If you're interested in what led to this conclusion, the rest is available at Bring the Heat.At best, Cadet Rapone’s online ideological screeds reveal the philosophical infatuations of a precocious adolescent, rather like a high school boy who cannot stop spouting off about Nietzsche. The “misunderstood” and “persecuted” young genius shouts truth to power by cobbling together ideas and quotations popping up in chat rooms or on Facebook walls, certain that his provocative and shocking proclamations will, based solely upon their vehemence and sarcasm, demonstrate both the profound sincerity and the unassailable correctness of his viewpoints. This phase tends to be ephemeral, the erstwhile young firebrand eventually emerging from the self-adulatory fog after eye-opening encounters with equally brilliant people articulating cogent, well-supported, and entirely contrary arguments, or having gained sufficient life experience to illustrate the fundamental interpretive emptiness that renders any strictly Manichaean worldview emotionally unfulfilling and analytically bankrupt. At worst, however, Cadet Rapone’s statements bespeak either a severe mental or psychological disorder, or a genuine commitment to values and ideals wholly at odds with those of West Point and the Army. If the former is true, he is dangerously unbalanced, and therefore not suited to military service. If the latter, is true, he is a coward, and a hypocrite who refuses to discontinue his association with an institution that, as he sees it, is a tool of an inherently unjust, immoral, and imperialist state. He may at some point grow out of this phase, but the Army does not have the luxury of allowing him the opportunity to sort out his beliefs while charged with the sacred duty of leading American Soldiers.
How to Write a Dressing Down
I think you're all familiar with the subject of this particular dressing down- the recently infamous commie Cadet- but this conclusion from a sworn statement from LTC Robert M. Heffington may just have you breaking out in applause. I wouldn't change a word.
'Have the White Supremacist Government Disarm Us!'
A pretty good point, really.
If that is what you believe -- and arguably, such a system really did exist in the Jim Crow South -- why on earth would you give up your guns to that system? You should join these political figures in thanking the NRA for defending your capacity to stand up and be free.
The US government is systemically racist and, through it’s inaction, seems willing to allow innocent, black citizens to be murdered by its police force. Furthermore, the judicial system is often rigged to protect the evil, racist officers by never punishing them for those murders. Additionally, the very same government is now in the hands of a fascist, incompetent criminal who, not only hates blacks and Latinos so much that he is willing to let the latter die of starvation and thirst rather than deliver humanitarian aid to them, but also calls the former “Sons of bitches” for protesting the racist country he oversees....It's actually a little stronger than this phrasing, because "its police force" and "the judicial system" are aspects of the alleged racist, white-supremacist government. So the argument really isn't that 'by inaction' the US government is permitting murder, which then the judiciary gets away with not prosecuting fairly. The argument is that the US government engages in systematic murder as a part of its social control against blacks. Keeping them permanently aware of being immediately subject to murder by police at the slightest provocation is supposed to be an important part of our social structure. Far from a passive thing that happens because we have low-quality police, this is (on the forwarded analysis) a structural feature of the American system.
Maybe it’s me — and I have only my own perspective from which I can analyze this — but if I really thought this country was so evil and so racist and could fall into the hands of an incompetent fascist… I’d want to hang on to a few guns. And if I thought that government was either so incompetent or so evil that they would let their citizens starve during a crisis like a hurricane, again, I think having a few guns in that kind of scenario would be a wise thing. And, I certainly wouldn’t want that evil, fascist, incompetent and racist government to determine who could and could not arm themselves.
If that is what you believe -- and arguably, such a system really did exist in the Jim Crow South -- why on earth would you give up your guns to that system? You should join these political figures in thanking the NRA for defending your capacity to stand up and be free.
Bang Bang, My Baby Shot Me Down
In the song, of course, 'shot me down' just meant 'left me without explanation.' Quentin Tarantino used the song in the opening to Kill Bill, where a more literal shooting-down was intended.
The question implied by the thing Ms. Sinatra was responding to ought to be answered by her reply. The NRA keeps Americans safe by preventing firing squads run by Cultural Revolutionaries. The NRA's main job isn't 'keeping people safe,' but defending the American way by ensuring that Americans have access to the tools and the training to defend it. Along the way, though, that can help keep people safe.
Trump to "Wipe Out" Puerto Rico's Debt
That will be a huge move, if he follows through on it. I am not sure if he has the power, though: can a President (note indefinite article) wipe out the debt of a US territory? Can Congress, other than by paying it off? What's the mechanism for that?
DB: WWII Vets Gather to Be Reminded to Check Their Privilege
These guys at the DB hit some winners sometimes.
The few remaining survivors of “The Greatest Generation”, who fought and bled in defense of democracy and freedom during World War II, were reminded to check their privilege today at a ceremony at The University of California at Berkeley.
The annual ceremony, sponsored by the Marginalized-Victims-of-Repressive-Oppression-by-White-Male-Capitalists-Over-Six-Feet-Tall-Student-Campus-Alliance (MVROWMCOSFTSCA), was intended to “send a message to all World War II veterans,” the group’s Facebook page said, “that no matter how many of your friends died right before your eyes, the fact that you were even there, only worried about dodging bullets and not violent speech, shows just how privileged you really were.”
Moonbeam Cinnamon Smith-Mustafa-Rodriguez-Gluten, the group’s organizer, shouted into a handheld loudspeaker at the dwindling crowd of aging veterans, noticeably smaller than last year’s group.
“You old, rich, privileged white men have no idea what the daily fight on the streets is like, what the struggle against an oppressive regime bent on domination is actually like,” she said.
The Great Tree of Life
An interesting representation of the evolutionary frame as we currently believe it to have happened.
Tank!
We were just talking about that movie the other day. Now this:
Wealthy homeowners in one tiny Fort Worth suburb say their neighbor’s decision to park a World War II-era tank in front of his multimillion-dollar home is making them nervous.It's all right. If the movie is any indication, the tank provides an important hedge against corrupt Southern law enforcement officers.
At least that’s what attorney Tony Buzbee, a history buff who purchased the WWII tank for $600,000 earlier this year, learned when his neighborhood homeowners’ association sent him a letter saying the tank “impedes traffic” and causes a “safety issue” and “serious concerns for neighbors."
DB: Rudyard Kipling gives your weekend safety brief
‘Fore ya drink yerself stupid
Well, stupider than ya are
Make sure ya got a DD
‘Fore gettin’ in the car
Make sure you ain’t drivin’
On this your career’ll ‘inge
Make sure the cherry has the keys
On porter and pie you’ll binge
...
(Yeah, there are three more stanzas, but not as good as one would have hoped for Kipling. I actually suspect an imposter wrote it.)
Well, stupider than ya are
Make sure ya got a DD
‘Fore gettin’ in the car
Make sure you ain’t drivin’
On this your career’ll ‘inge
Make sure the cherry has the keys
On porter and pie you’ll binge
...
(Yeah, there are three more stanzas, but not as good as one would have hoped for Kipling. I actually suspect an imposter wrote it.)
France to Enter Permanent State of Emergency
President Emmanuel Macron has pushed for the bill to follow through on a campaign promise to end the state of emergency.... Lawyers and activists have warned that the legislation would essentially make all the state of emergency measures permanent.
It would turn warrantless property searches and house arrests into common police practice. Banning protest marches, shutting down places of worship suspected of sharing extremist views and electronic tagging for surveillance purposes are other powers police would be granted under the legislation.
You Can't Trust People
I'm always suspicious of these 'see something, say something' efforts. They always seem to turn out like this.
In April, the Trump Administration launched what it called the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) hotline, with a stated mission to “provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens.” But internal logs of calls to VOICE obtained by Splinter show that hundreds of Americans seized on the hotline to lodge secret accusations against acquaintances, neighbors, or even their own family members, often to advance petty personal grievances.They're targeting Trump in the article, because of course they are, but 'if you see something, say something' was an Obama-era phrase, adopted by the Feds in 2010. They even trademarked it, as if the government had something to fear from copyright infringement. It was part of the "Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative," which could hardly be a more ominous name. I'm guessing "Spy On Your Neighbor" must have been taken.
Ah, Yes, the "2nd is Racist" Argument Again
This nonsense first came around in 2013, in a better and more developed form. It's still wrong; militias were used for very many purposes, from resisting Spanish incursions from Florida to protecting settlers from Native American raids. The militia didn't have just one purpose, in other words; it was the most effective security available to a frontier civilization not yet possessing the means for sustaining a large police force, and having very good reasons to suspect the wisdom of maintaining a large standing army.
In an environment in which terrorist violence arises in many contexts and without warning, the militia still plays a role in national self-defense. Even with well-organized and effective police, there is going to be a delay in response. Sometimes -- not last weekend, but very often -- an armed and disciplined citizenry can find and fix such terrorists until the police can respond.
Of course, as you all noted the last time around, gun control really does have demonstrably racist roots. Indeed, the NRA was founded in part to help freedmen defend themselves in the post-war South.
In an environment in which terrorist violence arises in many contexts and without warning, the militia still plays a role in national self-defense. Even with well-organized and effective police, there is going to be a delay in response. Sometimes -- not last weekend, but very often -- an armed and disciplined citizenry can find and fix such terrorists until the police can respond.
Of course, as you all noted the last time around, gun control really does have demonstrably racist roots. Indeed, the NRA was founded in part to help freedmen defend themselves in the post-war South.
Viking Deforestation to be Reversed
The Outer Hebrides are going to be restored to an earlier condition, thanks to a project by Scotland.
High-Powered, You Say?
Among the guns and ammunition police found the in the room being used by Paddock were some high-powered rifles considered capable of penetrating police armor.These are also just called "rifles."
DB: Female Infantry Bring Big Changes
A recent Department of Defense study on infantry units revealed that gender-integrated units smelled 237% better than non-integrated units....
Male unit members denied any changes in habits that could have led to the differences, though one was seen kicking a bottle of body spray under his rack as the research team inspected living spaces.
“Nah man, I mean Ma’am, I ain’t changin’ my style just cause we got girls around now. It’s probably all their scented lotions and soap and junk that you smell,” said Cpl. Juan Suarez.
“Yeah, they’re always leavin’ that Moonlight Path shower gel and Warm Vanilla Sugar scrub all over the unisex head, but I have NOT used it,” said his rackmate, Cpl. Steven Walsh, whose skin had a curious soft glow.
American vs. UK Political Divisions
An interesting comparison. I had not realize the numbers were like this. As the numbers in the paragraph below indicate, you can get references for these figures at the link.
In the US, the number of Americans identifying as liberal reached a record high of 24% in 2015 in comparison to the conservative 38%. [1] Britons are almost evenly divided between left and right. [2] Women are generally somewhat more likely to be left-leaning than men [3] but very many are not. 47% of African Americans identify as liberal and 45% as conservative. [4] In the UK, the Conservative party claimed 33% of Black and Middle Eastern voters in comparison to Labour’s 52%, with Black Britons being most likely to vote Labour, whilst among the Asian community, Hindus and Sikhs are more likely to vote Conservative and Muslims to vote Labour.[5] British LGBTs are as likely to be right-wing as left-wing [6]whilst American LGBTs are much more likely to be left-wing,[7] almost certainly because of the religious nature of the American right and its implications for LGBT equality.
Calls for Firing
So, the Vegas situation has at least yielded some hard evidence of something we were debating last week. That discussion got surprisingly heated, but perhaps this is a good occasion to simply show that the thing being discussed does in fact happen.
On this occasion, a CBS reporter wrote on Twitter that she had little sympathy for the victims because they were the kind of people who oppose gun control, or, as she put it, "Repugs" who were "gun toters." This led to calls for her to be fired, echoed across the right-wing side of Twitter today, which led to her in fact being fired by CBS.
I am as I said willing to forgo this kind of vengeance for expressing unpopular sentiments; maybe we even would benefit from a rule protecting private political expressions from employer reprisals. But either we would, or we would not; there can't be two standards. This time, a left-leaning journalist ended up having to play by the one most often applied to the right.
On this occasion, a CBS reporter wrote on Twitter that she had little sympathy for the victims because they were the kind of people who oppose gun control, or, as she put it, "Repugs" who were "gun toters." This led to calls for her to be fired, echoed across the right-wing side of Twitter today, which led to her in fact being fired by CBS.
I am as I said willing to forgo this kind of vengeance for expressing unpopular sentiments; maybe we even would benefit from a rule protecting private political expressions from employer reprisals. But either we would, or we would not; there can't be two standards. This time, a left-leaning journalist ended up having to play by the one most often applied to the right.
No Joy in the Cumberland Gap
41-0 Bulldogs, first shutout of Tennessee since 1994. My many relatives in Tennessee are quiet tonight.
A Communist Insults Mattis
Article 88 only applies to commissioned officers, one of which a certain young buck became this May. His insult towards the Secretary of Defense is timestamped after that. It's a pretty open and shut case, especially for a guy who was kicked out of the Rangers for standards. The 10th Mountain Division, his current unit, will have every reason to see him as a threat to good order and discipline and punish him appropriately.
That's not what I wanted to talk about.
What I want to talk about is RedState's closing argument.
That's not what I wanted to talk about.
What I want to talk about is RedState's closing argument.
Officially, Rampone might be ruined anyway, as he also insulted Vice President Mike Pence on Twitter as well, calling him “a f**king medieval, cold-blooded killer."Negative. "F**king medieval, cold-blooded killer" is a compliment. Mike Pence should be proud.
Religious Tests
Jeff Flake thinks that Republicans need to speak out against Roy Moore's idea of a religious test for public office. Republicans certainly can do what they want; I certainly oppose religious tests for public office. But why would anyone think that it was important to speak out against it? The prohibition of such tests is actually in the Constitution.
Thus, no amount of talk from a presumed Senator Moore is going to add a religious test for public office unless he can persuade enough people to amend the Constitution. If he can do that, then the test would presumably be legitimate. But he can't, of course; you probably couldn't get 75% support for the idea in Alabama, let alone 75% support from the several states.
Rather than raising the profile of the issue, I would simply dismiss it as silly if asked about it and not speak to it if not.
Thus, no amount of talk from a presumed Senator Moore is going to add a religious test for public office unless he can persuade enough people to amend the Constitution. If he can do that, then the test would presumably be legitimate. But he can't, of course; you probably couldn't get 75% support for the idea in Alabama, let alone 75% support from the several states.
Rather than raising the profile of the issue, I would simply dismiss it as silly if asked about it and not speak to it if not.
Symbols pro and con
This mildly amusing cartoon, posted at Maggie's Farm, made me wonder whether the distinguishing factor is whether someone objects more to spurning an ideological symbol or to venerating it.
I, too, would resist being required to venerate a symbol I objected to. To the extent that someone feels he is being pressured to express a political or religious view not his own, I have considerable sympathy for a discreet refusal. Opening ceremonies at my public grade school included both the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer; I cheerfully said the Pledge, without ever giving it much thought, but stood silently through the prayer. I can't imagine what the school would have had to do to force me to join in the prayer. Nevertheless, it didn't occur to me to raise a furious fist, spit on the floor, or go stand in the corner. If I had tried any such thing, my parents wouldn't have backed me up, even though my father despised religion pretty openly. Your religious views are your own, he'd have said, but that doesn't mean you get to insult your neighbors. Don't make public theater out of your resentments unless you're serious about starting a fight, and then don't whine about the results of the fight.
By the same token, if I see someone making an obeisance to a Che banner, or a Communist flag, or a Satanic ritual, I'm not going to shoot them to make them quit, though I do reserve the right to separate myself from them socially, refuse to patronize their store, buy their books, watch their TV shows, root for their sports victories, and so on. They are free to do the same to me if they don't enjoy watching me put my hand over my heart when the Stars and Stripes are being honored.
My sense of the Progressive flashpoints lately is that they instinctively side with someone who breaks ranks and refuses to solemnize a traditional piety. It's understood that such a stance signals a courageous refusal to go along with fascist orthodoxy. They're also primed to feel threatened when someone venerates nearly any symbol; even if the symbol was innocuous yesterday, the whole fun is in being among the first to discover a lurking impurity. Maybe the stitching on the flag was performed in an Asian sweatshop; maybe a past adherent of the creed once owned a slave or attended a church that wouldn't ordain women or gays. It's so much fun to notice the clay feet of any idol that they've lost sight of what used to be an ordinary reaction to the desecration of a beloved symbol. I'm trying now to think of Progressive protests over the desecration of one of their own sacred cows. When such a thing happens, it tends not to take the form of an attitude to a physical icon. The problem usually consists of symbolic action, like refusing to bake a cake.
I, too, would resist being required to venerate a symbol I objected to. To the extent that someone feels he is being pressured to express a political or religious view not his own, I have considerable sympathy for a discreet refusal. Opening ceremonies at my public grade school included both the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer; I cheerfully said the Pledge, without ever giving it much thought, but stood silently through the prayer. I can't imagine what the school would have had to do to force me to join in the prayer. Nevertheless, it didn't occur to me to raise a furious fist, spit on the floor, or go stand in the corner. If I had tried any such thing, my parents wouldn't have backed me up, even though my father despised religion pretty openly. Your religious views are your own, he'd have said, but that doesn't mean you get to insult your neighbors. Don't make public theater out of your resentments unless you're serious about starting a fight, and then don't whine about the results of the fight.
By the same token, if I see someone making an obeisance to a Che banner, or a Communist flag, or a Satanic ritual, I'm not going to shoot them to make them quit, though I do reserve the right to separate myself from them socially, refuse to patronize their store, buy their books, watch their TV shows, root for their sports victories, and so on. They are free to do the same to me if they don't enjoy watching me put my hand over my heart when the Stars and Stripes are being honored.
My sense of the Progressive flashpoints lately is that they instinctively side with someone who breaks ranks and refuses to solemnize a traditional piety. It's understood that such a stance signals a courageous refusal to go along with fascist orthodoxy. They're also primed to feel threatened when someone venerates nearly any symbol; even if the symbol was innocuous yesterday, the whole fun is in being among the first to discover a lurking impurity. Maybe the stitching on the flag was performed in an Asian sweatshop; maybe a past adherent of the creed once owned a slave or attended a church that wouldn't ordain women or gays. It's so much fun to notice the clay feet of any idol that they've lost sight of what used to be an ordinary reaction to the desecration of a beloved symbol. I'm trying now to think of Progressive protests over the desecration of one of their own sacred cows. When such a thing happens, it tends not to take the form of an attitude to a physical icon. The problem usually consists of symbolic action, like refusing to bake a cake.
Missing Tolkien's Point
It's nice to see that he's still read approvingly, all the same.
And the Rohirrim, they're also symbolic of England -- this time, of the Anglo-Saxon heritage. They are the White Horse: the great Anglo-Saxon lord Horsa's name just means "Horse." They stand for another period of English history, without which the rarefied Dunedain lines would never regain their throne -- nor would their lesser heirs, the Stewards of Gondor, have maintained their last kingdom as long as they had.
Nor are even the elves entirely unconnected to England. The Edain became the Dunedain through friendship with the elves, and there is elvish blood in the line of the kings of men. Elrond Half-Elven is kin to Aragorn through Beren.
Insofar as any other nation is represented in Middle Earth, it falls away from the glory of England. There probably has never been a "bigger" patriot than Tolkien in the sense that this author means. Nearly every good thing in Middle Earth is essentially English. Tolkien was at the Somme. He knew what he loved, and what it cost, and it comes through very clearly in his work.
Consider the invaluable depiction of what we might call "small patriotism" in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: "Hobbits are an unobtrusive but very ancient people," Tolkien wrote in the prologue of The Fellowship of the Ring. They are hospitable, nosy, and contentedly devoted to their home, the Shire.The hobbits aren't simply symbolic of England, though: they're symbolic of a part of the English country. The "cities of men" were built by the Numenoreans, the Kings of Men, the Dunedain, Men of the West. These are, well, also "English" -- specifically, they are Norman. They are the grey-eyed men who are 'the race of kings,' and who were and (hopefully!) once again shall be the rightful rulers of the free people of the world. The hobbits love them, and are glad to be ruled by them; but, being hobbits, they also hope to retire back from their grand cities to the beloved countryside with its gardens and pubs.
This love of home is not born of naïveté but clear-eyed commitment to community. "I should like to save the Shire, if I could," the hobbit Frodo muses as he prepares to embark on his quest, "though there have been times when I thought the inhabitants too stupid and dull for words, and have felt that an earthquake or an invasion of dragons might be good for them." Yet at the thought of departing, Frodo adds, "I don't feel like that now. … I feel very small, and very uprooted, and well — desperate."
Frodo does not love the Shire because it is the best country in Middle-earth. It does not boast the striking scenery and deep knowledge of the elven kingdoms, or the security and wealth of the dwarves, or the cosmopolitanism and architecture of the cities of men. The Shire does not have to be the best, for it is already home and already good in its own way.
And the Rohirrim, they're also symbolic of England -- this time, of the Anglo-Saxon heritage. They are the White Horse: the great Anglo-Saxon lord Horsa's name just means "Horse." They stand for another period of English history, without which the rarefied Dunedain lines would never regain their throne -- nor would their lesser heirs, the Stewards of Gondor, have maintained their last kingdom as long as they had.
Nor are even the elves entirely unconnected to England. The Edain became the Dunedain through friendship with the elves, and there is elvish blood in the line of the kings of men. Elrond Half-Elven is kin to Aragorn through Beren.
Insofar as any other nation is represented in Middle Earth, it falls away from the glory of England. There probably has never been a "bigger" patriot than Tolkien in the sense that this author means. Nearly every good thing in Middle Earth is essentially English. Tolkien was at the Somme. He knew what he loved, and what it cost, and it comes through very clearly in his work.
Murder by Neighborhood
In the discussion on statistics below, I wondered about trying to recreate the correlation chart by neighborhood instead of by city. I read an article not long ago that posited that the American murder rate is really quite low, outside of certain cities; but, further, that even within those cities the murder rate was quite low outside of particular neighborhoods. It wasn't this article, but this one is the one I can find and it has some good maps.
My hypothesis is that shifting to a neighborhood picture might restore the correlation between violent crime rates and police shootings. I don't know that this is true, but it's the hypothesis that I'd like to test because I think the answer is important. Is there a way to get the relevant data together to try to test that hypothesis?
It is a known issue, of course, that we are dealing with very small numbers and statistical rarity. Perhaps it's not even worth doing, given how little one can really infer from statistics about rare events.
My hypothesis is that shifting to a neighborhood picture might restore the correlation between violent crime rates and police shootings. I don't know that this is true, but it's the hypothesis that I'd like to test because I think the answer is important. Is there a way to get the relevant data together to try to test that hypothesis?
It is a known issue, of course, that we are dealing with very small numbers and statistical rarity. Perhaps it's not even worth doing, given how little one can really infer from statistics about rare events.
A Familiar Song
That it remains relevant is, I suppose, why I keep hearing it decade after decade.
The vast majority of service members are male, the South is overrepresented, and perhaps most worrisome, military service has increasingly become a family affair....The most current figures are that the military is 65% white, 80% male, and 44% Southern. When we discussed it nine years ago, the only other region that was over-represented was the Mountain West, and I'll bet that remains true.
Families also carry the costs of military service, and surveys indicate military spouses are as likely to have a parent who served as service members today, many of whom already have a child serving as well. This used to be far closer to the norm – with 77% of adults over 50 indicating they had an immediate family member who served, as compared to only 33% of those ages 18–29. These surveys echo the Department of Defense’s own findings that approximately 80% of enlisted recruits have a family member who served, with over 25% noting they had a parent who served. Though it varies from service to service, the trendline in American society is stark.
It Depends on What the Meaning of "Prevailing" Is
I kind of thought it was the other side that wanted this, but depending on how you define that one word, I guess Brokaw could be right.
I think the root of the dispute may be about which culture should prevail, and whether or not it will be necessary to destroy the other one in order to do it.
NBC News’ Tom Brokaw claimed that President Donald Trump, and “some people on the right,” want “to destroy the prevailing culture in this country” during an interview....Well, good for you for listening, Tom. But maybe you should have asked them if they felt like they were trying to destroy the "prevailing" culture, or if in fact they thought that what you were doing was aimed at destroying the "prevailing" American culture.
"And I, you know — when I go out and talk to people in the West who are Trump voters, they said, 'We’re still with him. We think it’s your fault, talking about us,'" Brokaw said. "But then they’ll say, 'I wish he would just shut up for a while.' You know, that he ... has to talk about who he is and how great he is."
I think the root of the dispute may be about which culture should prevail, and whether or not it will be necessary to destroy the other one in order to do it.
Medieval Walking
This video suggests that Medieval people did not generally walk around the way we do, but in a 'more natural' way that improves posture. This is taken to be helpful in explaining some illustrations from the I.33 fencing manual, and to be a function of the way footwear of the period seems to have been designed.
The idea isn't that people really 'walked differently,' then, but that the structure of shoes affects how you walk. Our tendency to take big steps leading with the heel is made possible by well-structured shoes that will protect our feet from anything we might step on, and that have adequate structure to accept our weight all at once. Walk around barefoot, and you may walk the way he's talking about -- leading with the ball of the foot, testing the ground before settling your weight.
Well, maybe. It's interesting to think about, anyway.
What to Look For
DHS is supposedly going to be collecting information on social media use by those who would like to enter the country as non-citizens.
Just in case they're wondering what to look for, here are some examples of things they might pay more attention to than previously.
Just in case they're wondering what to look for, here are some examples of things they might pay more attention to than previously.
Two Views of White America
One view: white supremacy is everywhere!
Another view: rural whites aren't enjoying very much supremacy at all.
Maybe it's not really about "white" versus others; maybe it's got more to do with other things. But our discourse seems locked in on the idea that race is the most important thing we need to talk about.
Another view: rural whites aren't enjoying very much supremacy at all.
Maybe it's not really about "white" versus others; maybe it's got more to do with other things. But our discourse seems locked in on the idea that race is the most important thing we need to talk about.
"Have You Forgotten?"
AVI's been running a useful series by this title. Here's one I had forgotten: President Obama fired the head of G.M.
Last night, the CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, was fired by the President of the United States. Perhaps not “fired” in the strict legal sense – if legalities matter anymore – but certainly fired for all effective purposes. In a statement by Wagoner released last night, the now-former CEO states specifically that Administration officials “requested that I “step aside”’ as CEO of GM.” “And so I have,” he said. No pretense of an agonized decision, no pretending that the board asked him to go, simply that the White House asked him to go and he left.So apparently the President can sometimes call for firings without it being a big deal.
It’s hard to feel sorry for Mr. Wagoner. Not only did he lead GM into economic ruin, but he led the charge to Washington, D.C. for handouts.... The real concern is not that Wagoner was fired, but that he was fired by the White House and not a bankruptcy judge.
The American Legion takes Hollywood
Well, at least one bar in Hollywood.
The young guns who have seized control of American Legion Post 43 are trying to fuse them together in the minds of a new generation of combat veterans, rebranding their venerable Egyptian Revival building, with its underground Art Deco bar, as “the coolest private club in Hollywood.”Bugs Bunny's generation would be proud.
“We have the cheapest drinks, the nicest people, the best-looking bar,” says Post Commander Fernando Rivero, a 42-year-old TV producer who engineered a bloodless coup that overthrew Post 43’s old guard....
Down the road from the Hollywood Bowl, Post 43 has long ties to the entertainment industry. Clark Gable, Charlton Heston, Ronald Reagan and Rudy Vallee were members. Shirley Temple was an honorary colonel, and photos of her curls stand out in the Post museum amid the machine guns, a dog-tag stamping machine and an Adolf Hitler pin cushion. (Suffice it to say he’s bent over.)
Studies and Data
The other day AVI posted a link, which I found very interesting, to a refutation of a prominent study allegedly showing that police were more disrespectful to minorities. In fact (and this perfectly mirrors my anecdotal experience), the police are almost perfectly formal with everyone in their professional encounters.
Of course, 'disrespect' isn't really what's at the back of the current dispute; what's at issue is people getting killed by police, not people being subject to rude language by police. Vanity Fair has compiled 18 sources of data that all seem to point in the same direction on that.
Some of these sources are better than others. All of them may be subject to the usual problems of confirmation bias, and the fact that people in the academy really want to prove racism (and may, indeed, fear for their careers if they seem to disprove it). I understand all that; but some of these findings are worth noticing.
This one jumps out at me above all:
Number three, though, that's astonishing. It's completely counter-intuitive. But here's the chart:
It seems like there ought to be at least some answers in all this data, at least that part of it that looks reliable on examination. I'm inclined to continue to favor the hypothesis that training is largely at fault, as I have argued in the past, because it could in theory account for this strange lack of correlation between violent crime rates and police killings. If they're being trained to resort to guns in the face of certain stimuli, then a number of considerations related to an in-context analysis of how dangerous an environment really is may drop out of the 'shoot/no-shoot' decision.
In any case, a look at the data is more hopeful than another round of 'hey, let's hate each other' shouting. Take a look. Maybe you'll see something that helps.
Of course, 'disrespect' isn't really what's at the back of the current dispute; what's at issue is people getting killed by police, not people being subject to rude language by police. Vanity Fair has compiled 18 sources of data that all seem to point in the same direction on that.
Some of these sources are better than others. All of them may be subject to the usual problems of confirmation bias, and the fact that people in the academy really want to prove racism (and may, indeed, fear for their careers if they seem to disprove it). I understand all that; but some of these findings are worth noticing.
This one jumps out at me above all:
3. An analysis of the use of lethal force by police in 2015 found no correlation between the level of violent crime in an area and that area’s police killing rates.Numbers one and two establish that unarmed people are much more likely to be killed if they are black; that's of small concern to me, since I'm typically always armed, but it suggests that non-black Americans have more leeway to 'opt out' of violent encounters with the police.
Number three, though, that's astonishing. It's completely counter-intuitive. But here's the chart:
It seems like there ought to be at least some answers in all this data, at least that part of it that looks reliable on examination. I'm inclined to continue to favor the hypothesis that training is largely at fault, as I have argued in the past, because it could in theory account for this strange lack of correlation between violent crime rates and police killings. If they're being trained to resort to guns in the face of certain stimuli, then a number of considerations related to an in-context analysis of how dangerous an environment really is may drop out of the 'shoot/no-shoot' decision.
In any case, a look at the data is more hopeful than another round of 'hey, let's hate each other' shouting. Take a look. Maybe you'll see something that helps.
Wooden Viking "Sword" Found in Ireland
This one is said to be "perfectly preserved," which is always surprising in a thousand year old find.
A View from the Left
The state is the biggest threat to freedom of speech, argues a writer at the Atlantic. Well, of course it is; the state is always the biggest threat. The state is the only organization with an army and a secret police allowed to run around. But it's fair to hear out the other side, especially when they are arguing against interest -- normally concerns about the power of the state are right-leaning, and the left likes to think that only milk and kindness flow from the government.
Still, there is a core to the complaint that is valid, and deserves attention.
At Texas A&M, Tommy Curry, a black professor, was driven from his home with his family after his controversial remarks on violence and race drew the attention of American Conservative columnist Rod Dreher; singling out left-wing college professors is a frequent source of content at Steve Bannon’s Breitbart News. The former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick cannot find employment in the the National Football League after his protests against police brutality. A police union in St. Louis urged members to bombard a local store owner with calls, after he accused some officers of misconduct, one of several recent examples of police unions attempting to intimidate critics. Black Lives Matter activists protesting the lack of accountability in lethal shootings of black men by police are routinely attacked as terrorists....Some of the complaints are silly (the French were in no way harmed by the "Freedom Fries" thing), and some are unfair (even though we have frequently observed failures to hold police officers accountable for improper shootings, it is too strong to paint them as having "the authority to kill").
Neither have some conservatives disdained to use of the power or authority of the state to censor free speech. Republican legislators have proposed “Blue Lives Matter” bills that essentially criminalize peaceful protest; bills that all but outlaw protest itself; and bills that offer some protections to drivers who strike protestors with automobiles. GOP lawmakers have used the state to restrict speech, such as barring doctors from raising abortion or guns with patients, opposition to the construction of Muslim religious buildings, and attempts to stifle anti-Israel activism.
Still, there is a core to the complaint that is valid, and deserves attention.
Too Bad They Could Only Dream of Food
The NYT: "For all its flaws, the Communist revolution taught Chinese women to dream big."
Firing People for Self-Expression
Like last month, writing a memo that said things people found uncomfortable was a good enough reason for Google to fire somebody and for the rest of the tech world to refuse to ever hire him again. Refusal to bake a cake was a good reason to destroy someone's business. Now the ability to express yourself without reprisals is the "literal" basis of America?
I mean, I'm fine with the idea that the expression of political ideas should be protected. It's true that sometimes it can advance the work of justice, and that protests can be important. Even apart from that, working people will ordinarily have interests that are different from their employers. They should be free to organize, to advance those interests, and their employers shouldn't -- morally, I mean -- fire them for advancing their interest. Democrats used to understand that; how are you going to advance a view like "Join the Union" if employers can just fire everyone who joins the union, or talks about joining the union, or seems interested in unions? You'd think Democrats would argue that way, even though normally they haven't done so lately.
But I'm getting whiplash from all the people who are joining pitchfork-bearing mobs to get people fired one day, and then talking about how sacred free expression is the next day. Can we pick a principle and stick to it? People should be free to express themselves without losing their jobs -- true or false?
I mean, I'm fine with the idea that the expression of political ideas should be protected. It's true that sometimes it can advance the work of justice, and that protests can be important. Even apart from that, working people will ordinarily have interests that are different from their employers. They should be free to organize, to advance those interests, and their employers shouldn't -- morally, I mean -- fire them for advancing their interest. Democrats used to understand that; how are you going to advance a view like "Join the Union" if employers can just fire everyone who joins the union, or talks about joining the union, or seems interested in unions? You'd think Democrats would argue that way, even though normally they haven't done so lately.
But I'm getting whiplash from all the people who are joining pitchfork-bearing mobs to get people fired one day, and then talking about how sacred free expression is the next day. Can we pick a principle and stick to it? People should be free to express themselves without losing their jobs -- true or false?
Consciousness Inheres
An interesting argument, although I am in general inclined to accept arguments that point towards Neoplatonic readings.
Raw material
What happens to us doesn't have to make sense or be fair. What we do should make sense and be fair.
“You’re going to recover from this,” he remembered telling the doctor. “You’re going to be a doctor for the rest of your life, and you will use this experience to be a better doctor.”We can substitute anything else for "doctor" in that advice.
Rangers Lead The Way
Alejandro Villanueva is a man who keeps his oaths. That is all. That is enough.
Potentiality is First Actuality
This has the potential to be the greatest movie ever made.
It won't be, of course. It's hard to live up to that kind of potential.
On the other hand, most movies don't even have that much potential. They're just another superhero flick, or another romantic comedy, or whatever. This one has real potential, and real potential is already something.
It won't be, of course. It's hard to live up to that kind of potential.
On the other hand, most movies don't even have that much potential. They're just another superhero flick, or another romantic comedy, or whatever. This one has real potential, and real potential is already something.
What About Confession?
Not that long ago I mentioned a film sequence from Roman Polanski's Pirates!, in which one pirate proposes to eat the other rather than starve at sea on a the equivalent of a life boat.
"Cannibalism is a mortal sin," the other says. "You will burn in hellfire."
"What about confession?" asks Captain Red. "What do you think confession is for?"
These questions come up from time to time.
"Cannibalism is a mortal sin," the other says. "You will burn in hellfire."
"What about confession?" asks Captain Red. "What do you think confession is for?"
These questions come up from time to time.
Fighting Inequality
School bans kids from having best friends.
Equality may just not be the right goal, most of the time. That doesn't mean it isn't crucially important in those limited cases in which it really is the right goal. It just means that, often, it's not what we should be after. Pursuing it instead of the proper goal is unlikely to work out well.
Thomas’s Battersea, the school George attends, bans kids from having best friends, Marie Claire reports. Instead, teachers encourage all students to form bonds with one another to avoid creating feelings of exclusions among those without best friends.Equality sure turns out to be a problematic goal. Maybe we should consider the possibility that it isn't always the right goal. Hannah Arendt said that the only sense in which equality was desirable was 'equality before the law,' which we have definitely not attained and could still usefully be working on achieving. Maybe most of these other senses of the word are actually even undesirable. I don't want good doctors and bad doctors equally likely to be my doctor, and indeed, I don't know that I want bad doctors even equally likely to be doctors. I'm sure I don't want everyone equally likely to be doctors, whether or not they are otherwise qualified.
The trend of banning best friends has been growing for several years, and it’s spread beyond European borders to American schools as well. Some psychologists and parents argue kids become more well-adjusted when they have larger friend groups and can avoid negative feelings associated with feeling left out.
Equality may just not be the right goal, most of the time. That doesn't mean it isn't crucially important in those limited cases in which it really is the right goal. It just means that, often, it's not what we should be after. Pursuing it instead of the proper goal is unlikely to work out well.
A Brief History of Selling the Iran Deal by Bashing Jews
The Obama administration's signature policy accomplishment was sold to the American people with a pack of lies, and an inversion of the Constitution.
What you may not have noticed -- I didn't, until it was pointed out -- was how much it was also sold with openly anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish deal opponents. Fold that in with the piece from last week on whether or not observant Jews might be rethinking their politics. It's not as if they haven't got good reasons to do so.
As for the rest of us, as we watch the Iran deal recertification process that's coming up in the next few weeks, it's worth keeping all this in mind. We were never told the truth about this. The 'ratification' process was an unconstitutional sham. That it is also built on what is at best a reckless unconcern with the threat of nuclear genocide aimed at Israel is worth noticing, too.
What you may not have noticed -- I didn't, until it was pointed out -- was how much it was also sold with openly anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish deal opponents. Fold that in with the piece from last week on whether or not observant Jews might be rethinking their politics. It's not as if they haven't got good reasons to do so.
As for the rest of us, as we watch the Iran deal recertification process that's coming up in the next few weeks, it's worth keeping all this in mind. We were never told the truth about this. The 'ratification' process was an unconstitutional sham. That it is also built on what is at best a reckless unconcern with the threat of nuclear genocide aimed at Israel is worth noticing, too.
What Killed Comedy?
I never especially liked Mel Brooks' style of comedy, but lots of people did. Everyone has therefore noticed his remarks on the baleful effect of political correctness on his art.
I didn't see as many people notice that John Cleese of Monty Python fame made very similar remarks quite recently.
I didn't see as many people notice that John Cleese of Monty Python fame made very similar remarks quite recently.
The problem is that people are knee-jerk in thinking something is offensive. Sometimes in my show I say, “There were these two Mexicans” and immediately the whole audience goes, “Oooh.” People think something is going to be offensive before it’s even been said. The story I then tell involves an American patrol boat in the Gulf of Mexico. The guy on the boat is cruising along, and suddenly sees two Mexicans going for the border. The guy says, “Hey, what are you doing?” And the Mexicans say, “We’re invading America.” And the guy on the boat says, “What, just the two of you?” And the Mexicans say back, “Oh no, we’re the last ones. The others are already there.”Cleese is both old and rich, which means he doesn't have to care what you think of his humor any more. That's good, because not caring if he offended people is how he got rich. I assume he got old in the usual way.
Oy, John.
But is that a nasty joke? Think about the content of it. The Mexicans are actually the heroes! They’ve won! There are millions of Mexicans in America. Are we trying to pretend that isn’t the case? So is that a nasty story to tell? I don’t think it is.
The Militia.
Well, I think they're all between 17 and 45. In 1595, the English in their musters began to count men with longbows as unarmed men. Don't know about shoes though.
To Autumn
In Georgia, this begins the best time of year.
In other places, the end of summer may be met with less joy. The thought of long winter months in snowclad rooms may be as oppressive as the long heat and humid air of the Deep South. But for us, here, today looks like the promise of crisp mornings and cool evenings, a season of bonfires and festivals crowned at last by the Yuletide.
I hope you find the joy in it.
A Female Marine Infantry Officer
The Corps finally found a woman who could pass its notoriously-tough Infantry Officer's Course (IOC). Over five years of attempts, the previous 36 women have failed (I have read in one source that this candidate failed once before, but that doesn't seem to be confirmed in every source). About one in four men who attempt the course fail it.
To her credit, she seems not to want to be named -- just to carry on with the work.
Good hunting.
To her credit, she seems not to want to be named -- just to carry on with the work.
Good hunting.
Did He Actually Say "Deplorable"?
The Holy See has taken a remarkably unwise position in response to President Trump's recent UN address.
What the President said was, "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
As I understand it, Just War Theory endorses defensive war by legitimate governments. That is what is being described here.
Just War Theory does potentially have an issue with the totality claim: in theory one should wage war in the way most likely to allow noncombatants to survive. Yet this is not a threat to totally destroy North Korea by preference, it is a warning that there won't be any other option.
Military force may be the only way of countering proliferation, practically speaking. Is the claim that it would be better to allow nuclear proliferation to states like the DPRK than to stop it using military force?
Finally, I notice that the ideology in the DPRK's case actually calls for the elimination of religions like Catholicism -- indeed, of all religions except for their own weird cult around the Kim family. That seems like a point that the Church ought to be interested in.
The rising tensions over North Korea’s growing nuclear program are of special urgency. The international community must respond by seeking to revive negotiations. The threat or use of military force have no place in countering proliferation, and the threat or use of nuclear weapons in countering nuclear proliferation are deplorable. We must put behind us the nuclear threats, fear, military superiority, ideology, and unilateralism that drive proliferation and modernization efforts and are so reminiscent of the logic of the Cold War.A few things.
What the President said was, "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
As I understand it, Just War Theory endorses defensive war by legitimate governments. That is what is being described here.
Just War Theory does potentially have an issue with the totality claim: in theory one should wage war in the way most likely to allow noncombatants to survive. Yet this is not a threat to totally destroy North Korea by preference, it is a warning that there won't be any other option.
Military force may be the only way of countering proliferation, practically speaking. Is the claim that it would be better to allow nuclear proliferation to states like the DPRK than to stop it using military force?
Finally, I notice that the ideology in the DPRK's case actually calls for the elimination of religions like Catholicism -- indeed, of all religions except for their own weird cult around the Kim family. That seems like a point that the Church ought to be interested in.
Meet Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich
Were that it were a happier occasion to introduce him to you, but in the aftermath of the recent school shooting at Freeman High School in Spokane, Washington, Sheriff Knezovich held a press conference where he spoke candidly and thoughtfully. I don't agree with everything he said, but he seemed refreshingly honest and considered in his speaking, and spoke the truth on many things. Perhaps someday he might consider running for a higher office.
It's a twenty two minute video, but there seemed to be value in most all of it, so I did not opt for edited versions. Some of the answers to the press questions were particularly excellent.
It's a twenty two minute video, but there seemed to be value in most all of it, so I did not opt for edited versions. Some of the answers to the press questions were particularly excellent.
Independence Referenda
Harald Hardrada
This video history has a couple of 'stretchers,' as Fritz Leiber put it, but for the most part it is accurate.
I'm a bit familiar with the history. When I lived in China I wrote a book, just for fun, on the Varangian Guard in Byzantium. I felt a kind of kinship to them, being in a very different and very old civilization. You could hardly get books to read in English at that point, although I'm sure it's better now. The ones you could get were all classics to avoid them being current-service Western propaganda, so it was a great time for me in that I read Moby Dick, and Ivanhoe, and Waverly, and many other great books I'd never gotten around to before.
So I'd say the stretchers are the idea that the Hardrada went to Vinland, for example; some of his exploits against the Arabs may be overstated. But he did have exploits against the Arabs, and he did venture widely. His is an interesting story, well worth knowing.
I'm a bit familiar with the history. When I lived in China I wrote a book, just for fun, on the Varangian Guard in Byzantium. I felt a kind of kinship to them, being in a very different and very old civilization. You could hardly get books to read in English at that point, although I'm sure it's better now. The ones you could get were all classics to avoid them being current-service Western propaganda, so it was a great time for me in that I read Moby Dick, and Ivanhoe, and Waverly, and many other great books I'd never gotten around to before.
So I'd say the stretchers are the idea that the Hardrada went to Vinland, for example; some of his exploits against the Arabs may be overstated. But he did have exploits against the Arabs, and he did venture widely. His is an interesting story, well worth knowing.
Sold
A Vox correspondent:
I have spent the bulk of 2017 writing about the different Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.That's just what I want done with it. Carry on smartly.
Graham-Cassidy, in my view, is the most radical of them all.
While other Republican plans essentially create a poorly funded version of the Affordable Care Act, Graham-Cassidy blows it up.
Riding the Tiger
We have gotten to the point at which it's necessary to start admitting to the things denied until this last week, perhaps because you can't proceed to indictments without admitting the wiretapping on which those indictments might be based.
Shane the Rebel?
Victor Davis Hanson is definitely right that Hollywood and others treated Confederates as 'cool' not that long ago, especially in the 1950s, and then again in the late 1960s and through the early 1980s. He's also right that this was done in two quite different ways: the 1950s Confederates were flawed men (especially in Stagecoach and The Searchers), whose code was ultimately destructive to themselves and the kind of civilization they represented. Nevertheless, they were possessed of at least some virtues that enabled them to do hard things on the frontier.
And in the Flower Power era, buttons and patches of the rebel flag were sold right along peace signs in various counterculture magazines. Just as bikers and hippies were two ways of representing rejection of 'the system,' the Outlaw Country thing was just one more mode of rebellion. I think Hanson is too harsh in his reading of this era, which was more youthfully foolish in its sense that it could just embrace the good things and walk away from the bad ones. Still, I wrote about all this recently myself, so I don't disagree that it was a feature of the era.
What really strikes me as wrong, though, is his reading of Shane.
The character who plays the Southern sodbuster is playfully but thoroughly mocked by the other sodbusters earlier in the movie. It's clear that they are prepared to accept him in spite of his Southern roots, but not to let him live down having been on the losing side of the war. There is therefore no sense that this conflict is a proxy between former Confederates and former Unionists (as was in fact the case at Tombstone in 1881, and thus legitimately colored several movie treatments of it: the Republican, Union-leaning Earp faction against the Confederate, Democratic cowboys).
Rather, what Shane does by repeating the sodbuster's chosen challenge is to take up the cause of a fallen friend, and make it good for him. It's not that the cause was otherwise Shane's; in fact, the power of the scene lies partly in the fact that it wasn't. He took up a cause that wasn't his, and made it good out of friendship.
Read that way, the sequence harmonizes with the larger sweep of the movie. Shane is really a medieval knight who, for love of a lady, enters into a feud between a virtuous landholder and an evil robber baron. Together, the virtuous landholder and the knight errant make good the better claim to the land; but the virtuous landlord is married to the lady, and the knight therefore has a hard choice. In Shane, he makes the best choice, riding off to suffer loss of love in return for knowing he did the right thing. It works out otherwise in other versions of the story.
As a knight errant, Shane doesn't have a cause of his own. That's why his entry into the feud is a sacrifice worthy of the lady; it's why his suffering in the feud is a sacrifice at all, rather than merely his feudal duty. During his defense of the lady's interests, he becomes a friend of the landlord, and his further sacrifices for the landlord are another set of noble sacrifices. His choice to avenge his friend the sodbuster is of this same kind. The sodbuster's cause is not Shane's, but Shane takes it up as a champion long enough to strike down the Black Knight in its name. Shane's nobility is in his willingness to do these things for no personal gain, nor out of any personal duty, but because of a virtuous love for good and decent people.
So no, Shane wasn't a Confederate taking up his old cause in a petty shootout in a tavern, having lost it in a war. That reading fails to grasp the kind of story that is being told, or the kind of man that Shane's character is supposed to be. It's a much older kind of story than that, a better kind.
And in the Flower Power era, buttons and patches of the rebel flag were sold right along peace signs in various counterculture magazines. Just as bikers and hippies were two ways of representing rejection of 'the system,' the Outlaw Country thing was just one more mode of rebellion. I think Hanson is too harsh in his reading of this era, which was more youthfully foolish in its sense that it could just embrace the good things and walk away from the bad ones. Still, I wrote about all this recently myself, so I don't disagree that it was a feature of the era.
What really strikes me as wrong, though, is his reading of Shane.
In George Stevens’s mythic Shane (1953), the tragedy of the post–Civil War heroic gunslinger seems eerily tied to his past as an against-the-odds ex-Reb. In contrast, the movie’s odious villain, Unionist Jack Wilson, is a hired gun and company man (brilliantly portrayed by then newcomer Jack Palance). Wilson shows off his bought cred by gunning down a naïve southern sodbuster, “Stonewall” Torrey (played by Elisha Cook Jr.), accompanied by slurs about the Confederacy. (“I’m saying that Stonewall Jackson was trash himself. Him and Lee and all the rest of them Rebs. You too.”)I've written about Shane too, and even that very sequence, but I never once had the idea that Shane was supposed to be a former Confederate. That doesn't strike me as a plausible reading of what happens in the movie.
In the movie’s final shootout, replaying the Civil War provides the catalyst for more violence. This time Shane — and the heroic South — wins for good, with a payback Civil War exchange with Wilson:
Shane: I’ve heard about you, Jack Wilson.
Wilson: What have you heard, Shane?
Shane: I’ve heard that you’re a low-down Yankee liar.
Wilson: Prove it.
Wilson is then blown back across the barroom under a hail of bullets. Even out on the Wyoming range, the Hollywood subtext is that sodbuster homesteaders can find a former Confederate loser to protect them, with courage and chivalry, against the northern corporatists trying to steamroll them. The noble savior Shane, we are assumed to believe, had no part in slavery or insurrection but was fighting for his southern soil in service to the Confederacy.
The character who plays the Southern sodbuster is playfully but thoroughly mocked by the other sodbusters earlier in the movie. It's clear that they are prepared to accept him in spite of his Southern roots, but not to let him live down having been on the losing side of the war. There is therefore no sense that this conflict is a proxy between former Confederates and former Unionists (as was in fact the case at Tombstone in 1881, and thus legitimately colored several movie treatments of it: the Republican, Union-leaning Earp faction against the Confederate, Democratic cowboys).
Rather, what Shane does by repeating the sodbuster's chosen challenge is to take up the cause of a fallen friend, and make it good for him. It's not that the cause was otherwise Shane's; in fact, the power of the scene lies partly in the fact that it wasn't. He took up a cause that wasn't his, and made it good out of friendship.
Read that way, the sequence harmonizes with the larger sweep of the movie. Shane is really a medieval knight who, for love of a lady, enters into a feud between a virtuous landholder and an evil robber baron. Together, the virtuous landholder and the knight errant make good the better claim to the land; but the virtuous landlord is married to the lady, and the knight therefore has a hard choice. In Shane, he makes the best choice, riding off to suffer loss of love in return for knowing he did the right thing. It works out otherwise in other versions of the story.
As a knight errant, Shane doesn't have a cause of his own. That's why his entry into the feud is a sacrifice worthy of the lady; it's why his suffering in the feud is a sacrifice at all, rather than merely his feudal duty. During his defense of the lady's interests, he becomes a friend of the landlord, and his further sacrifices for the landlord are another set of noble sacrifices. His choice to avenge his friend the sodbuster is of this same kind. The sodbuster's cause is not Shane's, but Shane takes it up as a champion long enough to strike down the Black Knight in its name. Shane's nobility is in his willingness to do these things for no personal gain, nor out of any personal duty, but because of a virtuous love for good and decent people.
So no, Shane wasn't a Confederate taking up his old cause in a petty shootout in a tavern, having lost it in a war. That reading fails to grasp the kind of story that is being told, or the kind of man that Shane's character is supposed to be. It's a much older kind of story than that, a better kind.
True Enough
“The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”Some speechwriter deserves a pat on the head for that line.
A New Middle East
Egypt's President urges Palestinians to lay aside grievances, co-exist with Israel. In completely unrelated news, the United States just opened a permanent military base in Israel for the first time.
Israel's survival is not thereby assured; Iran keeps promising to wipe it out with its missile program. But I heard somebody say something encouraging on that front today, so maybe it'll work out.
UPDATE: Also good news, Turkey isn't going to get some US weapons. They're not really allies any more, not under this government. Many Turks are great people, but at the moment we can no longer regard them as an ally.
Israel's survival is not thereby assured; Iran keeps promising to wipe it out with its missile program. But I heard somebody say something encouraging on that front today, so maybe it'll work out.
UPDATE: Also good news, Turkey isn't going to get some US weapons. They're not really allies any more, not under this government. Many Turks are great people, but at the moment we can no longer regard them as an ally.
Carrying a Knife is Legal in Georgia
This story has all the tribal things going on, which is going to make it hard to discuss rationally. Nevertheless, I think the headline captures the most crucial factor. Let's go to the story.
Under current law, a pocket knife of the size in question doesn't even qualify as a regulated weapon -- only knives 12" or longer are regulated, and those are legal to carry if you have a Weapons Carry Permit. Thus, when you see someone carrying around even a big knife, you can't assume they're committing a crime.
On a college campus, well, the law has just recently changed there too: Georgia instituted Campus Carry this spring. So, "person carrying a knife" is not evidence of a crime; the right response by the police might include 'lets keep an eye on them' but not 'let's draw guns and order them to drop the weapon.' Legally, it's not even considered a weapon.
The video makes it clear that the police bracketed this student from at least two and probably three positions (the last judging from an officer appearing from that direction right after the shooting). The closest one was behind a physical barricade.
The student was definitely being challenging and aggressive towards the police, which is usually a bad idea. The student chose to advance on the female officer, who was not the one behind a physical barricade. Though this student "identifies as non-gender-binary," the student was born male and was larger than the female officer. A reasonable female officer of her size, opposed by a larger person whom the officers clearly took for a male, might have felt that her options for effective self defense were limited. Though the knife was closed, it can be opened quickly; though she had numerous friends, and they had their target bracketed, she could not be sure anyone else would kill the student before a clash became actualized. Shooting to stop the aggressive advance may well have made sense, once she found herself in that position.
But why did they get in this position at all? I'm not concerned for myself, as there's an obvious road to avoiding getting killed in this circumstance -- put down the knife and discuss the issue with the police once you've made them comfortable. But this was clearly legal behavior, which they responded to by initiating an interaction built around the immediate threat of lethal force. They did this in spite of superior numbers on the scene, and in spite of the fact that the perfectly legal knife wasn't even open.
Lethal force in Georgia is supposed to be used only to stop an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. In theory, that standard applies to police and other citizens equally. While they may have gotten to a place where the officer could reasonably claim that she felt she met that standard, they put themselves one step away from shooting in the absence of evidence of any crime at all.
When Lynne Schultz first heard that her oldest child, Scout, had been shot and killed by a Georgia Tech police officer late Saturday night, she assumed it occurred at a protest rally.The GBI is investigating. I also have some questions I'd like answered.
Scout, she says, was politically active in progressive causes.... According to Georgia Tech police, Scout was seen walking toward police and ignored numerous orders to drop what appeared to be a pocket knife. Photos of the knife taken at the scene reveal the blade was not extended.
Video of the incident showed Scout, 21, shouting “Shoot me!” to the four officers on the scene. A minute later, one of them did.
Under current law, a pocket knife of the size in question doesn't even qualify as a regulated weapon -- only knives 12" or longer are regulated, and those are legal to carry if you have a Weapons Carry Permit. Thus, when you see someone carrying around even a big knife, you can't assume they're committing a crime.
On a college campus, well, the law has just recently changed there too: Georgia instituted Campus Carry this spring. So, "person carrying a knife" is not evidence of a crime; the right response by the police might include 'lets keep an eye on them' but not 'let's draw guns and order them to drop the weapon.' Legally, it's not even considered a weapon.
The video makes it clear that the police bracketed this student from at least two and probably three positions (the last judging from an officer appearing from that direction right after the shooting). The closest one was behind a physical barricade.
The student was definitely being challenging and aggressive towards the police, which is usually a bad idea. The student chose to advance on the female officer, who was not the one behind a physical barricade. Though this student "identifies as non-gender-binary," the student was born male and was larger than the female officer. A reasonable female officer of her size, opposed by a larger person whom the officers clearly took for a male, might have felt that her options for effective self defense were limited. Though the knife was closed, it can be opened quickly; though she had numerous friends, and they had their target bracketed, she could not be sure anyone else would kill the student before a clash became actualized. Shooting to stop the aggressive advance may well have made sense, once she found herself in that position.
But why did they get in this position at all? I'm not concerned for myself, as there's an obvious road to avoiding getting killed in this circumstance -- put down the knife and discuss the issue with the police once you've made them comfortable. But this was clearly legal behavior, which they responded to by initiating an interaction built around the immediate threat of lethal force. They did this in spite of superior numbers on the scene, and in spite of the fact that the perfectly legal knife wasn't even open.
Lethal force in Georgia is supposed to be used only to stop an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. In theory, that standard applies to police and other citizens equally. While they may have gotten to a place where the officer could reasonably claim that she felt she met that standard, they put themselves one step away from shooting in the absence of evidence of any crime at all.
View from the eye
This is a compilation I was looking for earlier, taken in mid-Rockport, with good time markers so you can see what part of the storm you're in and how long each part lasted--hours of intense wind from the east, then a long calm, then hours of intense wind from the west. This is the new Fairmont Hotel on Hwy. 35, looking north to the La Quinta across the street. I think we lost our internet feed around 7:30 or 8:00 pm Friday night; my last post reported that the house wasn't shuddering yet. We're about 10 miles northeast of where this footage was shot, so the eye went over us maybe half an hour later than it did in town, at about the same intensity. The peak winds from the first wall hit us around 10:45pm, the second wall a couple of hours later, and we were calm again before dawn. Notice that this hotel came apart but our house did not!
Sorry about the ad at the beginning, you can skip after a few seconds.
The cleanup effort is having an odd effect on me. People I was trying to help before who were making me miserable because I couldn't find anything to do that they wouldn't obstruct or bat away in some fashion have now fallen completely off my radar. It's a variety of triage: if you're part of the problem instead of the solution, if your attitude is making things worse instead of better, I suddenly have other priorities to turn to, almost completely guilt-free. Want to tell me how your daughter-in-law presumed to arrange for repairs without something or other first, poor you, FEMA is too stingy, I'm not insured, etc.? Nope. Moving on. A neighbor called me yesterday somewhat miffed that she was just now hearing that there was some kind of list she was supposed to get on for help getting the roving volunteer teams to come to her. She didn't know she had to get on a list. I didn't even get mad at her; I just observed mildly that it was important to ask clearly for help (a lesson I've always had trouble learning).
Survivor guilt is making lots of us medium crazy. Yesterday I found myself eating a piece of cake and mentioned to a companion that I was eating things I normally wouldn't, but I keep weighing every day and am not gaining, so I guess it's OK. She sniffed at me, "Well. I guess if you have time to weigh yourself, you're not very busy." Again, not even tempted to snap at her. She just moves off of my radar screen for the time being. If you know you're helping enough, you don't have to pay attention to the self-appointed monitors' opinion of whether your effort is up to snuff, or where your level of suffering fits in her scale of just deserts.
This morning on our dog walk my husband got a cell-phone call, a rare event for him, as he hates to conduct business by phone. Some chick was on the line was yelling at him that she just wanted to get hold of the person who called her a butthead. I could hear him saying, "Whom did you think you were calling? I really have no idea what you're talking about." She finally instructed him never to call again. He readily undertook not to do so, and blocked her number. Ironically, of course, now we do think she is a butthead, whoever she is, the creature.
My husband keeps explaining to me that survivor guilt is irrational. Why should he feel guilty because he built a sturdy house? Well, that's like explaining that a fear of heights is irrational. Sure it is; so what? Do people really think feelings don't happen because we know they're different from rational analysis? (OK, I know the answer to that question. ;-))
Sorry about the ad at the beginning, you can skip after a few seconds.
The cleanup effort is having an odd effect on me. People I was trying to help before who were making me miserable because I couldn't find anything to do that they wouldn't obstruct or bat away in some fashion have now fallen completely off my radar. It's a variety of triage: if you're part of the problem instead of the solution, if your attitude is making things worse instead of better, I suddenly have other priorities to turn to, almost completely guilt-free. Want to tell me how your daughter-in-law presumed to arrange for repairs without something or other first, poor you, FEMA is too stingy, I'm not insured, etc.? Nope. Moving on. A neighbor called me yesterday somewhat miffed that she was just now hearing that there was some kind of list she was supposed to get on for help getting the roving volunteer teams to come to her. She didn't know she had to get on a list. I didn't even get mad at her; I just observed mildly that it was important to ask clearly for help (a lesson I've always had trouble learning).
Survivor guilt is making lots of us medium crazy. Yesterday I found myself eating a piece of cake and mentioned to a companion that I was eating things I normally wouldn't, but I keep weighing every day and am not gaining, so I guess it's OK. She sniffed at me, "Well. I guess if you have time to weigh yourself, you're not very busy." Again, not even tempted to snap at her. She just moves off of my radar screen for the time being. If you know you're helping enough, you don't have to pay attention to the self-appointed monitors' opinion of whether your effort is up to snuff, or where your level of suffering fits in her scale of just deserts.
This morning on our dog walk my husband got a cell-phone call, a rare event for him, as he hates to conduct business by phone. Some chick was on the line was yelling at him that she just wanted to get hold of the person who called her a butthead. I could hear him saying, "Whom did you think you were calling? I really have no idea what you're talking about." She finally instructed him never to call again. He readily undertook not to do so, and blocked her number. Ironically, of course, now we do think she is a butthead, whoever she is, the creature.
My husband keeps explaining to me that survivor guilt is irrational. Why should he feel guilty because he built a sturdy house? Well, that's like explaining that a fear of heights is irrational. Sure it is; so what? Do people really think feelings don't happen because we know they're different from rational analysis? (OK, I know the answer to that question. ;-))
One day more
Three things I can't resist: flash-mob re-enactments, the Les Miz song "One Day More," and the Texas flag.
Majority of CA Democrats Oppose Free Speech
A clean majority, too: 53% of Democrats in California, a state that has elected no Republicans whatsoever to office, say that they prefer to curb speech than to endure the violence recently associated with controversial speech. Forty-six percent of California voters overall said the same thing.
In a way, of course, this is common sense. One can understand a preference for fewer violent protests, and many of the ideas being advocated are ugly. Why protect ugly ideas at the cost of undesirable turmoil? For the most part, people don't: codes restricting the freedom of speech for disfavored ideas are quite common in Europe.
Once we thought there was an important American principle, codified in our First Amendment, which it was our duty to defend. Once Democrats, and especially California Democrats, were at the forefront of defending that principle. No longer.
In a way, of course, this is common sense. One can understand a preference for fewer violent protests, and many of the ideas being advocated are ugly. Why protect ugly ideas at the cost of undesirable turmoil? For the most part, people don't: codes restricting the freedom of speech for disfavored ideas are quite common in Europe.
Once we thought there was an important American principle, codified in our First Amendment, which it was our duty to defend. Once Democrats, and especially California Democrats, were at the forefront of defending that principle. No longer.
DB: Salon.Com Gives Weekend Safety Brief
This is for you, the Marine, soldier, sailor, airman, or whatever other title we give to the living tools of imperialist aggression. Look on these words and the unbearable whiteness of the page behind them and become woke to the dangers of the weekend....Turns out a lot of things do.
If you are arrested in a military town, the police won’t respect whatever privileges you possess, be they white, male, or able-bodied. You will be treated the way the police treat young black males, and inmates will show you how it feels to be a person of color in White America every day....
We don’t want you drinking to excess because that supports white supremacy. Also when you get your haircuts, don’t comb them over to the side, because that supports white supremacy.
Fantasies About Vikings
UPDATE: Lars Walker pointed out yesterday that a noted scholar on women in the Viking age made the same points raised here last week (her post and mine were apparently more or less contemporaneous). They're obvious points, but it's good to see them not being ignored by serious thinkers in the field.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Michael Morell
This decision is about honor, which will make it very difficult for some to understand. Praising and celebrating someone, or creating sinecures for them, are forms of honor. Morell is resigning an honor to protest the assignment of a similar honor by the same organization, thus in effect choosing to enjoy less honor himself in order to shame another. The other in question deserves the shame, and thus the honor assigned them becomes in a sense emptied: better men will refuse to share Manning's company.
Well done, Mr. Morell.
UPDATE:
It worked, too.
But notice the penultimate paragraph, which shows that Harvard simply does not understand honor. The fact of a fellowship is an honor. The attention is an honor. The position is an honor. The opportunity to present yourself in a well-regarded environment is an honor.
They got this wrong because they don't understand honor at all. That's a significant problem: these who do not understand honor are training a significant part of our future leaders.
On History
I always think of this when I read about the relentlessly negative portrayals of historic American figures, destruction of their statues, and the like. It's the other side of a coin we were much embracing in the 1950s.
Bowie was indeed a bold man, and adventurous as far as that goes. He was also a rather infamous practitioner of land fraud, so much so that the US Treasury had -- if historian William C. Davis is to be believed -- a whole section devoted to him and his family at one time. Of course he was also engaged in the slave trade.
Once we celebrated such men without great discretion; he was Achilles to Travis' Agamemnon in the John Wayne version of The Alamo. (Wayne's own Crockett was Odysseus, of course.) Now we can't see the good in them.
We might take a lesson from others.
Huanglong said to the great statesman Wang Anshi:I always thought that particular lesson worthy. Jim Bowie was a man, and he did some great things and some awful ones. Mostly he did noteworthy things: even in fraud, he was greater than most. I wonder who among the critics today is as great as those they criticize, either in worth or in shame. But the great worth and the great shame often lie in the character of the same man. Like Bowie; like Jefferson; like others.
Whatever you set your mind to do, you always should make the road before you wide open, so that all people may traverse it. This is the concern of a great man.
If the way is narrow and perilous, so that others cannot go on it, then you yourself will not have any place to set foot either.
Zhang River Annals
Get Off My Lawn, er, Roof!
83 Year old man ends hours long standoff with police of man jumping from roof to roof in residential neighborhood. The police spokesman- "The grandpa did what we couldn't". Good thing for grumpy old men, or who knows how long this nonsense would go on.
What's To Dislike?
The new Clinton book is garnering a lot of commentary today, and some of it is from people who have actually read the thing. I can assure you that I will not be buying a copy, nor reading a copy, at any point. However it happened, I remain grateful on a daily basis for the absence of a Hillary Clinton administration.
Some highlights of the blame game:
The people who do like you, Ms. Clinton, are the people who don't like those Americans much either. They share your opinion that those Americans need to be controlled, corralled, and as you once said, have things taken away from them for the common good. You were talking about their money, but you also meant their guns, their choices on health care and their doctors, control over their lives in general. They were too stupid, too selfish, too deplorable in their characters.
That is why so many people do not like you, Ms. Clinton. It is because you don't like them, while at the same time you think yourself entitled to run their lives for them. Nobody wants to be ruled by someone who despises them. It's not the American way, not by a long sight. And that's why you lost an American election, and would do so again if we'd held another vote in July, or if we put it to another vote tomorrow.
At least, that's how it seems to me. Now, if you'll excuse us, Grim's Hall is done with you. I look forward to not having to think about you any more.
Some highlights of the blame game:
Green Party Candidate Jill Stein, who “wouldn’t be worth mentioning” had she not taken tens of thousands of votes in swing states that Trump won.She wouldn't be worth mentioning, except that she is why you lost. Got it.
“Sexism and misogyny..."Didn't we just discuss Jill Stein voters? That's why you lost those decisive swing states, right? Because of people who hate women so much that they voted for a different one?
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian hackers, for working “to influence our election and install a friendly puppet.”... Former President Barack Obama, for not giving a national television address about the Russian hacking so that “more Americans would have woken up.”I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the Russians moved the needle on the election. Thanks to Ms. Clinton and her ilk, however, the Russians have subsequently enjoyed wild success at dividing the nation and convincing people that the American government is illegitimate.
Clinton’s own statement about putting coal miners out of business, which Trump repeatedly used against her....Oops. But why would you think that would hurt you, after Obama said he was going to employ a plan under which electricity rates would 'necessarily skyrocket,' and that he too would put coal workers out of business? He won by running against these people. Why shouldn't you have gotten away with kicking them too?
Her “basket of deplorables” statement about Trump’s supporters, which was “a political gift” to her opponent. People "misunderstood me to be criticizing all Trump voters."It's true, they misunderstood. You clearly said that you only meant half of them.
Hillary hate. "I have come to terms with the fact that a lot of people — millions and millions of people — decided they just didn’t like me,” Clinton writes — though she doesn’t understand the dislike. “What makes me such a lightning rod for fury? I’m really asking … I’m at a loss.”Look, here's the thing. All things being equal, people like people who like them. You, Ms. Clinton, made clear that you didn't like much of America. You also made clear that you didn't trust most of America, not to make good decisions nor to run their own lives. Nobody likes to be told what to do, especially by someone who clearly thinks they can judge from on high how to order one's life.
The people who do like you, Ms. Clinton, are the people who don't like those Americans much either. They share your opinion that those Americans need to be controlled, corralled, and as you once said, have things taken away from them for the common good. You were talking about their money, but you also meant their guns, their choices on health care and their doctors, control over their lives in general. They were too stupid, too selfish, too deplorable in their characters.
That is why so many people do not like you, Ms. Clinton. It is because you don't like them, while at the same time you think yourself entitled to run their lives for them. Nobody wants to be ruled by someone who despises them. It's not the American way, not by a long sight. And that's why you lost an American election, and would do so again if we'd held another vote in July, or if we put it to another vote tomorrow.
At least, that's how it seems to me. Now, if you'll excuse us, Grim's Hall is done with you. I look forward to not having to think about you any more.
Porn, Republican vs. Jihadi
Apparently Ted Cruz and/or an intern of his 'liked' a porn video last night, which led to a huge amount of publicity today. I didn't go look up the porn in question, so I don't know what sort it was, but I figure that it's fairly a private matter that we should probably let slide. People having affairs is one thing, as that cuts in on their capacity to keep their sworn oaths. People having fantasies, well, that's something else.
Yet I do think that there is a kind of public interest in releasing Osama bin Laden's porn.
What law allows them to keep this information a secret? FOIA has nine specific exceptions that allow agencies to refuse to release information. The only one that could apply is 6, "information that would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." But Osama bin Laden is dead, and what personal privacy expectations does a dead terrorist have?
Yet I do think that there is a kind of public interest in releasing Osama bin Laden's porn.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that the “documents retrieved from the 2011 Navy Seal raid that killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden would be released in ‘weeks’—with the exception of one particular part of the haul, his pornography stash.”How is this classified, and what is the legal rationale for classifying this information? Information cannot legally be classified to avoid embarrassment or to cover up illegal activity. Al Qaeda is not a foreign government, so this doesn't qualify as foreign government information. There's no issue of protecting collection methods, as everyone knows how we collected the information: we sent DEVGRU to shoot him and scarf up his computers.
The Newsweek article below indicates that “while these documents are considered operational, his porn collection is not, and will likely remain classified.” Whatever that means.
What law allows them to keep this information a secret? FOIA has nine specific exceptions that allow agencies to refuse to release information. The only one that could apply is 6, "information that would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." But Osama bin Laden is dead, and what personal privacy expectations does a dead terrorist have?
Jewish Conservatism
I am not myself the least bit Jewish, and thus might not be thought to care very much about this subject; however, I do have some Jewish friends, including one of the authors of this piece on why Jews might be becoming more conservative than heretofore in American politics. As they point out, there are several different sets of reasons that are impelling a reconsideration of political loyalties on that front.
I'm Pretty Sure That's the Purpose of the Pardon
Two left-leaning legal groups are suing in Federal court, arguing that President Trump's recent pardon limits the power of the courts. Well, the word they use is 'undermine.'
The pardon power exists to limit the power of the courts, just as any of the other checks and balances do. Most commonly, it is used to limit the power of the court when it issues unjust rulings, or unduly harsh ones. But that's not the only way in which the pardon exists to limit the courts; President George H. W. Bush used it to limit the courts' role as a fact-finding agent during the Iran-Contra period. Especially when the courts enter into political disputes, it is reasonable for the other branches to exercise their powers to limit the courts' role.
Indeed, when the branches come into direct conflict like this the resolution is found in the fact that there are three branches rather than some even number. Congress could impeach a president for a use of the pardon power they found unacceptable; if they do not, then de facto they are endorsing the President's use of this power. The courts are not meant to exercise dominance over the other two branches of the government; they are only co-equal to the other branches. When the other two branches are opposed to the courts, the courts should give way.
It'll be interesting to see if they do, though. In general, if you ask a Federal judge if Federal judges should have more power, the answer is nearly always "Yes." Finding judges who believe in courts' being constrained by the Constitution, rather than exercising a plenary power to rewrite it at will, is one of the key difficulties in selecting a better judiciary. My guess is that the courts are likely to accept this argument that no President should be able to limit their authority in this way, even though limiting the courts' power is one of the reasons that the pardon power exists.
The pardon power exists to limit the power of the courts, just as any of the other checks and balances do. Most commonly, it is used to limit the power of the court when it issues unjust rulings, or unduly harsh ones. But that's not the only way in which the pardon exists to limit the courts; President George H. W. Bush used it to limit the courts' role as a fact-finding agent during the Iran-Contra period. Especially when the courts enter into political disputes, it is reasonable for the other branches to exercise their powers to limit the courts' role.
Indeed, when the branches come into direct conflict like this the resolution is found in the fact that there are three branches rather than some even number. Congress could impeach a president for a use of the pardon power they found unacceptable; if they do not, then de facto they are endorsing the President's use of this power. The courts are not meant to exercise dominance over the other two branches of the government; they are only co-equal to the other branches. When the other two branches are opposed to the courts, the courts should give way.
It'll be interesting to see if they do, though. In general, if you ask a Federal judge if Federal judges should have more power, the answer is nearly always "Yes." Finding judges who believe in courts' being constrained by the Constitution, rather than exercising a plenary power to rewrite it at will, is one of the key difficulties in selecting a better judiciary. My guess is that the courts are likely to accept this argument that no President should be able to limit their authority in this way, even though limiting the courts' power is one of the reasons that the pardon power exists.
Irma Passes Through
Outside of Savannah and its environs, things went reasonably well for a hurricane. Here it was a day of a few hours of strong gusts, plus a whole day of rain, but no serious issues. One transformer exploded nearby, but the power didn't go out for more than a second or two now and again.
Hope it went that well for the rest of you.
That's four hurricanes for me, now: Opal, Floyd, Isabel, and now Irma. At least, those are the ones I remember.
Hope it went that well for the rest of you.
That's four hurricanes for me, now: Opal, Floyd, Isabel, and now Irma. At least, those are the ones I remember.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)