on women of the Irish revolution.

Swords at Dawn

"As for me, I was in a place by myself; in a time by myself. I remember the water sparkling around our ankles as we fought. One part of my mind could not help admiring how so very picturesque it was. I remember my opponents eyes especially. They were yellow, like he was on drugs."

"Then I sensed, more than reasoned that I would die unless I ended this," he said. "So I stepped in and struck his arm. I didn't even feel the hit on my knee."

An actual knife fight, as metaphor for the current political feud. Wretchard, of course.

Media Moves to Make "Wiretapping" Purely About Phones

CBS: " Former president Barack Obama has denied President Trump's claims that the Obama administration wiretapped phones..."

Independent: "The FBI disputing Donald Trump's claim Barack Obama had his telephones tapped..."

AP: "President Donald Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his telephones..."

The FISA warrant apparently targeted a server, so it would be surprising if they tapped a telephone to find out what the server was saying to another server. I'm going to guess that the Obama team's careful denials, parroted by all these media outlets, mean that no actual telephones were "tapped." So we're only talking about internet traffic, servers being penetrated and covertly examined, maybe reading emails... but no, absolutely no "telephones."

The right thing to do would be to come clean on what spying was done, but of course they can't: all the information is surely classified at a high level. Still, some sunlight and honesty -- and not these carefully construed denials -- is the only way to restore any sort of trust.

That's How I Want Government to Work All The Time

Charles M. Blow at the NYT:

The American people must immediately demand a cessation of all consequential actions by this “president”.... no action to put this presidency on pause is extreme. Rather, it is exceedingly prudent.

Some things must be done and some positions filled simply to keep the government operational. Absolute abrogation of administrative authority is infeasible and ill advised. But a bare minimum standard must be applied until we know more about what the current raft of investigations yield.

Don't stop there! Let's adopt this as the model going forward: the Federal government should do only the bare minimum of things that absolutely have to be done. I'd suggest that we draw the line at "anything for which there is not explicit constitutional warrant." But if that's not good enough, I'll consider constitutional amendments designed to make the "bare minimum standard" for Federal action even tighter.

How Sauron Conquered Middle Earth

A short comic.

Of Course the Ambassador is a Spymaster

That is one of the principal functions of ambassadors.

“I don’t think they’d make the ambassador to the United States a KGB guy. It’s not really their style.”

That said, the job of any Russian ambassador is to oversee the rezidentura, or mission-bound spy station, putting Kislyak at the top of the pyramid of Russia’s security services in Washington. He would, therefore, likely have intimate knowledge of everything Russia's foreign and military intelligence operatives were up to in Washington and wouldn’t necessarily need to hail from the SVR or GRU or any of the other “power ministries" to cultivate assets and informants on foreign soil.

That is also how our own system works: the ambassador, in his role as Chief of Mission, leads and directs the Country Team. That team includes the CIA's Chief of Station. Though the COS reports back to Langley as well, the COM has the overall responsibility for directing US government operations in the country concerned.

That said, American ambassadors are often political donors -- especially ambassadors to countries without much need for aggressive intelligence collection. Still, this is a major part of their role, as everyone knows who has to deal with ambassadors in any official capacity.

UPDATE: Right on cue, Wikileaks sets out to prove the point.

Like Jesse James

Black Rifle Coffee

Another Mat Best & Company operation, they've recently posted their "hold music" online.



I'd post some of their videos, but... well, go see for yourselves if you dare. No warranty express or implied.

I mean, there's no excuse for this stuff.

Well, OK: maybe one excuse. If you're a Medal of Honor recipient, you can wink at this stuff if you want.

Orin Kerr, Troll Lord

I know Cass just said she hates this concept, but you have to give the man credit where credit is due.

Going To Have To Work On This

The USMC is having a bit of a scandal right now, over the existence of a Facebook group made up of Marines and former Marines that shared nude pictures of female Marines.

Oddly enough, it's the less-revealing images that are the greater concern.

In one instance, a woman corporal in uniform was followed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina by a fellow Marine, who surreptitiously photographed her as she picked up her gear. Those photographs were posted online in the Facebook group “Marines United,” which has nearly 30,000 followers, drawing dozens of obscene comments.

That woman, in her full dress, was victimized by being stalked -- and perhaps, again, by the commentary on her desirability. (I say 'perhaps' because it's unclear. Would she have been victimized if the comments had not been made public? Her identity is not public, so perhaps she doesn't even know herself what was said about her. Is she a victim of 'harassment' if she's suffered no mental harm? Maybe -- perhaps she could be victimized by being in a culture that was hostile to her even if she was completely unaware that it was hostile to her. On the other hand, a group of anonymous posters on Facebook is not her chain of command, so perhaps this group doesn't rise to the level of 'a hostile work environment.' I leave all that to others to sort out.)

The stalking is genuinely improper. On the other hand, what about this?

Many images appear to have originated from the consensual, but private, exchange of racy images, some clearly taken by the women themselves.

Here, the women consented to being photographed -- photographed themselves, even -- but not to having the images shared in a creeper database of which they knew nothing.

So... what exactly do you do about that? Presumably the woman has a right to take a photo of herself naked if she wants to, even though she's a Marine. She has a right to share it, arguably, even though she's a Marine (indeed, she's certainly not in uniform). So what do we say about the unauthorized sharing? Is it a copyright violation?

If you're sharing nude photos of yourself with other members of the Marine Corps -- not your spouse, I presume -- aren't you partially responsible for the collapse of good order that this represents? If you allow yourself to be videoed having sex by other members of your unit, aren't you partially responsible for the collapse of good order?

No, of course not. These are all "victims," and the PAO has put out a 10 page document in part devoted to explaining their rights under the law.

Meanwhile, the news stories about this are taking pains to paint this as a USMC failure, claiming that the Corps' hostility to the idea of integrating women into the combat arms is responsible for this whole incident. A gentle suggestion: is it worth considering that the leadership's hostility to the idea was built around the understanding that a collapse of good order and discipline such as this was highly likely? Doesn't this scandal prove the leadership's concerns about what this would do to their organization to have been fairly sound?

No, of course not. No one should ever think that.

UPDATE: Related.

The evacuation of pregnant women is costly for the Navy. Jude Eden, a nationally known author about women in the military who served in 2004 as a Marine deployed to Iraq, said a single transfer can cost the Navy up to $30,000 for each woman trained for a specific task, then evacuated from an active duty ship and sent to land. That figure translates into $115 million in expenses for 2016 alone.... [B]y August 2016 that number reached nearly 16 percent, an all-time high. The Navy reported that 3,840 of the 24,259 women sailors who were aboard Navy ships were pregnant.

The article goes on to note that the Navy has declared a policy of making sure that 25% of personnel on ships are women. That shifts this issue from a relatively easy to address situation to a front-and-center problem for the readiness of our warships. The Navy also grants a year of maternity leave (forced by former SECDEF Ash Carter to back down from 18 months, and vice 10 days of paternity leave), so it's a lengthy problem when it happens.

Like the nude photos that female Marines consented to having taken, or took themselves, female sailors have a right to get pregnant if they want to do so. If you want to solve this problem, though, you have to question the degree to which what we used to call 'liberated sexuality' is compatible with coed military service. You'll have to do more than crack down on predatory male behavior, though of course you should do that. You'll also have to reconsider what we currently believe are inalienable rights -- more inalienable to these female servicemembers than their right to free speech, for example, as that right is constrained quite a bit while in the service.

UPDATE: The DuffelBlog checks in.

A "Broader Point" About Truth

It's the last paragraph that marks out an interesting claim, but I'll give you enough of the setup to judge its worth in this context.

Obama and his surrogates–notably the slug (or is he a cockroach?) Ben Rhodes–harrumph that Obama could not unilaterally order electronic surveillance. Well, yes, it is the case that Obama did not personally issue the order: the FISA court did so. But even if that is literally correct, it is also true that the FISA court would not unilaterally issue such an order: it would only do so in response to a request from the executive branch. Thus, Obama is clearly implicated even if he did not issue the order. He could have ordered his subordinates to make the request to the court, or could have approved a subordinate’s request to seek an order. Maybe he merely hinted, a la Henry II–“will no one rid me of this turbulent candidate?” (And “turbulent” is a good adjective to apply to Trump.) But regardless, there is no way that such a request to the court in such a fraught and weighty matter would have proceeded without Obama’s acquiescence.

I therefore consider that the substance of Trump’s charge–that he was surveilled at behest of Obama has been admitted by the principals.

This episode illustrates a broader point that is definitely useful to keep in mind. What Obama and his minions (and the Democrats and many in the media) say is likely to be correct, strictly speaking, but fundamentally misleading. In contrast, what Trump says is often incorrect, strictly speaking, but captures the fundamental truth.

With apologies to the lawyers among us, whom I am sure are careful never to do this, this 'strictly speaking correct, but fundamentally misleading' bit is what people hate about lawyers. Sometimes also journalists.

Resistance

From a comment at Maggie's Farm, referring to a link identified by the website as "Rebellion: Trump Takes on The Blob - Washington’s foreign policy elites are used to battling America’s adversaries. Now they have a new common enemy: the president."

The people rebel. The bureaucracy mutinies.

A Typical March Afternoon at Berkeley

MPCOA vs MDCOA

This explosion around the FISA court is surprising to me, as I've known about this warrant since last year at least. Heat Street broke the story right before the election, which means the existence of the investigation was leaked in a blatant partisan attempt to sway the election. The existence of the server around which the warrant revolves had been reported in the press even earlier in the campaign

Nevertheless, there's an interpretation of this story in which no one -- except the leaker -- did anything wrong. On this interpretation, the FBI sought the warrant out of legitimate concerns, without political officers pressuring them in any way. The FISA court took the unusual step of rejecting the warrant until it was narrowed in scope precisely to avoid the kind of worries about wiretapping a political opponent that are now playing out. Though the Obama administration would of course have taken an interest in the findings, that is only because they had a duty not to hand the keys to a Russian agent (or a President under the influence of Russian agents). However, as no one on Team Trump was doing anything nefarious, the investigation came and went without anyone being charged.

On this interpretation, the pings from the Russian bank's server were part of the generalized Russian intelligence collection effort aimed at Team Trump -- an effort exactly similar to our CIA's efforts in France, and for the same legitimate purpose. While we have reason to contest Russia's intelligence collection efforts even where they have a legitimate purpose, in fairness we would have to say that Russian intelligence collection efforts aimed at understanding a candidate who might win the election represents a perfectly understandable interest.

So, there is at least one plausible interpretation in which no one has done anything wrong, except the leaker who decided to betray their oath to keep classified secrets for partisan political advantage.

Of course, there are also other interpretations. These run the gamut from the investigation into Trump being a purely political gambit aimed at using the national security state to destroy a political opponent -- similar to the IRS targeting scandal involving Lois Lerner -- to Trump or some of his close associates being spies in the service of Mother Russia.

In military intelligence, the MPECOA is the 'most probable enemy course of action.' Officers typically assess both that and what they take to be the 'MDECOA,' the 'most dangerous enemy course of action.' I have dropped the 'e' here because we are speaking of fellow Americans, both Team Trump and Team Obama.

I assess that the MPCOA is that something close to the 'everyone was legit' interpretation will prove to be true, and that the investigation that is likely to result from this will end up serving as a warning shot from Team Trump to Obama and his loyalists. Two can play at this game of using the national security state to delegitimize each other, and Team Trump controls all the actual levers of power. If that works out, we might see some backing-off on the constant leaks and attempts to delegitimize the Trump administration by Obama loyalists. That would work to the general benefit of everyone, even them, though they surely don't realize it. Still, the best thing for everyone would be for them to return to being a legitimate political opposition, and stop trying to overthrow the government through leaks and "narratives."

The MDCOA is that the investigation will turn up something that Team Trump can use to try to prosecute Obama loyalists, or worst of all, Obama himself. This is an extremely dangerous situation regardless of whether Obama deserves to be prosecuted or not. At that point the country will divide sharply, and turning back will be very difficult indeed. It could still be done -- Trump could magnanimously pardon Obama, and the two could shake hands and agree to respect one another henceforth. That isn't very likely, however. What is more likely is a heightened political division that would result in severe sheer stresses on the Republic.

Existential Threats and Lies

Harvard professor Charles Murray, most known for his book The Bell Curve, was invited to speak at Middlebury College in Vermont this past Thursday. Protestors disrupted the room and he was moved to a private room where he spoke via live web stream. After the protest, as he was leaving, a Middlebury professor who was escorting him was assaulted and injured.

“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.

“During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,” Burger continued. “She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace.”

In the past, I've seen a number of comments from the right that the pajamaboys of the left can't really be dangerous, but I disagree. It's not like one of them is going to step up and challenge a conservative or libertarian to individual combat. No, when it happens, it will begin like this, hundreds of lefties surrounding the target, shouting hatred, someone pushing the target to the ground, and then a frenzied beating and stomping. God forbid, but that's where I see this trend heading.

But what was the protest about? Why did the protestors feel justified, even compelled, to attack? Before Murray spoke, apparently 500 alumni wrote a letter in beyond the green, which claims to be a student-run blog at Middlebury College. The claims in that letter are worth considering, so I will excerpt them at length.

Prof. Borjas on Immigration, Again

We've talked about Harvard Kennedy School economics professor George Borjas twice before at the Hall. Once when he wished Fidel Castro "Good riddance!" and again in the comments of a post on refugees as the author of a study on immigration.

Here he is recently at the NYT:

...

Over the past 30 years, a large fraction of immigrants, nearly a third, were high school dropouts, so the incumbent low-skill work force formed the core group of Americans who paid the price for the influx of millions of workers. Their wages fell as much as 6 percent. Those low-skill Americans included many native-born blacks and Hispanics, as well as earlier waves of immigrants.

... 

The National Academy of Sciences recently estimated the impact of immigration on government budgets. On a year-to-year basis, immigrant families, mostly because of their relatively low incomes and higher frequency of participating in government programs like subsidized health care, are a fiscal burden. A comparison of taxes paid and government spending on these families showed that immigrants created an annual fiscal shortfall of $43 billion to $299 billion.

...

Similarly, the ideological climate that encouraged assimilation back then, neatly encapsulated by our motto “E pluribus unum” (Out of many, one), is dead and gone. A recent University of California directive shows the radical shift. The university’s employees were advised to avoid using phrases that can lead to “microaggressions” toward students and one another. One example is the statement “America is a melting pot,” which apparently sends a message to the recipient that they have to “assimilate to the dominant culture.”

Europe is already confronting the difficulties produced by the presence of unassimilated populations. If nothing else, the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations. We, too, will need to confront the trade-off between short-term economic gains and the long-term costs of a large, unassimilated minority.

...

He points out that Trump's answer to the immigration question is to put Americans first, and asks a poignant question.

Many of my colleagues in the academic community — and many of the elite opinion-makers in the news media — recoil when they hear that immigration should serve the interests of Americans. Their reaction is to label such thinking as racist and xenophobic, and to marginalize anyone who agrees.

But those accusations of racism reflect their effort to avoid a serious discussion of the trade-offs. The coming debate would be far more honest and politically transparent if we demanded a simple answer from those who disagree with “America First” proposals: Who are you rooting for?

Personally, I think he's casting his pearls before swine, but maybe this is how the conversation starts. There are some sensible people at Harvard, and at the Ivies in general. They are just a minority, and they're not usually the loud ones.

Poker Card Shootout

I've hit upon a new thing, inspired by the local rifle team, of setting up a poker card for my first set of practice shots. Not my last, at the end of the session. Not a set after I've warmed up and gotten into it. The very first six out of the very first cylinder, because that's how you're going to shoot -- at best -- in the field.

These were at forty feet.

Working Men

Secretary of Interior off to Good Start

Sea, land, air, horseback.

At Least McCarthy Was Worried About a Deadly Enemy

The Russians are not our friends, to be sure. They have their own interests, to be sure. They violated the sovereignty of an allied and friendly nation, Georgia, when they seized south Ossetia. Georgia's army was unable to resist in part because a large portion of it was deployed in Iraq alongside American forces at the time. At some point, we owe both the Georgians and the Russians a debt over that.

On the other hand, Russia is not formally our enemy. The Communists meant to destroy America, and indeed the whole capitalist world. The Russians want a regional hegemony. There are plenty of things that are in Russia's interests that are also in our own, such as encouraging energy development and trying to figure out how to tamp down Islamist terrorism.

Watching people go after Jeff Sessions for being a Russian agent today -- Jeff Sessions! -- is like watching the Red Scare play itself out again, only without an Evil Empire that really does intend to destroy the United States.

It's not just that the accusation is contrived, as the written context for the oral questions clearly established that Sessions wasn't being asked about his work with Senate Armed Services. It's not just that the Hillary Clinton State Department played the same games with Putin that Putin was playing with Hillary. It's not just that Russian intelligence collection efforts aimed at the Trump campaign mirror CIA collection efforts aimed at the Socialists in France, which the CIA did for perfectly legitimate reasons of national interest.

No, this is chasing after Russian spooks even where it is completely implausible that they exist. Sessions may have moderated his tone on Russia in order to align himself with the Presidential campaign he was supporting, but that doesn't change the fact that he's been one of the biggest Russia hawks in DC forever and a day.

Meanwhile, as W.R. Mead was recommending recently, why not look at the actions of the Trump administration to see how friendly it really is to Russia?

Is all this paranoia indicative of self-medication by the defeated elite?

Seamus Heaney's Translation of Beowulf

Part 1

Part 2

Pagan metal

Maybe Ash Wednesday isn't the best day to showcase a proudly heathen band, but I do like this music. Although the band seems to have some connection to the Netherlands, its vocalists are Northmen of various sorts, channeling the old culture.

Trump Channels Malory

... lexicographer Kory Stamper, who writes and edits dictionary definitions for Merriam-Webster, wants it known that bigly is a real word — even if it’s not the word Trump meant to use.

...

Stamper offers a brief history of the word bigly. This adverb came into use around 1400 and stuck around for roughly 500 years. It has been used two different ways over the centuries.

The first meaning, says Stamper, was to mean “with great force or violently or strongly.” It appeared in such fashion in the classic King Arthur tale Le Morte d’Arthur, published way back in 1485: “So roughly and so bigly that none might withstand him,” wrote Sir Thomas Malory.

The second meaning, which has been more popular in recent centuries, means “boastfully, haughtily or proudly.” Thomas Hardy put it to use in his 1874 novel Far From the Madding Crowd: “I don’t see that I deserve to be put upon and stormed out for nothing, concluded the small woman bigly.”

So, yes, let's cut taxes with great force, indeed.

The Lenten Prayer of St. Ephrem the Syrian

O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.

But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.

Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen.

Bear and Wolf

A beautiful series of photographs, capturing a surprising pair.

DB: Pentagon Cadence Study

"We know the saying: train like you fight," said Evans. "So why are you going to be chanting something that you're never going to encounter in a combat environment?"

According to Evans, the drive to overhaul cadences came when after-action reports from the 75th Ranger Regiment on the popular multi-service "C-130 Rolling Down a Strip" cadence showed that not only did Airborne Rangers' chutes not open wide, but when the reserve failed they were not able to go after Satan.

"Most couldn't even penetrate the ground," according to Evans...

Good news about napalm, though.

The Elite Smokestack in Britain

We have a problem here in America that I was recently discussing as the problem of the cursus honorum. All our leadership thinks alike, because nearly all of them went to Ivy League schools, then Ivy League grad schools, Ivy League law, then Wall Street or a ladder in government.

It's even worse in Britain. As the Guardian points out, the UK's government is almost wholly led by people who graduated from one university, Oxford, with exactly the same degree: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE).

These schools, including Oxford, are not necessarily bad schools. They may well deserve much of the accolades and respect that attaches to them. But they produce tokens of a type, and that type has its own biases, and places where its mind is closed.

Of course, that view is the very reason that "diversity" arguments are floated at these very institutions: the idea is that more people from different backgrounds should undergo exactly the same education. What is needed is diversity on the other end, in terms of electing and appointing leadership.

That kind of diversity would undermine the existence of these schools, however. So much of what they do is built around producing the leadership class, which then hallows their position by sending its offspring back to the very same schools.