Canada and the Dukes of Hazzard

Apparently somehow this was an issue this weekend.

Anderson — who reportedly brought her three-year-old son to the event featuring rides, a beer tent and a classic car show — said she was aghast when she set her eyes on the jump-prone muscle car driven by Bo and Luke, the good old boys.

“I was in shock at first,” she said, according to Inside Toronto. “My heart started beating.”

In her mobile phone video, Anderson expresses great outrage at the car and demands that festival organizers get rid of it immediately.

“I want the car gone!” Anderson demands in the video. “I want it out of sight!”

“Everyone knows, anyone who went to high school, you [expletive] numb nuts!” Anderson said, apparently with her young child in tow. “This is racist.”

I mean, I went to high school. I also saw the Dukes of Hazzard as a kid. I'm pretty sure the show wasn't racist even though other uses of the flag have been.

But let's review. Here's a couple of Outlaw Country legends performing on the show at the "Boar's Nest" roadhouse. They don't make a big deal about it, but notice that -- nearly forty years ago -- the crowd at this imaginary Southern drinking establishment was portrayed as cheerfully integrated.





I don't know that they did this intentionally, or if they just pulled extras at random, but clearly it wasn't being imagined as a place where anyone of good faith wasn't welcome.

UPDATE:

Apparently not the only uproar about an unexpected flag this weekend.

The Chicago-based LGBTQ newspaper Windy City Times quoted a Dyke March collective member as saying the rainbow flag with the Star of David in the middle "made people feel unsafe," and that the march was "pro-Palestinian" and "anti-Zionist." The Chicago Dyke March is billed as an "anti-racist, anti-violent, volunteer-led, grassroots mobilization and celebration of dyke, queer, bisexual, and transgender resilience," according to its Twitter account.

UPDATE: Ironically, gay activists in Turkey have their struggles covered sympathetically today by the Times of Israel.

The tribal identifiers aren't working well. We should really look for common principles instead.

Rediscovering Jefferson

It seems like just the other day that they were changing the name of the "Jefferson-Jackson Dinner" because they'd decided that those two Presidents represented everything bad about America.

Now it turns out that Jefferson is a model of what a good President looks like after all.

In the early days of December 1805, a handful of prominent politicians received formal invitations to join President Thomas Jefferson for a White House dinner.... "dinner will be on the table precisely at sun-set - " the invitations read. "The favour of an answer is asked."

The occasion was the presence of a Tunisian envoy to the United States, Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, who had arrived in the country just the week before, in the midst of America's ongoing conflict with what were then known as the Barbary States. And the reason for the dinner's later-than-usual start was Mellimelli's observance of Ramadan, a holy month for Muslims in which observers fast between dawn and dusk. Only after sunset do Muslims break their fast with a meal, referred to as an iftar.

Jefferson's decision to change the time of the meal to accommodate Mellimelli's observance of Ramadan has been seized on by both sides in the 21st-century debate over Islam more than 200 years later. Historians have cited the meal as the first time an iftar took place in the White House - and it has been referenced in recent White House celebrations of Ramadan as an embodiment of the Founding Father's respect for religious freedom. Meanwhile, critics on the far right have taken issue with the characterization of Jefferson's Dec. 9, 1805, dinner as an iftar.

Whatever Jefferson could have foreseen for the young country's future, it appears the modern-day White House tradition of marking Ramadan with an iftar dinner or Eid celebration has come to an end.

There's no reason why a President of the United States should celebrate any religious holidays other than his own, and that in a private manner that doesn't imply any endorsement by the United States of America. The alternative is trying to treat every religion equally, which is a hard pull in a nation as diverse as the United States. It's inevitable that you'll end up with a top-tier of religions who get honored (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and a second-tier that is maybe memorialized in some way sometimes (Hinduism, Buddhism), and a bottom-tier who aren't remembered at all (including some very worthy faiths like Sikhism).

It makes sense for a non-religious man like Donald Trump to adopt the first course of action rather than the second. A deeply religious man, like George W. Bush, is more likely to take the second tack and try to do it as fairly as he can. But the second tack is much harder to make work fairly, and much more likely to yield legitimate grievances among those whose faiths don't make the cut for official celebration for whatever reasons.

The Ring Without Words

"One of the biggest cuts to the social safety net in history"

I mean, that part sounds good. That so-called safety net is driving many crises in our society, including the opioid addiction rate.

If state and local governments can do it better than the Feds, who have no constitutional authority to do it anyway, this gives them the chance to try. Go to it, and good luck.

Great Shot, Kid

That was one in a million.

Another Georgia Convict Story

Not all convicts are created equal -- most of them aren't hardened criminals like the two who killed their guards and escaped the other day. Today's news is a much happier story.

Also, it's a good reminder that heat injuries are for real. We're now in that time of year. Drink water, take a knee, keep your head covered.

A "Female First" Victory in Georgia

CNN reports that Karen Handel is Georgia's first female Congressional GOP representative. What I like best about that is that no one mentioned it as a reason to vote for her, at least not that I heard. These "first such-and-so" things are a bad way to make decisions about who would be the best candidate for a given office. Still, for what it's worth, congratulations.

Georgia's first female Senator, by the way, came in 1922.

Why Does Georgia Have So Many Counties?

Iowahawk is mocking Georgia for having a vast, vast number of counties compared to many states. It's true: we've got a lot of them.

What I was taught about this in history class here in Georgia was this is a product of the Jeffersonian political ideals that ruled in the early history of the state, when the counties were being drawn up. The idea was that every citizen should be able to get to the county seat to participate in self-government without it being an undue burden on them. Since this was the late 1700s and early 1800s, there were no railroads (first Southern railroad was chartered in 1827; the Cherokee were removed and a land lottery was distributing their land by 1832). There were no cars, of course. There were no major highways (two Federal roads). Transport was by horse, mule, buggy, or foot.

As a result, the counties were set with a very small size to make sure that citizens could make it to the county seat. Wikipedia calls this a "traditional explanation" without sourcing, but it was taught to me in formal classes in state history. Whether that makes it more or less than folklore is up to the reader to decide.

The Opposite of Secession

The Chicago Tribune publishes a paper advocating for dissolving Illinois for absorption by the surrounding states.

Stonehenge

Sumer is Icumin In

This is the oldest known musical composition featuring six-part polyphony.  Apparently it also may not be entirely appropriate for today, as "Sumer" may have applied to a longer period of time than "Summer", and so they may have been singing this earlier in the year in the 13th century.  Regardless, here's hoping for a Summer as festive and merry as this rendition of a very old song.

AJC: Handel wins GA 6th

Looks like a Republican keep in the toughest race anybody could afford to throw. The Georgia 6th is R+8, and results tonight look like the obsessive focus and vast amounts of money only brought that down to 53/48, or about +5. A big pull, but not enough.

I really expected Ossoff to win this thing, though, because I only lately even learned his opponent's name. I don't live in the 6th, so I wasn't paying very close attention, but all the ads I saw were either "Vote Ossoff!" or "Vote against Ossoff, that monster/liar/faker!" Usually you can't beat something with nothing, but once in a while you really can.

Immigration Has No Downsides

A reflection in the Atlantic.

In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama....

“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?

It's a good question. You can read their answer, and think about it for yourselves.

The Quiet Man

Probably the video most of you watched today knowing it would lead to someone's death was the Castile video; here's one from the world of sport. It's worth watching even knowing that one of the fighters is going to die because it shows the fair play and sportsmanship of the boxer who won. He wasn't there to hurt or kill his opponent: he is meticulously fair, stopping and walking away at many points in order to give his opponent time to recover. He fights exactly like a gentleman.



The fight lasts a little more than five minutes, short for a boxing match. "The sweet science" is no joke, in spite of its rules governing fair play, and the reputation of more permissive sports like Kung Fu and MMA. Even with padded gloves, even with careful adherence to the rules, it's a very serious matter.

Colion Noir is Right: Philando Castile Should Be Alive

We haven't talked about the Castile shooting since last year, but at the time I thought it 'disturbing.' It was clear to me, though, that the officer would walk -- as he did.

By far the more disturbing case was that of Philando Castile, who had a concealed weapons permit and had informed the officer of that fact. The officer shot him while he reached for his wallet to produce it, as well as his driver's license. What makes the case most disturbing is that the officer then held him at gunpoint while he bled out, making no effort to render aid or assistance to the dying man, nor to verify his story by calling in his IDs, nor to do anything except wait for backup.

For me, this underlines the point I've made about these shootings in the past: they are about the way we train police officers, and teach incoming officers to think about their relationship to the public. The incident makes perfect sense if you follow the logic of the training. If the most important thing is to protect the officer's life, then you shoot as soon as hands go for something unseen. You don't render aid or assistance until you have full and complete control of the situation. That cannot happen until all the other parties are secured, i.e., handcuffed or locked in police cars. When there are multiple other parties (here there was a girlfriend and a 4 year old), the only thing you can do is maintain watch with your weapon covering the unsecured members of the public while you wait for backup to arrive.

Only then can you take steps to save the life of the man you shot.

If you watch the video, you can hear the upset and tension in the officer's voice. He's very highly strung on adrenaline and fear of what he's just done. He's not thinking straight under these circumstances. He's going to follow his training, and this is how he's been trained.

Which means that he, like other police in these cases, will walk. He will be found to have acted appropriately, because he will have done just what he was trained to do.

That doesn't change the fact that the shooting shouldn't have happened. The NRA has long been blamed for not speaking out for a licensed concealed-carrier who was shot and then let die. Nothing has improved since this case occurred, and that needs to change.

Do-It-Yourself Car Modifications

They're not for everyone.

Hate Speech is Free Speech

A plainly correct result from the Supreme Court, one that garnered an 8-0 majority.

Now, just remember that being free to say hateful things doesn't mean that you ought to say hateful things. You have to decide the justice of the remarks separately.

No, No, Negative

The House of Representatives special election has been pretty ugly all along, but this is a new low.

“The unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans,” a text overlay says. “When will it stop? It won’t if Jon Ossoff wins on Tuesday.”

There are reasons to vote against Ossoff; there may even be a reason to vote for his opponent, though I'm not aware of it since all I've seen from her side are attack ads against him. But he is not responsible for anyone else's murders.

Philosophy: A Quiz

John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said that those who consider themselves "exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." Many are indeed his intellectual slaves today, now that he is also a defunct economist -- or he would be, if people were ready to admit that his systems don't really work.

In case you're wondering whose intellectual slave you might be, this little quiz can help you identify the broad school of thought that is informing what you think plausible. It won't help people who have put significant care into learning about philosophy for themselves, as they will already know, but it can be useful if you have not.

I've verified it with a couple of philosophers I know, and they report that it's roughly correct in its identification for them. My results were as follows:

That's accurate enough; metaphysically I follow a sort of Neoplatonism. However, I don't accept Plato's political philosophy -- though I do think it has important elements that we should reconsider, especially the role of honor in political life, I reject the basic notion that it's important for elites to lie to the people in order to manipulate them into civilized behavior.

Secession Talk, Left and Right

Erick Erickson argues from the Right, sounding somewhat like me circa every year since 2004. Crucially, this is still phrased as an "if/then" statement, which is still how I think about it: 10th Amendment Federalism, but if that proves to be unattainable, then...

Federalism should be the answer.... But let’s not kid ourselves. If Texas decided to end abortion on demand and prohibit gay marriage, three-quarters of the Fortune 500, the NCAA, and every professional sports league would boycott the state. It is not enough that each state should be able to set its own values, even here the left demands adherence to its beliefs and punishment for the beliefs of others. So there is no escape from the culture war. There is no escape from the politicization of everything....

The only escape is dissolution. We should part ways if we cannot have federalism. We should start talking about secession. If both sides have decided that every hill is a hill to die on and control of Washington means reward for their friends and punishment of their enemies, we need to end Washington. The way to do that is end the union.

Even secession wouldn't solve the problem he's pointing to, of course. It could well be that every sports league and the Fortune 500 would pull their businesses out of Georgia and Texas in order to move them to California and Maryland. But it's not super likely that these businesses would do that: they do business in China and Saudi Arabia, after all. Those leading the charge to end the sanctions on Iran for its constant support of terrorism and its constant pursuit of nuclear weapons were the international companies like Boeing who wanted to do business there. So probably, once it's a matter of real money rather than empty virtue signalling, those economic concerns would go away.

From the Left, the issue is of course tax money.

Here’s the kicker: Even though most California voters surveyed were disgusted with Donald Trump 90 days into his administration, a majority (53-47 percent) also told Berkeley IGS that negotiation would be better than secession.

It isn’t that Californians have an undying love for the U.S. The voters who were surveyed said compromise would be better than taking a chance on the state losing federal funding.

I keep reading that blue states contribute more in taxes than they receive in Federal benefits, so either this is just a question of voter education or -- as is more likely -- those stories are accounting-gimmick propaganda designed to make red states look bad.

UPDATE: The "if/then" statement seems to me to be a live issue, especially with control of the Supreme Court so close a thing. If Trump (or Pence) gets to appoint another Justice or two, or even more, the 10th could make a renaissance. It's a hard pull, of course, since the bulk of what the Federal government does (measured by spending) is actually unconstitutional if the 10th is taken seriously. But it's possible, particularly if the alternative looks like the breakup of the nation.

Shots Fired

A US fighter pilot shoots down a Syrian SU-22.

UPDATE: Russia says it will shoot down any American planes that enter the parts of Syria it is claiming as a protectorate... er, I mean, claiming to protect.

Father's Day

This is my first without my father. I would have called him today, but not have made a big deal about it. He always snarled at those "Hallmark Holidays" that he regarded, for the most part, with disdain.

If you still have the chance, maybe make more of a big deal about it.

Mattis: No Enemy Has Hurt US Military as Much as Congress

He's talking sequestration, which is bad policy, but there are other things he might have mentioned as well. I always think of Harry Reid's "This War Is Lost" as symbolic of the willingness to destroy morale in favor of partisan political advantage.

Escaping the Leftwing Bias in Technology

Jon Del Arroz at the Federalist discussed the left-wing bias and influence of the big tech organizations, from corporations like Google to non-profits like Wikipedia. He then offers alternatives.

A couple of things he mentions are interesting. Former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is leading development of the Brave browser. I use Firefox a lot because it has certain extensions I consider important. However, Brave looks like it might be a good alternative when I'm just surfing for fun. I've been using Vivaldi for that, and I like it. However, it also lacks the extensions I need. Looks like I'm stuck with Firefox for some things.

Vox Day, meanwhile, has forked Wikipedia and now offers an alternative at Infogalactic. I'm not sure what to think about that. I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is irredeemably biased, but even if it is, I question whether an organization led by Day is the right corrective, if for no other reason than the controversies that surround him.

I tend to think we just need to get a bunch of non-left editors over to Wikipedia. Why not adopt a page or two over there on topics that you know about and start tracking, writing, and editing? The way Wikipedia is set up, I think that over time we could have a reasonably fair encyclopedia. It would take patience; it apparently takes a track record of reasonable editing to get higher level permissions, but it's doable.

There is one company that is not included in Arroz's article that I would like to ask about. Patriot Mobile markets itself as a conservative alternative in mobile service. Has anyone here used them? Or can you comment on them?

The reason I'm asking is a recent change in my current cell service. First, they turned on their news app to feed into my notifications feed. (I had it turned off.) Then, several times a day I got "current headlines" that were consistently anti-Trump headlines from the WaPo, etc. I left it on for a couple of days and never saw one headline for an article that was not an attack on Trump. I turned the news feed off again, but since then I've seriously been thinking about switching providers.

A Pattern of Violence

The Political Insider lists 36 incidents of Trump supporters / conservatives being attacked or receiving credible threats of violence over the last 11 months. Sources are linked for each item on the list.

Update: Joshua Hersh has an article at VICE News on rising left-wing violence as well: Extremism Experts Are Starting to Worry about the Left. (H/t The Daily Wire)

A bit late, I think, but it's a beginning.

With Apologies to Cassandra...

...who hates memes.

Justin Johnson: Driving It Down

Georgia's Escaped Convicts Captured

They made it as far as Tennessee, but a homeowner caught them trying to steal his truck and held them at gunpoint for police. There's a crisis over, and thanks to an armed citizen acting in a citizen's role to defend the common peace and lawful order.

Man's got a point

Ouch.  Musings from Putin, via Wolf Howling at Bookworm Room:

It sounds very strange when the head of the security services writes down a conversation with the commander-in-chief and then leaks it to the media through his friend … How, in that case, does he differ from [Edward] Snowden? That means he is not the leader of the security services, but a human rights defender. And if he faces pressure, then we are happy to offer him political asylum, too.

Coming soon

If this isn't me and all my friends yet, it will be before long:

Reasonable Accommodation

I once defended a prospectus on Ash Wednesday, which entails a much less strict fast than the Ramadan one. I was successful, but about an hour in I really began to notice that my brain wasn't hitting on all cylinders due to the lack of food.

Thus, it strikes me as completely fair and appropriate for professors who wish to do so to offer Muslim students the chance to take exams once they've eaten. That seems like a very reasonable thing to do.

Stars Are Born in Pairs

A fascinating new theory.

The new assertion is based on a radio survey of a giant molecular cloud filled with recently formed stars in the constellation Perseus, and a mathematical model that can explain the Perseus observations only if all sunlike stars are born with a companion.

"We are saying, yes, there probably was a Nemesis, a long time ago," said co-author Steven Stahler, a UC Berkeley research astronomer.

"We ran a series of statistical models to see if we could account for the relative populations of young single stars and binaries of all separations in the Perseus molecular cloud, and the only model that could reproduce the data was one in which all stars form initially as wide binaries. These systems then either shrink or break apart within a million years."...

Using these data, Sadavoy and Stahler discovered that all of the widely separated binary systems - those with stars separated by more than 500 AU - were very young systems, containing two Class 0 stars. These systems also tended to be aligned with the long axis of the egg-shaped dense core. The slightly older Class I binary stars were closer together, many separated by about 200 AU, and showed no tendency to align along the egg's axis.

Taking Sham to New Levels

Headline: "Report: Missing ‘Overboard’ Navy Sailor Found Hiding In Engine Room After A Week."

A Liberal Discovers the Death Penalty

In fairness, the Huffington Post had the sense to pull this article. It's now only available through archives.

Much has been made of the possibility of impeaching Trump, but this will not happen as long as Republicans maintain control of Congress. However, Trump’s impeachment and removal from office are no longer enough. The administration’s crimes against this nation fall under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, which outlines the offense of treason... Trump’s firing of James Comey to impede the investigation into an act of war against our nation, and his assistance to ISIS in the form of providing them with propaganda for recruitment, both provide “Aid and Comfort” to enemies of the United States. It would be difficult to find a more grave offense among those Trump and his team have already committed against this nation and its people. But all involved must face justice....

And that’s why the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump from the Oval Office are merely the first steps in what must be a long-term policy to redeem the United States in the eyes of the world. They are certainly important steps in restoring the credibility of our government, our standing in the eyes of the world, and our very democracy. But they must not be the only steps, lest we still be left with Mike Pence as the acting president after Trump’s removal. No, to quote our new fuhrer, we must “drain the swamp.”

Draining the swamp means not only ejecting Trump from the presidency, but also bringing himself and everyone assisting in his agenda up on charges of treason. They must be convicted (there is little room to doubt their guilt). And then — upon receiving guilty verdicts — they must all be executed under the law. Anything less than capital punishment — or at least life imprisonment without parole in a maximum security detention facility — would send yet another message to the world that America has lost its moral compass.

Emphasis in the original, if emphasis were needed.

I mean, would it be the end of the world if Trump just went back to managing his casinos and hotels? He has to die for his offense against your sensibility? For firing James Comey? Because ISIS could think up a way to use him for propaganda? "To redeem the United States in the eyes of the world"? I keep hearing that Europeans hate the death penalty.

The fact that he wants them to have a trial before killing them is nice, I guess.

Undead

Richard Fernandez has an interesting argument.

Expect more, not less of this. The natural impulse of a political system in institutional crisis is to dig in. Too many institutions in the West remain decades after their birth, frozen in the moment of their creation. NASA, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the university system and the United Nations rule us from the past. Public life has become a museum of memes from which nothing can escape without a mummy hand dragging the fugitive back into the darkened interior. It is perhaps no coincidence the two most popular leaders of the Western left, Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, might credibly impersonate Boris Karloff. They are here to lead us back to 1968.

Be grateful it isn't to 1848.

In a way that's a very anti-conservative argument, but it's legitimately Jeffersonian. Jefferson thought that periodic new constitutions would be necessary. "To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years." Madison was no fan of that idea, thinking it would produce political chaos every couple of decades.

Still, a number of our institutions need serious reform; another number need to be disbanded. New institutions are needed in some cases, and in other cases we could do without some of the old ones without replacement.

Bernie Sanders Condemns Violence

It's 3/3 with this shooter, the Portland stabber, and Reality Winner all turning to violence or, in the case of Ms. Winner, oathbreaking in the defense of their agenda. The Congressman himself is probably not a bad guy, though he has certainly been deeply wrong on political questions. Still, I think of his friendship with Jim Webb, obvious in the first Democratic debate of last year. He is capable of respecting his opponents, certainly enough not to try to kill them.

Clearly, that is not true for all of his supporters. Let's hope they listen to what he has to say.

Party of Science

"We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence."

Um, not even in the whole history of the country?

This'll Show 'Em

Apparently liberals think that today is the day that Republicans will realize that it's important for them to disarm. After all, people want to kill them. Doesn't that prove that it's a bad idea for them to allow themselves to have guns?

Republican Season

It should come as no surprise to learn that it's not rabbit or duck. The groundwork has been laid for some time. It's not a long hop from "Donald Trump Season" to "Republican Season."



Fortunately, at least for the moment, the opposition can barely shoot. That won't stay true. It's easy to learn to shoot.

What's hard is to learn self-control. It's the poisonous language, which follows from the poisonous politics, which follows from the absolute refusal to stop trying to control each other with the Federal government. We still could all get along, more or less. We don't have to do this.

Jeff Sessions is Perfectly Clear

"Appalling and detestable lie" is Southern for "the only thing keeping me from killing you in a duel for your lies is the pesky law against it."

Truthfully, though, nobody of serious mind ever believed that Jeff Sessions -- Jeff Sessions! -- sold out America to the Russkies. Whatever legitimate questions there are, that was never one of them.

Georgia Folks: Be on the Lookout

Apparently there are a couple of prisoners who managed to escape this morning, wrestling a gun away from a couple of cops and then killing them with it. It happened on a bus transport between facilities, after which they car-jacked a green Honda Civic and escaped.

The photos here aren't the most recent ones; it sounds like the younger man now has several facial tattoos, having joined a racist prison gang. So you won't find him too hard to spot, unless his companion has the good sense to shoot him and dispose of the body.

Is Philosophy Harder than Science?

Well, David Papineau writes in the Times Literary Supplement, partly science just is spun-off philosophy.

Still, if truth is the aim, where’s the progress? Wouldn’t philosophy do better simply to hand things over to science, with its proven track record? Well, one answer to this challenge is that philosophy has been doing exactly that for some time. According to the “spin-off” theory of philosophical progress, all new sciences start as branches of philosophy, and only become established as separate disciplines once philosophy has bequeathed them the intellectual wherewithal to survive on their own.

There is certainly something to this story. Physics as we know it was grounded in the seventeenth-century “mechanical philosophy” of Descartes and others. Similarly, much psychology hinges on associationist principles first laid down by David Hume, and economics grew out of doctrines first developed by thinkers who called themselves philosophers. The process continues into the contemporary world. During the twentieth century, both linguistics and computer science broke free of their philosophical moorings to establish themselves as independent disciplines.

According to the spin-off theory, then, the supposed lack of progress in philosophy is an illusion. Whenever philosophy does make progress, it spawns a new subject, which then no longer counts as part of philosophy. In reality, philosophy is full of progress, but this is obscured by the constant renaming of its intellectual progeny.

So what's going on with the questions philosophy retains, where progress is not so evident? Questions like free will, the basis of morality, the nature of knowledge, and the like?

Well, those questions are really hard.

Tune filching

I don't know if Ralph Vaughan Williams was a good composer, but could the guy arrange someone else's tune?  Boy howdy.  Pick up any Anglican-based hymnal and check out the hymns attributed to him.  He usually started with a folk tune, such as Kingsfold, one of my favorites.

Decades ago we vacationed on a tiny atoll with a few cabins and a little lodge where they served dinner, and listened to repetitive playings of a CD called "The Divine Feminine," with a lot of pretty, sad string music, including Barber's Adagio.  There was also "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis," which I forgot about until I heard it again in the heartbreaking storm scene in "Master and Commander," not recognizing the source.  Today for some reason I got to wondering whether the movie music was anachronistic, because it sounded 20th-century to me.  It turns out to be a tune Vaughan Williams filched from a 16th-century composition by Thomas Tallis, which he used in an early 20th-century Anglican Hymnal before working it up into the "Fantastia."  Too bad it didn't get picked up in any of the American Episcopal hymnals that I've got copies of, not even my old 1942 edition, because it's a corker of a composition.  Here's a choral rendition, followed by the Fantasia arrangement with a scrolling score:



The Anglican Hymnal #92 version uses lyrics that begin "When, rising from my bed of death":

When, rising from the bed of death,
O’erwhelmed with guilt and fear,
I see my Maker face to face,
O how shall I appear?

If yet, while pardon may be found,
And mercy may be sought,
My heart with inward horror shrinks,
And trembles at the thought;

When Thou, O Lord, shalt stand disclosed
In majesty severe,
And sit in judgment on my soul,
O how shall I appear?

But Thou hast told the troubled mind
Who does her sins lament,
The timely tribute of her tears
Shall endless woe prevent.

Then see the sorrow of my heart,
Ere yet it be too late;
And hear my Savior’s dying groans,
To give those sorrows weight.

For never shall my soul despair
Her pardon to procure,
Who knows Thine only Son has died
To make her pardon sure.

Convention of the States

Jim DeMint is taking over the Convention of the States Project, which I tend to think will only become more popular the longer this period of intense political hatred of Americans by Americans continues. Indeed, it has long been my diagnosis that the hatred comes from the excessive power of the Federal government, which imposes one-size-fits-all solutions on the whole of a vast nation. Putting the brakes on D.C. and restoring a capacity for local variation will make Federal elections, and the Supreme Court, much less controversial because much less consequential. In return local and state elections will become moreso, but one can always move away from a city or state election if one is horrified by the result of it.

It's a long-shot for now, but it may not remain so. Consider the criticism of it raised by Andrew Malcolm:

It is, to be honest, a genuinely massive undertaking when, for instance, just Republicans have trouble getting their own congressional majorities to agree on measures.

But the current state of the nation’s capital and the widespread dissatisfaction in flyover country is also a massive reality. “I’ve finally realized,” DeMint adds, “the most important truth of our time. Washington, D.C. will never fix itself.”

The Convention of the States wouldn't be populated by the same people who make up the Republican Congress, however. It would be populated by people from the state level who have been struggling with Congress and the Federal government throughout their careers. It would be populated also with people who sought to serve as delegates just because they are motivated to shrink D.C.'s power. Of course there might also be delegates from states like California who wanted to derail that process, but then again maybe not: maybe California will be adequately alarmed by the Trump/Pence administration, and the shift to a conservative Supreme Court, to reconsider.

There are not now 38 states ready to vote for this, but someday there may well be.

The SHARE Act

From the American Suppressor Association:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Committee on Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing for the morning of June 14, in which the Federal Lands Subcommittee will hear a discussion draft of the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. The SHARE Act, which is being championed in a bipartisan manner by Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Co-Chairs Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Representative Gene Green (D-TX), is a comprehensive package that covers a wide range of hunting, fishing, and outdoor related issues. Included in the legislation is Title XVII, a strengthened version of the Hearing Protection Act.

You may wish to contact your Congressfolk.

Lessons for Today from the Umayyid Invasion of Gaul

US Army Captain Thomas Doherty, an armor officer, has a piece on contemporary lessons from a historic campaign. The big takeaway:

As military officers we were taught the fundamentals of the offense and defense. However, as an instructor, it has surprised me that my students do not understand that the fundamentals of offense are applicable during defense and, of course, vice versa. This article gives a historical example of the symbiotic relationship between the offense and defense. In this example, the rulers of Gaul were on the strategic and operational defensive. Given this, they used tactical-level offenses to achieve victory.

I originally went to that site to read another piece, by a CPT Metz, that suggests that the Army is no longer the world's leader in combat operations at the company level. We've fallen behind, he suggests, due to a lack of "collective training and tactical proficiency at home station" as a preparation for larger training exercises.

Infantry companies and platoons struggle mightily with fundamental tactical movement, basic fire and maneuver principles, direct-fire control measures and troop-leading procedures. In fact, almost every American unit that comes to JMRC struggles with fundamentals. One example was when all three platoons from an infantry company conducted six platoon attacks as part of STX lanes. All six were executed as frontal assaults across open areas, even though in every case there was a clear concealed route for the assault element to take that would have allowed a 90-degree flank of the enemy. There was no bounding on the objective and little use of tactical formations because they had never trained as a platoon before coming to JMRC.

It's probably a tough criticism to take: the US Army is as battle-hardened as it's ever been, given the long war. As far as I know, there's never been a company or even a platoon-level fight that the Army has lost in all the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. These fundamentals have dropped out of the infantry's mind because they haven't mattered. They have to feel like they know how to beat an enemy better than these fancy "multinational partners" who very rarely get out into the field against a real foe.

Nevertheless, they're the fundamentals for a reason, and there's no guarantee that you'll always be fighting enemies that aren't near-peers. That's especially true if you aren't the best in the world anymore.

Weapons Against the Grid

Russia's cyberweapons aimed at taking down power grids are getting better.

Poems "Every Man Should Read"

The Art of Manliness proposes a list. I suppose there's nothing wrong with reading these shorter works, some of which are very good. My favorite Yeats poem is "The Song of Wandering Aengus" rather than "Sailing to Byzantium," but they're short enough you can easily read both in the same sitting if you want.

For my money, however, the poems that "every man should read" are the epic poems.

The Iliad

The Odyssey

The Beowulf

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Some might add the Aeneid to that list, but Virgil was never my favorite. Among modern poets, Chesterton's Ballad of the White Horse is very much worth reading.

Thynghowe in Sherwood Forest

Before Robin Hood -- there were probably several Robin Hoods, dating to the period after the Norman Conquest -- Sherwood Forest played another important role. It hosted Viking conferences on a hilltop in the forest.

Nestled in Birklands wood, one of the many woods that comprise Sherwood Forest, and atop Hanger Hill, are a series of monuments known as Thynghowe. The spot is a “Thing site,” a meeting place where Vikings convened, enacted laws and policies, and settled disputes. Iceland’s Þingvellir (Thingvellir) is perhaps the most well-known Viking Thing site, as well as the location of the Alþing (Althing)...

Thynghowe is unique for its location, existing in an area where no other comparable sites have yet to be uncovered[.] [It featured] a “Thing mound” (policies might have been announced and dictated from this feature), a circular enclosure dated to the Medieval or Saxon era that could be a Viking “court circle,” pot-boiler stones not unlike those used by the Romans, according to Gaunt, and a linguistic link between the nearby village of Budby and the Norse phrase “booth farm” which suggests it may have been a settlement where Vikings attending assemblies at Thynghowe would have stayed.

Protests in Russia

They're not getting much coverage in American news that I've seen, but there are big protests against the government's corruption in Russia. Hundreds have been detained by security forces.

Edge of the World

Well, as close as you can get an hours drive from downtown L.A.  Not much is better than spending a Sunday hiking up to the tallest peak in the San Gabriel Range- 10,064' Mount San Antonio- with your fourteen year old son.  We started at the Ski Lifts base, which is about 6,400' above sea level, so that gets you about 3,600' elevation gain to make the summit, this in only about 5 miles.  This weekend the weather was cool, the June marine layer pushing inland all the way through the Cajon Pass into the high desert, and up the slopes of the San Gabriel Range at about 30 miles per hour.  Once you got above tree line, it was invigorating.  The Devil's Backbone trail has some pretty amazing vistas and geologic formations, looking on a day like today in spots like places straight out of the Misty Mountains.  This is part of why it's so hard to leave California.  Ah, well, a weekend well spent.

(couple more pics below the fold)

Celebrate the Diversity of Our Victims

The London Police Department did yeoman work in stopping the recent attack rapidly, as we discussed at the time. Their public relations work is not of the same caliber.

The commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police says the nationalities of the eight victims in the terrorist attack on London Bridge tell a proud story of London's unique makeup.

"It's desperately sad and poignant but among those who died is someone who's British, there are French, Australian, Canadian, Spanish," Cressida Dick told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday.

"In terms of our witnesses that we've spoken to so far, out of the 300-odd people, there are about 20 different countries of origin. And the London British population comes from all kinds of backgrounds and every kind of faith and ethnicity."

I guess people made the same sort of point after 9/11: the attack on the Twin Towers hadn't just killed Americans, but people from all over the world. However, the tenor of the arguments behind the similar points was different. The point being made after 9/11 was to call together a global coalition to fight terror, because this wasn't just an attack on America but an attack on the good people of the world. The point being made in London has more the tenor of: 'While we are sad, we can take pride that so many different kinds of people are suffering.'

Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Edged Weapons?

Hot Air asks.

Oddly enough, this is one place where the originalist and the progressive ought to agree: one regularly hears progressive arguments that the 2nd should only cover weapons suitable for militia service in 1791. For example:



Swords were certainly part of at least the officers' equipment in the early Georgia militia, as were bayonets -- or at least they were supposed to be: a report from a rural Georgia militia in 1807 showed no bayonets, but at least one horsewhip and an umbrella. In spite of the intended "regularity" that is intended by the "well regulated" comment in the Second, irregularity was more commonly the order of the day in the poorer, less-industrial United States. Shotguns were very common (a fact apparently unknown to the US Supreme Court when it decided U.S. v. Miller, the most important 2nd Amendment case until Heller). Fighting knives weren't officially specified since bayonets were, but they played an important role among irregularly-equipped militiamen.

So the clear answer ought to be, "Yes, obviously." However, as with gun rights in general, knife rights fell into disuse and the disrespect of the law in the ensuing period during which the 2nd Amendment was treated as essentially null. There are all kinds of laws banning knives of various kinds, or beyond particular lengths; and for the most part, unlike gun laws, there are not exceptions for persons with permits.

Georgia is one case where the concealed weapons permit actually does permit knife carry as well, a matter in which I believe my own poor efforts were of some avail in persuading our state legislature. This year, the permit will really only apply to swords: any knife shorter than 12 inches will henceforth be unregulated entirely. The law will touch very few knives: the largest Bowie knives, machetes, and I suppose misericordes.

Swords technically will require the permit, but no one has ever asked me to see one when I've been carrying a sword around Georgia. They're unusual enough that everyone assumes, I suppose, that they're for some sort of historical re-enactment and thus nonthreatening.

So it's a good idea to consult your legislature about fixing the laws in your state. If you are looking for an organization to help you along, similar to the NRA but for knives, try the American Kife and Tool Institute, and also -- and more aggressively, to their credit -- Knife Rights.

Theory of Mind

On the upside, Reality Winner does believe that her fellow Americans have minds. On the downside, she thinks you're all suckers.

On Thursday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari revealed in an Atlanta, Georgia court that Winner told her sister via a jailhouse phone: “I’m going to play that card being pretty, white and cute, braid my hair and cry and all."

As noted by The Daily Caller, Solari also claimed that "Winner told her mother that she wanted her to tell the media that she was afraid for her life."

“Play up that angle,” the 25-year-old said to her mother, during a jailhouse conversation.

Well, someone's a sucker, anyway.

Hezbollah / Iran Hearing

In addition to the more famous hearing, a much more revealing and brutal hearing on the Obama-era Iran Deal happened yesterday. You can watch it here.

Dr. Asher: "In the last years of the previous administration, for reasons that most definitely had to do with the Iran deal and concerns of interfering with it - which I thought were totally unfounded, as a former nuclear negotiator with Iran and North Korea - we lost much of the altitude that we had gained in our global effort. And many aspects - including key personnel who were reassigned, budgets that were slashed - many key elements of the investigations that were underway were undermined and it was a bit of a tragedy and a travesty."

Prosecutions were stopped, designations of organizations as associated with Hezbollah were stopped, and the nuclear deal has continued to provide what the chairman describes as a "windfall" for the terrorist organization.

Thanks for the Assist

Thanks to the Brady Campaign for their helpful billboard, which will doubtless improve public safety in Florida.

Wolf Time, Part III

I wanted to discuss the nature of Odin. The character in the book is not, exactly, Odin; he is manifesting some of Odin's qualities. I'll put this discussion beyond the jump so that you can avoid it if you are going to read the book and haven't yet.

In the meantime, those of you who have enjoyed Wolf Time may want to look at more of Lars Walker's work. If you also enjoyed the discussion, you might want to look at some of the previous discussions we've had of some of his pieces, either now or after you've read the works.

Hailstone Mountain is reviewed, and discussed, here.

Troll Valley is discussed here. It also occasioned a number of other moments of comment, including here, here, and here where it was mentioned because I found a house that reminded me of it while on a motorcycle ride near the Savannah river.

Now, for the mythology discussion.  I don't think it'll be as interesting to most of you as the other two discussion sections, but who knows?

A Vietnam Every Year

This year, there will be over 50,000 deaths due to overdoses in the US and it's still climbing.

* That's already the lethal equivalent to the US of a Vietnam war every year or WW2 every eight years.

* It's already twice as lethal to Americans as accidental deaths from automobiles.

* The majority of the deaths are of people 35-54 and it impacts both men and women. It also leaves millions of friends and family members with PTSD in its wake.

The answer? None is offered, but the author does propose a necessary condition of ending our culture war on each other.

My gut suggests the only social structure that will allow us to progress beyond this impasse is one that enables increased psychological diversity while at the same time aggressively preserving traditional paths of meaning. We should avoid at all costs seeing this as a struggle between oppressive identities or as a corruption of tradition that should be ruthlessly eradicated. A more complex middle ground that allows both to flourish is only way to avoid history's abattoir.

Maybe that's right, and maybe not. It does at least seek to preserve more of America, rather than eradicating the parts it doesn't like.

Conspiracy Theories & Fake News

National Review has a fun time bashing outlet after outlet that reported that Trump was under FBI investigation (as well as Senator Warren and Minority Leader Schumer). These are many of the leading journalism outfits in the United States.

Today's hearings showed their sources were all wrong.

Trump wasn't under investigation.

"But he'd better be now!" cries the New Republic.

Obstruction Is As Obstruction Does?

So the Comey hearings were good in the sense that speculation has now been replaced by fact. The memo, reported anonymously and without the news media actually seeing a copy (it was reportedly read to them over a phone), has been confirmed by Comey to have been authored by himself. He has added in this testimony that he felt, at the time, that Trump wasn't talking about the Russia investigation during the conversation he documented; just about letting Flynn off any troubles that might arise out of the phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. As far as I can tell, no crimes were committed by those calls; deceiving the Vice President by mis-characterizing the calls is not a crime, and there is no report of any quid pro quo talk or anything else in those calls that could be criminal.

So, no obstruction of justice, because the matter Comey thought he was being pressured on didn't involve any crime. Plus, Comey confirmed that Trump was never under investigation regarding Russia -- destroying several major conspiracy theories about "Russiagate" in the process.

Meanwhile, the thing that really did impress my left-leaning friends today was the revelation that Lynch had instructed Comey not to refer to the Clinton investigation as an "investigation." They thought that was a bombshell in terms of evidence of pressure from on-high to resolve a certain legal matter quietly rather than by the law. (Hot Air agrees). Comey thus provided clearer evidence for obstruction from the Obama-era Justice Department than by Donald Trump.

It's good that we got this out there, on the record and in public. I know some would have preferred if this just went away, but at this point the rumor mill has been replaced with facts on the record. Now we can move on without any suggestion that there is a cover-up, especially given a special counsel digging in to whatever remaining questions there are around Russia.

Steve Earl: "So You Wannabe an Outlaw?"

Today NPR has an opportunity to listen to Steve Earl's new Outlaw Country album. If you like it, the album will be out for purchase on the 16th.

Speaking of older artists in these genres, here's Rockabilly queen Wanda Jackson doing "Thunder on the Mountain." The band is absolutely tearing it up.

DB: Mattis Changes Title

In an effort to better align the title of his office with the duties and obligations he executes, sources say that Mattis will unilaterally change his title from Secretary of Defense to First Lord of Destruction.

One senior defense official said that other titles considered were Purveyor of Devastation and America’s Mighty Hammer of Righteousness. However, First Lord of Destruction had a nice “Marine Corps meets Sith Lord” kind of ring to it, the source said.

“If any of you sons of bitches calls me secretary, I’ll punch you right in the throat,” Mattis told members of the press in a recent briefing.

“I’ll call him whatever he wants,” one visibly shaken undersecretary of defense told reporters, on condition of anonymity. “Just as long as he doesn’t hurt me again. I called him Mr. Secretary once and he punched me right in the throat.”

Love of Honor

It's difficult to translate into English.

The exact meaning of philotimo is hotly debated, given that the word belongs to the pantheon of Greek lexical items that defy easy explanation. ‘Love of honour’, its official translation, is a utilitarian yet insufficient attempt to convey the constellation of virtues squeezed into the word’s four syllables. When I asked various Greeks about their own perception of philotimo, I received very different responses.

“Doing the right thing,” Pinelopi Kalafati, a doctor, told me. “Loving and honouring God and your society,” said priest Nikolas Papanikolaou. "Striving for perfection,” answered actor Kostis Thomopoulos. “Stepping out from your comfort zone to help someone in need,” suggested Tatiana Papadopoulou, a volunteer in Malakasa detention camp for refugees.

As the article suggests, there's a dark side to this, as there always is with honor. But, out of the same well, there is a fullness and a flourishing of virtue that otherwise does not occur.

Disconnection

ISIS attacks Iran's parliament.

Wretchard: "Half the world is turning men into corpses and women into slaves. The other half is turning boys into girls and girls into boys."

Wolf Time: Part II

Today's discussion is about the right way how to live a good life in an ethically confused time. How can one do it? Is it possible? What virtues are the right ones for such a life?

As fate would have it, we have an excellent intro into this discussion from our neighbors to the north.

Legislation passed by the Canadian province of Ontario has granted authorities the right to take children away from parents who refuse to accept their children’s “gender identity.” Critics of the new measure launched a petition aiming for a repeal of the “totalitarian” child abuse bill.... It deprives parents of their earlier right to “direct the child’s education and religious upbringing.”

The family is now only allowed to “direct the child or young person’s education and upbringing, in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”

In fact the law is uglier even than that description, bearing the marks of the worst kind of identity politics.

The matters to be considered in determining the best interests of a child are changed. The child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained, and in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community must be taken into consideration.... the new Act includes the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

...

Societies are required to make all reasonable efforts to pursue a plan for customary care for a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child if the child is in need of protection, cannot remain in the care of or be returned to the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention by the society or the person entitled to custody of the child and is a member of or identifies with a band or a First Nations, Inuit or Métis community. Customary care is defined as the care and supervision of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child by a person who is not the child’s parent, according to the custom of the child’s band or First Nations, Inuit or Métis community.

An equivalent to section 86 of the current Act, which prohibits Roman Catholic children from being placed in the care of a Protestant society, institution or family and Protestant children from being placed with a Roman Catholic society, institution or family, is not included in the new Act. Instead, a society is to choose a residential placement that, where possible, respects the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and cultural and linguistic heritage. In the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, priority is to be given to placing the child with a First Nations, Inuit or Métis family, respectively.

Lars Walker could have written that law into his book.

So what do you do about it? What do we learn from Wolf Time about how to deal with such a world?

A Further Conversation with Joan C. Williams

I mentioned Dr. Williams' piece on the white working class, and the need to show them honor, a few posts below. Slate magazine has undertaken an interview to get her to expand on her ideas.

Here are two excerpts where the Slate author tried to push her off the idea that it's on their side not to be scornful.

But as for people like us, we should have some commitment to honesty. What attitude should we be taking toward people who voted for a racist buffoon that is scamming them?

Here’s the absolutely sobering truth. A lot of them saw those aspects of Trump, and yet they thought he was the best candidate. Democrats have given the Republicans the precious gift of being the party that’s out there talking about jobs for people who lack college education. Two-thirds of Americans aren’t college graduates. And sometimes the message that they have heard is, “if you want a future, graduate from college.” Two-thirds of Americans are not college graduates, and what Trump said was, “I am going to offer you good jobs even if you don’t have a college degree.” The policy solutions he proposed were supply-side economics, bringing back coal, and chitchatting with a few employers. Those are not effective policy solutions, but as long as Democrats don’t say anything but that you guys are racist, are voting for a racist, they’re going to keep on voting for Trump.

...

And if you tallied up the time that Hillary Clinton spent talking about jobs for the American people versus Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton spent way more time. And if you look at their websites Hillary Clinton has more plans, or had, for Americans without college degrees than Donald Trump does, and the more sensible plans, at least by my analysis and I think your analysis. Don’t “average people” have some responsibility to learn this.

No I think that’s completely unrealistic.

I agree it’s unrealistic, but I am not sure whose fault that is.

I am. I think the Democrats are—I’m damn sure they are at fault for that. The reason that Trump won was about 80,000 voters in Rust Belt states. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and others were begging that Hillary Clinton campaign in those Rust Belt states and talk to those people about jobs and about other concerns that blue-collar Americans feel very, very strongly about, and they were told no. And they were told to adhere to a script of Donald Trump is unqualified, and Hillary Clinton is super qualified and wouldn’t it be awesome, and a progressive gesture to vote for a woman for president. Let’s break the glass ceiling. That is an incredibly well-designed message to alienate these voters.... The glass ceiling is a very ineffective message. Not only for the men, but also for the women, because what does glass ceiling mean? It means women like me, born with a silver spoon in my mouth, get to have jobs like the jobs my husband and father had. Why should working-class people care? You know, newsflash, they don’t care.

There's another challenge about how important it is to talk about race where she turns the charge around in an interesting way.

"The Lion of London Bridge"

A profile in courage, as they say.

Qatar

I thought the Saudi-led move against Qatar, which houses CENTCOM's forward deployed base and other key military facilities, was one of the most alarming pieces of news I've seen cross my desk in a while. Trump apparently thinks it's a victory.

Who's right? I guess we'll see.

FIRE: Left Wing Profs Need Free Speech, Too

A fair point.

Much of the recent intolerance of campus speech has come from the left, and has been widely covered by conservative media outlets under the guise of a concern for the state of free speech on campus. Why, then, do these same outlets remain comparatively quiet when the intolerance for speech is coming from the right? Free speech is free speech, and if you believe that the right to openly express controversial political opinions is important, you should be as concerned about Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s right to free speech as you were about Charles Murray’s or Ann Coulter’s — and vice versa....

I have worked as a free speech advocate for more than 12 years now. In that time, it seems as if the extent to which we insulate ourselves from opposing viewpoints, and demonize the people who hold them, has increased dramatically. Admittedly, this is just my sense of things, but it is a sense I have heard echoed repeatedly by colleagues, friends, family, and virtually anyone with whom I discuss the work I do. It feels as though we have reached a point where many of us, from across the political spectrum, recognize that this is a problem — but it feels insurmountable, and we don’t quite know what to do about it.

If you feel this way, start being a role model now. If you disagree with professor Taylor’s remarks about President Trump but are horrified by the threats made against her, send her a note of support. Share one of the few reports about her story with friends who might not otherwise see it, and let them know what you think. Similarly, if you disagree with Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College but are appalled that police can’t ensure his safety on campus simply because he expressed his views, send him a note of support. Be a vocal supporter of the right to free speech not only when you agree with the speaker, but also — especially — when you disagree with the speaker.

Related: "A New Wave of Left-Wing Militants is Ready to Rumble," at Mother Jones. They don't seem to be taking the advice to heart.

VA: New Electronic Records to be "Seamless" with Military System

We'll see about that. Still, it does sound like an improvement.

D-Day

A terrible day that made for many beautiful tomorrows, so many of which are now already yesterdays.

Sen. Warner: Intercept Story only Part of Russian Campaign

Senator Mark Warner wants you to know that the Russians did far more than spoof a voting company.

"I don't believe they got into changing actual voting outcomes," Virginia Sen. Mark Warner said in an interview. "But the extent of the attacks is much broader than has been reported so far." He said he was pushing intelligence agencies to declassify the names of those states hit to help put electoral systems on notice before the midterm voting in 2018....

"I really want to press the case. This is not an attempt to embarrass any state. This is a case to make sure that the American public writ large realizes that if we don’t get ahead of this, this same kind of intervention could take place in 2018 and definitely will take place in 2020."

Faith in the integrity of our elections is of the utmost importance to the peaceful transfer of power.

How Did this Girl Get a Security Clearance?

Through the Air Force, quite likely.

It sounds like she was radicalized by Trump's election, which is true for many on the Left. Yet her linguistic skills suggest she was originally trained to do intelligence work on Iran and Afghanistan. Her Twitter account suggests she has been trained to interpret history through the lens of Western colonialism, and thus saw a moral duty to support the Iranians(!) against American 'colonial' policies. That's not new since Trump, but something she seems to have felt for a while -- probably since she was taught to think that way in college or in prep school.

Nobody checks up on that kind of thing? I know you don't list radicalizing college courses on your SF-86, but it seems like questions about your statements against America and for the enemy you're supposedly helping to study would come up in the security review.

UPDATE:

Looks like she was employed less than 3 months before stealing secrets.

UPDATE:

Her high school does not look like a radical outfit that would preach anti-colonial screeds, and she was in the USAF until last year. So where did she learn to think about the world in this Marxist fashion, I wonder? At home, perhaps.

Reading the Articles

I wouldn't normally link to Playboy, but this article on Afghanistan was written by a reporter I know. She embedded with the Afghan commandos, and it's a story worth reading.

DB: 'Mini-Troop Surge' in Afghanistan

Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, still has some apprehensions about the logistical requirements of the halflings, who are known to eat up to seven meals a day.

NSA leaker charged

Well, "leaker" is a misnomer.  She's a traitor, a spy, an oathbreaker, and ultimately a very stupid young woman.

At the most basic level, she stole classified documents and gave them to an unauthorized person.  She did it for one of the four primary motivations of espionage (sometimes referred to as MICE) in that she was ideologically motivated.  Like Jonathan Pollard, she will have supporters who will say she was a patriot, just trying to help save her country.  And like Pollard's supporters, hers will be wrong.  She is a traitor who put her own motives ahead of the interests of her nation, her oaths, her integrity, and her future.  Make no mistake, Reality Winner (yes, that's actually her name) has destroyed her future in order to score some political points.  She sold out sources and methods the NSA uses to defend ALL of us in order to make "#NotHerPresident" look bad.  And the worst thing is, what she stole didn't even prove what she probably thought it proved.

The document in question reveals that Russians hacked into voter registration data at a third party contractor.  Not to change it, nor to change vote totals, but effectively to steal identities.  In other words, nothing that could influence the 2016 election.  And this stupid, stupid person decided that the law, her oaths, national security, her integrity, and her very future were unimportant enough that she should steal that information and release it to someone who would make sure the Russians (remember them?) would know we know they did it.  An action which helps them to figure out how WE knew, which shuts down an avenue of intelligence gathering, or even potentially gets an actual live person KILLED (never forget the true cost of espionage; it's not "documents" or "words", it's actual lives).

I do feel some small pity for her.  She ruined her own life with her stupidity.  And worse, she did it to reveal a document that still does not show what she thought it did (the Russians hacked the election and made it so Trump won).  But mostly I feel anger.  She knew better.  She had mandated yearly training that told her that she would be caught, that told her the consequences of being caught, that told her how stupid her idea was.  But she ignored all that, betrayed her employer, her co-workers, her friends, and her nation... all in an effort to score political points (which she failed to even do).  Pathetic.

A Drapa for Sigurd Syr

In a book I wrote, but never properly edited or published, there was a poet who wrote a drapa for the father of Harald Hardrada. Hardrada, at least, you will recognize from Wolf Time. That makes this week a good time to publish the poem in his father's honor. Unlike Hardrada, the Thunderbolt of the North, his father Sigurd Syr was a very peaceful man. It was difficult to praise such a man, in the old way; here is an imagined mode for doing so.

The references will be clearer if you have read the Heimskringla.  If you have not, the poem is probably impossibly opaque.  The second half of the drapa should nevertheless be clear enough.

Rare the good king not a killer,
wise sleeper in his stronghold.
Ox-slain Egil Yngling
the Thing-thrall put to fleeing:
A dead king never dreaded.
When Old Starkad came to Sweden
Haki then Hugleik's land claimed. --
Where now is the hall-holder...

Aun, always the weak-slayer,
his sired he'd Odhinn offer;
He ran before Upsala's chieftain.
But Yngvar's son, Anund the Breaker,
Took the war-shield only
slaying his father's slayer.
Rare few are remembered wiser --
...the kingdom-ruler of wisdom?

One remembered is Sigurd
stepfather to the Digre,
father of the Hardrada,
Old lord of the northhold.
Shade from his hat, that broad-brim,
we remember as rain without thunder. --
Where now is the hall-holder...

Nothing with him dragons wanted,
Nor warriors who disdained golden
Grain. Loved him thrall and bonder:
He cared for cattle, but battle
He found empty of the glory
That forever draws the fighter.
No man’s thralls were freer. --
The kingdom-ruler of wisdom.

Islam: A Criticism

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former Federal prosecutor who dealt with the Blind Sheikh case among others. His view of Islam is more negative than my own in pronounced ways, but I respect the way in which he came to it. It is the sort of thing we ought to take seriously, even if in the end we reject it. Indeed, I think the onus is probably on my side of the debate. He is clearly right that traditional Islamic theology points this way. What people like me have to show is that there is any alternative, a project I am not prepared to undertake this afternoon.

UPDATE: An interesting development out of London.

This Guy, Too

We have an embarrassment of riches, just now.

Wolf Time: Part I

I propose to separate discussion of Lars Walker's Wolf Time into three discussions, starting today, Wednesday, and Friday. Of course this is a community discussion, so it may be that there are aspects of the work that others wish to discuss than the ones I've identified. If so, we can fit them in here, or start a separate section if one of my co-bloggers wants to do so.

In today's discussion, I want to begin with the predictions about the dangerous developments of political correctness and its hostility to human life and Aristotelian purpose. The book probably struck reviewers in 1999, when it was new, as ridiculously hyperbolic. In our own day, we have seen things very like the "Happy Endings" clinic, in which perfectly healthy people kill themselves because they are tired of being alcoholics. A healthy woman in Belgium was granted permission to die because of suicidal thoughts.

We see less open talk about what the book calls Extinctionism than you might expect, but it definitely lurks -- and sometimes comes out -- in the debates about the environment.

So let's start with that. These are slippery slope arguments, and people will tell you that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy because there is no guarantee that the slope will play out. Nevertheless, it very often does play out: saying that it is a fallacy simply means that logic does not guarantee that it will play out. Logic does nothing to stop it from playing out. It is very often worth paying attention to slippery slope arguments, as they very often do play out. A mind primed to think in a given way in one case can easily come to think that way in another, even if it is not logically necessary that they should.

Where did these predictions go right? Where wrong? When wrong, is it just that we haven't gotten there yet, or are there cases where we won't get there for some reason?

Discuss.

On Wednesday, I'll want to use this discussion as a springboard to take on the more general theme of how to live a good life in such an ethically confused time. How can one do it? Is it possible? What virtues are the right ones for such a life? It does not seem as if they are courage or boldness -- or are they, but in a different way than in the more ancient expression? We'll pick that up on Wednesday.

On Friday, I'll raise an objection to the book's conception of Odin and his mission. This is a minor topic of no interest to anyone but me, and likely Lars Walker, but I don't think I agree with the book's basic conception of what Odin was about. This last discussion will be harder to follow and of less general interest, so we'll save it until we've dealt with the matters of more general interest and meaning.

"Fringe Groups Revel"

An old-fashioned fisking of this article seems to be in order.

Kyle Chapman expected he might find a fight. And he did — with a teenage girl.

Oh, he beat up a teenage girl, presumably weaker than himself? That's awful.

The girl was waving an anti-fascist placard last week at a protest against Shariah law in Midtown Manhattan when a scuffle broke out and she knocked an older woman to the ground.

Wait... she beat up someone weaker than herself, and he intervened to defend them?

“Assaulting our people?” Mr. Chapman shouted as he reached across the barricades and ripped her sign apart. “Your days are numbered, Commie!” he called after her as the police escorted her away. “The American people are rising up against you!”

So, actually he didn't touch her at all, right? Also, she was the one arrested for assault and battery. That seems like an important detail.

As the founder of a group of right-wing vigilantes called the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights, Mr. Chapman, a 6-foot-2, 240-pound commercial diver, is part of a growing movement that experts on political extremism say has injected a new element of violence into street demonstrations across the country.

Pretty sure your own description makes it clear that he is not the one "injecting violence into street demonstrations." The physical description is meant to make him sound scary, but it's his opponents who are physically attacking people.

Part fight club, part Western-pride fraternity, the Alt-Knights and similar groups recruit battalions of mainly young white men for one-off confrontations with their ideological enemies — the black-clad left-wing militants who disrupted President Trump’s inauguration and have protested against the appearances of conservative speakers on college campuses.

Those "black-clad left-wing militants" are also "mainly white." Antifa looks to be super-duper white, in fact. Elizabeth Warren white. Rachael Maddow white. Keith Olbermann white. So what's with trying to paint one of these groups as being defined by race, and not the other?

Along with like-minded groups like the Proud Boys, a clan of young conservative nationalists, and the Oath Keepers, an organization of current and former law-enforcement officers and military veterans, they mobilized on social media to fight in New Orleans over the removal of Confederate monuments; on the streets of Berkeley, Calif., where clashes between the left and right have increasingly become a threat for law enforcement; and at a raucous May Day rally in Los Angeles.

The Oath Keepers are like-minded? I think I know what the Oath Keepers think that they are doing: they conceive themselves as keeping their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Is that also a priority for this other group? I wouldn't know, since the report hasn't said anything at all about their ideology or goals. It's just said that they are "mainly white."

We do get some indication of their goals a bit further down.

“There’s been a lot of organized violence on the part of the left against the right, so we have to organize,” Mr. Chapman said. “The purpose is to have a peaceful event. But if people are attacked, you have to be ready and willing to defend yourself and your right-wing brothers and sisters.”

This form of aggression is something researchers say they have not seen on such a scale before on the far right...

Wait: "this form of aggression"? What he said was that the purpose was to have a peaceful event, but that he was willing to defend his side if necessary. That's aggression? It sounds like an explicitly defensive strategy, not an aggressive one.

It doesn't get much better than this. I think the reporter needs to go back home and rethink this whole approach to understanding what is going on.

That's the Spirit

A journalist in England redeems his profession's reputation somewhat in the face of a fifty-thousand pound bounty on his head.

Oathless

What happens when justices don't trust the oath of the President?

[I]f the courts are going to write a new jurisprudence for an oathless presidency into the law, Mandel and Din actually make for a very natural place to start. Both literally concern the question of “bad faith,” the same question raised by whether the courts can trust Trump’s fidelity to his oath. To put it another way, the cases are an expression of the “presumption of regularity,” the idea that we can usually trust public officials to do their duty. And as the Trump administration is discovering, that presumption of regularity is only a presumption, which courts can waive in extraordinary circumstances.

What justifies this "presumption of regularity" even as a presumption? The oath of office is to the Constitution; many acts by Presidents, Senators, and Congressional representatives are facially unconstitutional. Any sort of "campaign finance reform" appears to violate the First Amendment, which plainly states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. The vast majority of Congressional and Executive acts violate any reasonable reading of the 10th Amendment. Many campaign promises also plainly violate the 10th Amendment, as candidates pledge to pursue powers that the Constitution never delegates to the Federal government.

Yet normally courts presume campaign rhetoric is a sort of nonsense that has no bearing on how one actually governs -- and that seems to be a presumption justified by the facts to some degree. If anything justifies presuming Trump's oath is less reliable than usual, it must be that he is unusually likely to pursue his campaign statements. He did, after all, pull us out of the Paris accords. He did, after all, appoint a hardliner to run the CIA's operations against Iran (and, by the way, we need to have a talk with our 'paper of record' about the propriety of publishing the names of such officers). He did, after all, prefer a serious textualist to the Supreme Court. He hasn't kept all his promises (e.g., moving the embassy to Jerusalem), but he has apparently taken a number of them seriously.

Compare and contrast with President Obama, "I'll close GitMo," "if you like your plan you can keep your plan," "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor," "the Iran deal is not a treaty," "the Paris climate accord is not a treaty," etc. I should be more suspicious of the oaths of, say, Supreme Court justices who feel that the Constitution is a living document they are free to modify at will. That is plainly not in keeping with an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution; it is making it one's own playtoy, and arrogating powers never intended by the Constitution to one's self and one's own office. It is their oaths I doubt.

It seems strange to doubt Trump's oath more than one would doubt the oaths of other politicians on the precise ground that he seems unusually likely to keep his promises. I don't take his word seriously because he often seems to say things he doesn't mean, but that approach undermines the 4th and 9th circuit opinions: why bother worrying about what he said on the campaign trail if you don't worry about what he says in general?

Their argument is just the opposite: 'We doubt his oath because we believe he will keep his word.'

This Guy

"I was keeping an eye on it."