Falcon Heavy
If you didn't watch the live video, it went well. The landing of the sideboosters is Buck Rogers stuff. Glad to see the private space program doing well, and having fun.
"An Idealist With The Scars To Prove It"
This story has everything. Puerto Rico is struck by a hurricane, and is in desperate need of food aid. FEMA issues a contract for 30 million meals to a contractor with only one person employed there, the 'minority female' owner (who is, under contracting laws, entitled to preference points in terms of contract awards for both of those statuses). She sub-contracts to a completely inadequate set of wedding caterers, who produce 50,000 of the 18.5 million meals needed at the first deadline. These meals also are not properly assembled, lacking a self-heating mechanism like an MRE's chemical heater. These have to be shipped separately.
So naturally, she's suing the government for terminating her contract.
So naturally, she's suing the government for terminating her contract.
Ms. Brown described herself in an interview as a government contractor — “almost like a broker,” she said — who does not keep employees or specialize in any field but is able to procure subcontracted work as needed, and get a cut of the money along the way. She claims a fashion line and has several self-published books, and describes herself on Twitter as “A Diva, Mogul, Author, Idealist with scars to prove it.”
After Tribute’s failure to provide the meals became clear, FEMA formally terminated the contract for cause, citing Tribute’s late delivery of approved meals. Ms. Brown is disputing the termination. On Dec. 22, she filed an appeal, arguing that the real reason FEMA canceled her contract was because the meals were packed separately from the heating pouches, not because of their late delivery. Ms. Brown claims the agency did not specify that the meals and heaters had to be together.
She is seeking a settlement of at least $70 million.
Planned Parenthood and Fusion GPS
This report comes from a clearly biased outlet, and cites only right-wing sources. On the other hand, I suppose it would be hard to find anyone critical of Planned Parenthood in the mainstream press -- especially given the particular subject of this report. So take it with salt, but see if it fits with other things you've read.
The FBI Faked A Whole Field of Forensics
So claims this article in Slate, based on another article in the Washington Post.
I begin to see why they think we should be afraid to cross these folks.
"The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.... Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.”The article goes on to interview an expert who says that the problem generalizes. "Nor is the problem limited to bad hair cases—much the same type of eyeballed comparison is done on bite marks, ballistics, fibers, and even fingerprints."
The shameful, horrifying errors were uncovered in a massive, three-year review by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. Following revelations published in recent years, the two groups are helping the government with the country’s largest ever post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
Chillingly, as the Post continues, “the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.” Of these defendants, 14 have already been executed or died in prison."
I begin to see why they think we should be afraid to cross these folks.
Oh, Well, Is That All?
In an article about how California is likely to race ever-further left, given the absence of hope for Republicans in the state:
That means staking out the most liberal stance on issues such as single-payer health care in California, a highly expensive initiative that failed in the legislature last year. The push is in response to the uncertainty surrounding health-care revisions in Washington, but it is estimated to cost twice the state’s annual budget.No, of course that's not all. That's the estimate. What was the estimate on that train project?
Getting Ahead of Ourselves
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is transforming practically every human activity: the way we make things; the way we use the resources of our planet; the way we communicate and interact with each other as humans; the way we learn; the way we work; the way we govern; and the way we do business. Its scope, speed and reach are unprecedented.No one, that is, except that 32% of Americans didn't have smartphones in 2015, the last year for which numbers are available. That creates potential problems for models like Amazon's new checkout-free store, which requires both a smartphone and a checking account. The people who don't are of course the very people who are going to lose out in the new economy that these same companies are rushing to create.
Think of it: Just 10 years ago, there was no such thing as a smartphone. Today, no one leaves home without it.
They're aware of that, but so far their minds turn quickly to socialist solutions.
How can we secure the future of those whose jobs will be eliminated by machines? Do we need a guaranteed basic income? Should we impose taxes on software and robots? Do companies that provide global IT platforms have to comply with national rules and regulations? If so, how can they be enforced? What freedoms and rights should individuals have in the digital age?Do you have any better answers? I'm not liking the way the discussion is shaping up. Even the list of questions sounds like a future I'd rather we could avoid.
Free Beer... Tomorrow (Or the Day After)
Bud Light is planning to offer free beer to everyone in Philadelphia during the celebratory parade on Thursday morning. Three million people are expected to attend that parade. Three million Philadelphia Eagles fans, day drinking for free on a Thursday morning.
No way that will cause problems. Good decision, everybody.
No way that will cause problems. Good decision, everybody.
Encounters With Men
Katie Rophie has an important piece on the current moment of (especially liberal) feminine rage, which I am not going to comment on in the detail it deserves. What I am going to wonder about is how much the rage is driven by the kind of men who occupy the circles in which these women travel.
For example, Rophie cites one of the women who invited friends to an Election Night party in 2016:
I assume they aren't in fact gay, since she would then think of them as threatened by Trump rather than 'safe.' But they aren't the sort of people who actually voted for Trump: they almost certainly were 'on the left' and voted for Clinton, or she wouldn't have invited them to her party. The point is that they're so far outside of my own culture that I find their behavior unrecognizable.
Another writer produces a piece about an unexpected and unwanted encounter with an actual Trump supporter, a self-described "redneck," for which she is deeply grateful.
For example, Rophie cites one of the women who invited friends to an Election Night party in 2016:
While I was writing this essay, one of the anonymous emailed me a piece Donegan wrote in The New Inquiry about the devastating night of Trump’s victory. She had hosted an election gathering, and as the results came in, the men were drinking tequila out of a penis-shaped shot glass, and laughing and making jokes as the women cried and clutched one another. Instead of thinking about choosing new friends, she ends with a blanket indictment of men and a blow for the cause:My first reaction to this was incredulity that any men, unless out-and-proud gay men, were drinking anything "out of a penis-shaped shot glass." No way, I thought. But I have no reason to doubt the author, who almost certainly invited people of her own political leanings. These men, 'even those on the left,' must be the sort of people who do things like that.
Here is what the last few days have reminded me: white men, even those on the left, are so safe, so insulated from the policies of a reactionary presidency, that many of them view politics as entertainment, a distraction without consequences, in which they get to indulge their vanity by fantasizing that they are on the side of good. . . . The morning after the election, I found the penis-shaped shot glass in my kitchen and threw it against the wall. I am not proud of this, but it felt good to destroy something a white man loved.
I assume they aren't in fact gay, since she would then think of them as threatened by Trump rather than 'safe.' But they aren't the sort of people who actually voted for Trump: they almost certainly were 'on the left' and voted for Clinton, or she wouldn't have invited them to her party. The point is that they're so far outside of my own culture that I find their behavior unrecognizable.
Another writer produces a piece about an unexpected and unwanted encounter with an actual Trump supporter, a self-described "redneck," for which she is deeply grateful.
"Just ask any redneck like me what you can do with zip ties — well, zip ties and duct tape. You can solve almost any car problem. You’ll get home safe," he said, turning to his teenage son standing nearby. "You can say that again," his son agreed.The second encounter turns out better for everyone. The difference is not in the women, but in the kind of men. That's an important point for those of us who, though we are on the other side of this culturally and in terms of sex, want to ensure better relations between the sexes.
The whole interaction lasted 10 minutes, tops. Katherine and I made it home safely.
Our encounter changed the day for me. While I tried to dive back into my liberal podcast, my mind kept being pulled back to the gas station. I couldn’t stop thinking about the man who called himself a "redneck" who came to our rescue. I sized him up as a Trump voter, just as he likely drew inferences from my Prius and RESIST sticker. But for a moment, we were just two people and the exchange was kindness (his) and gratitude (mine).
As I drove home, I felt the full extent to which Trump has actually diminished my own desire to be kind. He is keeping me so outraged that I hold ill will toward others on a daily basis. Trump is not just ruining our nation, he is ruining me....
[M]aybe if we treat one another with the kindness and gratitude that is so absent from our president and his policies, putting our most loving selves forward, this moment can transform into something more bearable? I want to come away from the march with that simple lesson, but it begs this question: How do we hold onto the fire fueling our resistance to the cruelty Trump unleashes, but also embrace the world with love? I wish I knew.
Are you saying you don't trust us any more?
Politico is shocked to discover that the Republican party has conservatives in it who distrust the government, even a formerly sacrosanct entity like the FBI, which previously only Democrats were smart enough to distrust:“
The attacks on the FBI are already working,” said Princeton University historian Julian Zelizer. “Regardless of what happens next, the news has now been filled with sordid accusations and stories about corrupt FBI agents, that they will sink into the minds of many Republicans and even Democrats who are paying attention. These Republican attacks can possibly achieve the same kind of effect on law enforcement institutions, as Republican attacks on the social safety net or regulations like OSHA in the eras of Reagan and Bush. In other words, nobody or nothing in government can be trusted.”If his goal was to deride the grounds for distrust and suspicion of the political weaponization of yet one more previously respectable federal agency, then his concluding paragraph may have gone awry:
But there are profound dangers for the Republicans, too. Unlike some other quarters of the government, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have power to strike back. After all, they know the secrets, and have been known to use them. At this moment, no one knows more about what really did or didn’t happen between the Russians and the Trump campaign than the FBI agents working on Robert Mueller’s investigation. That may make the bureau a tempting target for this White House, but it makes it a formidable adversary as well.
Four Chaplins' Day
I had not heard this story before.
It’s been 75 years since the U.S. Army Transport Dorchester was hit by German submarine U-223 while transporting 902 servicemen, merchant seamen and civilian workers to Greenland. On Feb. 3, 1943. four Army chaplains on board gave their lives to save others....Almost seven hundred men died in that one incident. We think of 'the Long War' as grinding and brutal, but as this Foreign Policy piece points out, we've had there were fewer war deaths in the first decade of the Long War than in any decade of the 20th century.
The ship was hit below the water line with a torpedo, initially killing and wounding many men on board.... When they ran out of life jackets, the four chaplains removed their own and gave them away as well. As the ship sank, the chaplains could be seen, arms linked, on the deck, and heard, singing hymns and offering prayers.
An antidote to chaos
I am loving Jordan Peterson's "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos," which my lovely husband bought for me. The summary below is cropped and summarized further from an Amazon reader review The last three are so short because I got them out of the table of contents, not having gotten that far yet.
Rule 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back. It’s a deep instinct to size others up when looking at them to see where they fit in the social hierarchy. If you crouch forward you’re inviting more oppression from predator personalities and can get stuck in a loop that's not helping anyone.
Rule 2: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. People often have self-contempt whether they realize it or not. Imagine someone you love and treat well, then treat yourself with the same respect.
Rule 3: Choose your friends carefully. Eliminate those who are hurting you. It’s not cruel, it’s sending a message that some behaviors are not to be tolerated.
Rule 4: Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today. You only see a slice of their life, a public facet, and are blind to the problems they conceal.
Rule 5: Don't let children do things that make you dislike them. You aren't as nice as you think, and you will unconsciously take revenge on them. Brats are like misbehaving dogs: they never get taken off the leash to enjoy a little freedom, because they can't be trusted.
Rule 6: Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world. Start by ceasing to do one thing, anything, that you know to be wrong.
Rule 7: Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Meaning is how you protect yourself against the suffering that life entails. Meaning lets you know when you’re in the right place, midway between chaos and order. If you stay firmly ensconced within order, things you understand, then you can’t grow. If you stay within chaos, then you’re lost. Expediency is what you do to get yourself out of trouble here and now, but you're sacrificing the future for the present.
Rule 8: Tell the truth—or, at least, don't lie. Telling the truth can be hard in the sense that it’s often difficult to know the truth. However, we can know when we’re lying. Telling lies makes you weak. You can feel it, and others can sense it too. Meaning is associated with truth, and lying is the antithesis of meaning.
Rule 9: Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't. A good conversation consists of you coming out wiser than you went into it. Listen even to your enemies. They will lie about you, but they will also say true things about yourself that your friends won’t.
Rule 10: Be precise in your speech. Don't cover things in a fog. Face up to the real horrors of the world.
Rule 11: Do not bother children when they are skateboarding. You're not supposed to remove all dangers from your kids' lives, you're supposed to be helping them become stronger.
Rule 12: Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street. It can't hurt, and it might make you feel better.For another perspective on the same rules, try this. I don't think he liked the book.
What I bin sayin
Kevin Williamson on how to tell what people want, not what they wish they wanted:
People make a moral case for free markets — that people have a moral right to be left free to pursue their own interests as they see fit — and there’s something to that, but it’s easy to make too much of the moral case, too. The case for free markets is mostly instrumental: The possibility of profit causes people to self-organize in such a way as to focus the maximum human attention on solving the problems that people care the most about. Notice there is no should in that sentence: People in the communication business wryly observe that every major advance in communication technology in the past hundred years has been driven at least in part by pornography. That’s a joke, but it isn’t just a joke. There’s what people want, and what you or I think or Senator Snout thinks people should want. They aren’t the same thing. If you want to figure out what people think they should want, give them a survey. If you want to figure out what people actually do want, try selling them something. Vast amounts of capital — including human intelligence, the most valuable of all resources — have gone into making food plentiful, automobiles safer and more reliable, housing more affordable and more comfortable . . . and reality-television shows, artificial-intelligence–enabled face-swapping porn, the Super Bowl, and any number of things that do not strike me as obviously valuable. People value what they value.
Return of the Monstrous Water Maids
The British museum was overturned by the city council, which took the side of the public outcry against the curator's preferences.
Since I'm doing Ballad of the White Horse quotes today, here's his passage on the 'monstrous water maids' of the Rhine. Their magic has won the day in Manchester, even if it was not adequate at Ethandune.
Then from the yelling Northmen
Driven splintering on him ran
Full seven spears, and the seventh
Was never made by man.
Seven spears, and the seventh
Was wrought as the faerie blades,
And given to Elf the minstrel
By the monstrous water-maids;
By them that dwell where luridly
Lost waters of the Rhine
Move among roots of nations,
Being sunken for a sign.
Under all graves they murmur,
They murmur and rebel,
Down to the buried kingdoms creep,
And like a lost rain roar and weep
O’er the red heavens of hell.
Thrice drowned was Elf the minstrel,
And washed as dead on sand;
And the third time men found him
The spear was in his hand.
Seven spears went about Eldred,
Like stays about a mast;
But there was sorrow by the sea
For the driving of the last.
Since I'm doing Ballad of the White Horse quotes today, here's his passage on the 'monstrous water maids' of the Rhine. Their magic has won the day in Manchester, even if it was not adequate at Ethandune.
Then from the yelling Northmen
Driven splintering on him ran
Full seven spears, and the seventh
Was never made by man.
Seven spears, and the seventh
Was wrought as the faerie blades,
And given to Elf the minstrel
By the monstrous water-maids;
By them that dwell where luridly
Lost waters of the Rhine
Move among roots of nations,
Being sunken for a sign.
Under all graves they murmur,
They murmur and rebel,
Down to the buried kingdoms creep,
And like a lost rain roar and weep
O’er the red heavens of hell.
Thrice drowned was Elf the minstrel,
And washed as dead on sand;
And the third time men found him
The spear was in his hand.
Seven spears went about Eldred,
Like stays about a mast;
But there was sorrow by the sea
For the driving of the last.
YIkes
The FISA memo was released.
The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.
Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.
The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.
DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming president.
The FBI and Justice Department mounted a monthslong effort to keep the information outlined in the memo out of the House Intelligence Committee's hands. Only the threat of contempt charges and other forms of pressure forced the FBI and Justice to give up the material.
Once Intelligence Committee leaders and staff compiled some of that information into the memo, the FBI and Justice Department, supported by Capitol Hill Democrats, mounted a ferocious campaign of opposition, saying release of the memo would endanger national security and the rule of law.
But Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes never wavered in his determination to make the information available to the public. President Trump agreed, and, as required by House rules, gave his approval for release.
Finally, the memo released today does not represent the sum total of what House investigators have learned in their review of the FBI and Justice Department Trump-Russia investigation. That means the fight over the memo could be replayed in the future when the Intelligence Committee decides to release more information.Full copy of the FISA memo here.
Dating the Great Heathen Army
A new paper uses radiocarbon dating to confirm authorship of a mass grave associated with the large Viking armies in late 9th century Britain. There's a more layman-friendly article about it from Popular Archaeology.
Sometimes called the Great Heathen Army, or The Viking Great Army, in fact it was several armies that appear to have linked up or fanned out at the decision of their several leaders. Many of these were the sons of Ragnar Lodbrok, about whom the History Channel has been making its famous series. One of them was not, but was instead Guthrum the Old, who became a Christian after his defeat by Alfred the Great. This is the subject of Chesterton's Ballad of the White Horse. Guthrum, christened Athelstan, went on to found the Danelaw in Northumbria.
Far out to the winding river
The blood ran down for days,
When we put the cross on Guthrum
In the parting of the ways.
Sometimes called the Great Heathen Army, or The Viking Great Army, in fact it was several armies that appear to have linked up or fanned out at the decision of their several leaders. Many of these were the sons of Ragnar Lodbrok, about whom the History Channel has been making its famous series. One of them was not, but was instead Guthrum the Old, who became a Christian after his defeat by Alfred the Great. This is the subject of Chesterton's Ballad of the White Horse. Guthrum, christened Athelstan, went on to found the Danelaw in Northumbria.
Far out to the winding river
The blood ran down for days,
When we put the cross on Guthrum
In the parting of the ways.
The Pope Bows to "Scientific Atheism"
This is being portrayed as an attempt by the Church to gain legitimacy within China; but the regime is officially hostile to the idea of a transcendent God whose morals might override the dictates of Party and State. Bowing to that sort of thing does little to secure the legitimacy of the Church. Rather, such a move threatens to cast away any such legitimacy.
Nor is this in response to Chinese overtures of friendship. "The pope’s conciliatory approach stands out at a moment when China is tightening its grip on religious practice under the more assertive leadership of President Xi Jinping."
Nor is this in response to Chinese overtures of friendship. "The pope’s conciliatory approach stands out at a moment when China is tightening its grip on religious practice under the more assertive leadership of President Xi Jinping."
Giant: The Bible of Texas
So claims Joe Bob Briggs, in this review of a new book. He makes the film sound titanic.
It’s a great movie and has many themes, but the whole arc of the story can be understood as “The Reeducation of Bick Benedict” (the Rock Hudson character). Rock doesn’t choose to stop being a bigot; he gets the bigotry beaten out of him by his wife and son and a Texas that simply can’t keep pushing back against the legacy of the Spanish missions. In 1956, three years after Brown v. Board of Education, that was a message that, in the South, you would think might rustle up some hackles. The fact that it didn’t—and the fact that, to this day, Texas politicians are a moderating influence on the hard-liners who want to close the Mexican border—indicates more than anything that sometimes films can change minds. Nobody watches the 1960 depiction of [The Alamo] anymore. Everybody knows Giant....Texan readers, what say you? Is this film as central to your understanding of your home as he thinks it is? Did it shape the culture as much as he says?
[The director] understood Texas. He understood the old-school ranching part, the new-money oil part, and the synthesis of the two that would emerge decades later in the form of distinctive cities like Austin and San Antonio that still make Texas a world of its own. The famous false front of Reata, the Benedict mansion on the prairie, has long since fallen into ruins, and the frenzy surrounding the Giant filming has been all but forgotten, but the land around Marfa is known worldwide today as the domain of Donald Judd and other postmodern sculptors, and Texas remains the only state that has adopted bilingualism so thoroughly that some cities have Spanish media and use Spanish at public meetings. The cattleman’s code, the rebel spirit, and multiculturalism found their center in a region many would consider least likely to succeed, and George Stevens saw that long before anyone else.
Water Maids
The Manchester Art Gallery has removed a famous painting.
A painting like this transcends mere carnal attraction by aiming at something universal to the human experience, or at least more universal than the particular attraction of one man to one woman. It captures something about the awe that men feel in contemplating the beauty of women; the tie to mythology captures the way in which the experience of beauty sacralizes the world. Of course this particular myth warns about the dangers of being swept away by the pursuit of such beauty -- Hylas' capture by the water nymphs removes him from the service of Hercules. Some versions of the story suggest that Hylas ended up happier as a result, but that Hercules was distraught by his loss.
Waterhouse is not the only artist to have treated the question, as the last link suggests: rather, it has been a popular subject of artists of all sorts since Ancient Greece. It is a cultural tie across generations and civilizations, in addition to having that universal quality.
Ultimately people are going to have to rediscover what it means to be an adult. One of the things it usually means is having to deal with the presence of the erotic in one's life: unprompted feelings in the self, but also unprompted and perhaps unwanted attentions from others. Another thing that it means is dealing with the attendant dangers of one's erotic feelings, which can and do cause both men and women to be swept away from existing lives and responsibilities. Sometimes this is to their destruction; sometimes they find a new happiness, but not often without forcing a cost upon others. Spouses are abandoned, like Hercules not understanding how a beloved other was swept away.
The myths are better teachers than almost any. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.
[The museum removed] John William Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs, one of the most recognisable of the pre-Raphaelite paintings, from its walls. Postcards of the painting will be removed from sale in the shop....British high society is now officially more repulsed by sex than the actual Victorians. The Victorians at least used to say that it was the capacity of the erotic to produce high art that redeemed an otherwise troubling emotion. Now we are told that male desire cannot be justified even if it produces high art; rather, the high art is condemned for being an expression of such desire.
The work usually hangs in a room titled In Pursuit of Beauty, which contains late 19th century paintings showing lots of female flesh.
Why have mildly erotic nymphs been removed from a Manchester gallery? Is Picasso next?
Gannaway said the title was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.
“For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere ... we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.”
Gannaway said the debates around Time’s Up and #MeToo had fed into the decision.
A painting like this transcends mere carnal attraction by aiming at something universal to the human experience, or at least more universal than the particular attraction of one man to one woman. It captures something about the awe that men feel in contemplating the beauty of women; the tie to mythology captures the way in which the experience of beauty sacralizes the world. Of course this particular myth warns about the dangers of being swept away by the pursuit of such beauty -- Hylas' capture by the water nymphs removes him from the service of Hercules. Some versions of the story suggest that Hylas ended up happier as a result, but that Hercules was distraught by his loss.
Waterhouse is not the only artist to have treated the question, as the last link suggests: rather, it has been a popular subject of artists of all sorts since Ancient Greece. It is a cultural tie across generations and civilizations, in addition to having that universal quality.
Ultimately people are going to have to rediscover what it means to be an adult. One of the things it usually means is having to deal with the presence of the erotic in one's life: unprompted feelings in the self, but also unprompted and perhaps unwanted attentions from others. Another thing that it means is dealing with the attendant dangers of one's erotic feelings, which can and do cause both men and women to be swept away from existing lives and responsibilities. Sometimes this is to their destruction; sometimes they find a new happiness, but not often without forcing a cost upon others. Spouses are abandoned, like Hercules not understanding how a beloved other was swept away.
The myths are better teachers than almost any. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.
Vive la résistance!
Given current political trends, I find this Call of Duty trailer deeply amusing.
Faint praise
Ordered liberty
A good Andrew McCarthy piece on what's going wrong with a lot of crazy investigations.
Stop Giving Up Symbols
Norway is having a moral panic over the use of runes by their Olympic team.
There is little evidence that the rune originally had any symbolic significance beyond its sound value, but the letter shares the name of a Norse deity popularly understood as the god of war, Tyr. Nowadays, most runologists consider it a letter no more mysterious than the letter T.The last thing anyone should want to do is to give up a powerful symbol to a hate group. Declaring an ambiguous symbol to be 'a symbol of hate' surrenders it to the worst sorts of people. No one should go along with this foolishness.
Even so, the presence of the Tyr rune on the team’s sweater design was enough to raise alarms. Norway’s security police have warned of the rise of a small but politically extreme and potentially violent group called the Nordic Resistance Movement, which uses the Tyr rune in its branding.
The State of the Union
I realized where this speech was going early in the night, during the section on economics and tax cuts. Donald Trump said that Americans were going to be seeing more take-home pay as a result of Congress' having passed tax cuts. Democrats sat on their hands rather than applaud Americans having more take home pay.
There are a lot of summaries of all the things that Democrats refused to applaud going around this morning. Some of them are things you'd have thought they'd applaud even if it meant giving a moment of credit or sunshine to a President they'd prefer wasn't there. Black and Hispanic unemployment being at record lows, for example: that seems like a good thing no matter who gets the credit for it.
Other things are more damning admissions. Some of these continue this morning. You can see, in the moment, a representative storming out of the chamber to protest a chant of "USA! USA!", even though you'd think such a display of patriotism unsurprising at a political event discussing the state of the American union. Still, passions run high in the moment. What is harder to understand is a considered statement by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says that the repeated use of the word America is 'exclusionary.'
Vox, which is tasked with making the speech look as bad as possible, can be forgiven for trying to paint the speech as 'lacking solutions for America's problems.' In fact a good part of the speech was about celebrating solutions for America's problems that have already been achieved, such as robust economic growth and the end to stagnation caused by over-regulation and high taxes. But it's their job to write that piece, and anyway by 'solutions' they mean 'government programs' (of which I thought there were actually far too many in last night's speech, but community standards differ). But how to explain them deciding to paint the story of a North Korean's defiant search for freedom and dignity as 'scary'?
In this speech as in any speech, there's plenty of room for disagreement on policy. It is surprising to see the opposition decide instead to oppose prosperity, the defiance of tyranny, or the celebration of America itself.
There are a lot of summaries of all the things that Democrats refused to applaud going around this morning. Some of them are things you'd have thought they'd applaud even if it meant giving a moment of credit or sunshine to a President they'd prefer wasn't there. Black and Hispanic unemployment being at record lows, for example: that seems like a good thing no matter who gets the credit for it.
Other things are more damning admissions. Some of these continue this morning. You can see, in the moment, a representative storming out of the chamber to protest a chant of "USA! USA!", even though you'd think such a display of patriotism unsurprising at a political event discussing the state of the American union. Still, passions run high in the moment. What is harder to understand is a considered statement by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says that the repeated use of the word America is 'exclusionary.'
Vox, which is tasked with making the speech look as bad as possible, can be forgiven for trying to paint the speech as 'lacking solutions for America's problems.' In fact a good part of the speech was about celebrating solutions for America's problems that have already been achieved, such as robust economic growth and the end to stagnation caused by over-regulation and high taxes. But it's their job to write that piece, and anyway by 'solutions' they mean 'government programs' (of which I thought there were actually far too many in last night's speech, but community standards differ). But how to explain them deciding to paint the story of a North Korean's defiant search for freedom and dignity as 'scary'?
In this speech as in any speech, there's plenty of room for disagreement on policy. It is surprising to see the opposition decide instead to oppose prosperity, the defiance of tyranny, or the celebration of America itself.
Individuality and opportunity: Japan v. U.S.
Another AEI article this mornings looks at national differences in survey responses to questions about attitudes toward risk and reward. Among smaller differences on subjects like overall happiness, hard work, and competition, the author notes:
the data shows that 79% of Americans believe that they have some control over their lives — this over twice the 37% rate among those in Japan.
* * *
[R]espondents were prompted with “Adventure and taking risks are important to this person; to have an exciting life.” Only 9% of Japanese agreed with this idea compared to 35% of Americans — a huge difference and one which suggests that the Japanese are deeply risk averse. Similarly, respondents were asked about the idea, “It is important to this person to think up new ideas and be creative; to do things one’s own way.” This is another variant on the question of one’s proclivity to focus on the collective or the individual. Once again, a substantial difference emerged with 40% of Japanese believing in individuality and creativity compared to a far greater 67% of Americans.
When economic migration stops
An American Enterprise article discusses what makes Americans stay in economically declining areas instead of seeking a better life in booming areas. The author focuses on barriers to entry and barriers to exit. Among the barriers to entry are occupational licensing:
The kind of heroic work of Morris Kleiner and others has shown that more than a quarter of all workers need licenses to work. People don’t move across state lines at the same rate as you’d expect, so moves in-state are much higher than moves across state in licensed industries compared to comparable unlicensed industries. And this makes it harder to move. If you want to be a lawyer in California, it’s hard to move there. You have to take a whole new bar again. It’s costly.
We also put limits on leaving. So if you’re a public worker, that’s 13% of the US economy, moving your pension is very difficult. You’re locked in until it vests. Moving public benefits can be really difficult. So if you’re a worker in Michigan and you want to move to Texas, there’s a law that you may lose your Medicaid. And you may lose your Medicaid because it is less generous in Texas, but you also may lose your Medicaid because just the paperwork is really difficult.
The fact that we subsidize homeownership so much limits mobility because you have to sell your house and there can be lock in. There are a whole variety of other policies that have the effect of making it costly to move.
Shooting With Your White Friends
It's good to have friends. I guess what we think of as 'the gun culture' does look a little intense from the outside, though.
Also Not How This Works
What is the legally binding force of a bill that is approved by one committee in one house of Congress, never by the rest of the Congress, and never signed by the President?
And what is this all about?
Things are not unconstitutional just because you disapprove of them, and they aren't necessarily illegal either. Those words mean things.
UPDATE: On 'private bills,' see discussion in comments.
The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill on Jan. 18 that asked the Department of Homeland Security to review Othman Adi’s case, placing a six-month stay on his deportation. ICE defied the legislation.That sounds like a request. A request can be ignored or denied, but not 'defied.'
And what is this all about?
Facing a deport order since 2009, he was spared under President Barack Obama’s administration, thanks to a private bill passed in the House of Representatives. President Donald Trump did away with that provision..."A private bill"? What on earth is a private bill? What does the author imagine its legal force to be?
Things are not unconstitutional just because you disapprove of them, and they aren't necessarily illegal either. Those words mean things.
UPDATE: On 'private bills,' see discussion in comments.
And Now for Something Compeltely Different
So. I have ended up following the big Japanese Sumo tournaments--my cable company offers the English language version of the NHK, the Japanese National Broadcasting company, and the NHK runs a half-hour show of highlights from each tournament's day.
You can easily google the details if you wish, Sumo is a simple sport, really.
Anyway, This tournament, or Basho, was won by a wrestler from Georgia. (Georgia in Caucasuses, not the other Georgia), Of the 40 or so 'Top Division' wrestlers, less than 10 come from out of Japan, and most of them are from Mongolia. I know of one from Bulgaria, one from Brazil, and this guy, who goes by the name Tochinoshin. He suffered a bad knee injury in 2013 that nearly ended his career, but he came back from the lowest ranking back up to the top Division and this tournament he triumphed.
Match starts about the 5 minute mark, but its worth watching the whole thing. The guy talking at the start is in Japan and is a serious Sumo fan, so his commentary is enlightening.
So long, McCabe
Some perspective on the FBI bigshot the president was mean enough to fire today, just before he qualifies for full retirement. Per Mollie Hemingway, McCabe approached White House chief of staff Reince Priebus in February 2017 to tell him "everything" in an explosive NYT piece was "BS." The story, which alleged that Trump campaign operatives had had multiple contacts with Russian intelligence, was being aired nonstop on nearby TV sets. Priebus gestured toward them and asked whether the FBI would repeat publicly McCabe's private denial. McCade answered that he would have to check. Comey called later to confirm, suggesting he might be able to clear it up in upcoming Senate Intelligence Committee briefings. Shortly thereafter, CNN reported that
the FBI rejected a White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump’s associates and Russians known to U.S. intelligence.
"Obstruction"
I am trying to decide how seriously to take the obstruction of justice narrative that is being prepared on the left. I keep trying to think, 'How would I feel about this story if Barack Obama were the President who wanted his Attorney General to prevent prosecutions of crimes by his cronies?' I don't have to use my imagination very much here because, of course, that was exactly what happened with Barack Obama, his attorneys general, and his cronies.
Ultimately I think this has to be a Congressional responsibility to investigate and pursue, because the AG isn't independent enough -- and probably shouldn't be independent of the elected official over him. On the other hand, it really was maddening to see the IRS used to target conservatives, watch them destroy evidence and lie to Congress, and never face any consequences.
What's to be done about this issue? Destroying Trump doesn't fix it. Electing another Clinton sure wouldn't fix it either. It's a structural issue that I don't know that I see much way around if the Congress won't assert itself.
Ultimately I think this has to be a Congressional responsibility to investigate and pursue, because the AG isn't independent enough -- and probably shouldn't be independent of the elected official over him. On the other hand, it really was maddening to see the IRS used to target conservatives, watch them destroy evidence and lie to Congress, and never face any consequences.
What's to be done about this issue? Destroying Trump doesn't fix it. Electing another Clinton sure wouldn't fix it either. It's a structural issue that I don't know that I see much way around if the Congress won't assert itself.
Where is the FBI in the Constitution?
This argument comes from a well-educated and experienced woman; nevertheless, it's very odd.
The FBI works for the Attorney General, who works for the President. It's an executive department, and what the Constitution actually does say about the Executive Branch is that its power is invested in a President. Though by law Presidents have to run certain appointments by the legislature, usually the Senate, that does not mean that those appointees draw their power from Article I. They're Article II officials, exercising delegated authority.
So what, exactly, is the subversion of the Constitution that is supposed to be taking place? If the legislature wants to investigate and/or impeach the President, they have Article I authority to do that. It's not obviously a power that is wisely invested in an Article II bureaucracy in any case. Nor would I want the Constitution to set up an 'independent' police agency that could not be constrained by elected officials; especially not a secret police.
The author seems to want exactly that.
Where is my Congress? This is the urgent question posed by these outrageous attempts by the president to subvert the constitution.... Congressional Republicans who stick by Trump and protect him will be remembered as the villains of Washington’s unfolding drama. They are the ones enabling an epic White House end run around the constitution.What does the Constitution say about the relationship between the FBI and the President? Nothing, since the Founders would never have contemplated establishing an organization like the FBI. The Constitution doesn't even mention the Attorney General, although that office is nearly contemporaneous: George Washington signed the law into effect creating the office. That law says that the President shall choose the Attorney General, provided that the Senate confirms him; it does not give the Attorney General independence from the Executive branch, nor divide his office between the Executive and the Legislature.
The FBI works for the Attorney General, who works for the President. It's an executive department, and what the Constitution actually does say about the Executive Branch is that its power is invested in a President. Though by law Presidents have to run certain appointments by the legislature, usually the Senate, that does not mean that those appointees draw their power from Article I. They're Article II officials, exercising delegated authority.
So what, exactly, is the subversion of the Constitution that is supposed to be taking place? If the legislature wants to investigate and/or impeach the President, they have Article I authority to do that. It's not obviously a power that is wisely invested in an Article II bureaucracy in any case. Nor would I want the Constitution to set up an 'independent' police agency that could not be constrained by elected officials; especially not a secret police.
The author seems to want exactly that.
As the Republicans continue their campaign to discredit the FBI, it’s important to remember a piece of history. Without Deep Throat, the Washington Post’s secret source, the Watergate scandal might never have been exposed. Deep Throat, we learned in 2012, was Mark Felt, the No2 official at the FBI.This is meant to be the model of what right looks like? Oath-breaking leaks from the secret police, protected from accountability by un-elected journalists? Even if it happened to work out well one time, it's hardly a model I'd invest much faith in.
The budget is broke
An unusually thoughtful article about the Congressional budget process from some months back.
There's also an amusing discussion in McArdle's comment session in this week's article about the furious effort by Blue States to find a way around the tax bill's impact on their SALT deductions. After the crowd discussed the inability of a state (unlike a city or county) to file for bankruptcy, and how you can default all you like but there's no bankruptcy court to issue an order discharging all your public and pension debt, a reader pointed out that debt arising out of an insurgency need not be honored. That led to a discussion of the practical value of ginning up an insurgency for the purpose of obtaining debt relief.
There's also an amusing discussion in McArdle's comment session in this week's article about the furious effort by Blue States to find a way around the tax bill's impact on their SALT deductions. After the crowd discussed the inability of a state (unlike a city or county) to file for bankruptcy, and how you can default all you like but there's no bankruptcy court to issue an order discharging all your public and pension debt, a reader pointed out that debt arising out of an insurgency need not be honored. That led to a discussion of the practical value of ginning up an insurgency for the purpose of obtaining debt relief.
Too Good to Check
Conservatives lean right because they're so much prettier than liberals.
I mean, possibly. But I'll wager that if you study the development of conservative/liberal attitudes, a lot of it depends on personality traits that are set before attractiveness becomes a big deal -- by childhood, I mean, rather than later in life when one becomes physically mature. That's not to say that ideas don't change. We all know people who become liberal in college under the academic and social pressure; we all know people who trend conservative once they get out in the world and see how badly liberal ideas work out in practical terms. Others double down because they become attached to structures that reinforce liberal or conservative ideas.
Still, a lot of the basics are there from the beginning.
Also, I note that the researchers have a clear cognitive bias that is evident in their description of conservatives as having a 'blind spot that leads them not to see the need for more government.' That treats the need for more government as a fact, rather than an opinion. Conservatives are thus supposed to be flawed, even mentally disabled, because they cannot see a thing that is really there. They've just had it so easy that it's crippled their minds.
Is it true that the easier one's life, the more likely one is to be a conservative? Not obviously. Justice Clarence Thomas grew up in a shack insulated with newspaper, his family's sanitation being an outhouse shared with neighbors. It's not hard to name others whose conservatism arose in difficult circumstances; nor is it hard to name celebrities with easy lives who are lefties. Celebrities tend to be attractive, too; not always, but it correlates strongly.
So, my sense is that this study is probably not very valuable. It's still fun, though.
The scholars said hot people lean towards the right because they grow to develop a blind spot that leads them to not see the need for more government support or aid in society - a core liberal value.
They add that attractive people don’t face the same hurdles as others as their attractiveness gains them more attention and they are more successful in social situations. Their lives are generally “easier,” the pair claim.
I mean, possibly. But I'll wager that if you study the development of conservative/liberal attitudes, a lot of it depends on personality traits that are set before attractiveness becomes a big deal -- by childhood, I mean, rather than later in life when one becomes physically mature. That's not to say that ideas don't change. We all know people who become liberal in college under the academic and social pressure; we all know people who trend conservative once they get out in the world and see how badly liberal ideas work out in practical terms. Others double down because they become attached to structures that reinforce liberal or conservative ideas.
Still, a lot of the basics are there from the beginning.
Also, I note that the researchers have a clear cognitive bias that is evident in their description of conservatives as having a 'blind spot that leads them not to see the need for more government.' That treats the need for more government as a fact, rather than an opinion. Conservatives are thus supposed to be flawed, even mentally disabled, because they cannot see a thing that is really there. They've just had it so easy that it's crippled their minds.
Is it true that the easier one's life, the more likely one is to be a conservative? Not obviously. Justice Clarence Thomas grew up in a shack insulated with newspaper, his family's sanitation being an outhouse shared with neighbors. It's not hard to name others whose conservatism arose in difficult circumstances; nor is it hard to name celebrities with easy lives who are lefties. Celebrities tend to be attractive, too; not always, but it correlates strongly.
So, my sense is that this study is probably not very valuable. It's still fun, though.
I certainly don't
Mea culpa. I never make this connection at all:
“Few white people make the connection between their attraction to yoga and the cultural loss their ancestors and relatives experienced when they bought into white dominant culture in order to access resources,” they write.I can't even sort the sentence out. One of the things I like best about white dominant culture is its persistent nagging to watch your pronoun precedents.
With enemies like these, who lacks friends?
The man the academic left loves to hate:
"[I]nstinctively, I knew I would like to find out about anybody described as dangerous by the trade paper of American higher education...."
Listen to the Mouse
Headline #1: "'America No Longer Matters.' Davos Isn't Worried About President Trump."
Headline #2: "Here’s How and Why Trump’s Going to Blow Up the Foundations of Davos."
"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it."
-Paul-Muad'Dib
UPDATE: Headline, NYT: "Trump Arrived in Davos as a Party Wrecker. He Leaves Praised as a Pragmatist."
Headline #2: "Here’s How and Why Trump’s Going to Blow Up the Foundations of Davos."
-Paul-Muad'Dib
UPDATE: Headline, NYT: "Trump Arrived in Davos as a Party Wrecker. He Leaves Praised as a Pragmatist."
Good Article on the FBI
At the Hill, Sharyl Attkisson argues that it's time for some sunlight.
[T]he Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence Committee not to release its memo. It's like the possible defendant in a criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury.I think they actually view a secret police targeting conservatives as highly desirable, rather than it merely being that they lack curiosity.
This is the first time I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the argument to keep the information secret. They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against Americans. “Don’t be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods,” they plead.
As for me? I don’t care what political stripes the alleged offenders wear or whose side they’re on.
Finexit
A young populist candidate running for "Finland First" is worrying members of the EU.
She claims the EU has turned “Finland into its province” and has railed against the country’s political elite, who she argues do not represent the working class.I had a good friend in Finland at one time. They had, and I believe still have, mandatory military service and I knew him during his stint in their army. Their proximity to Russia makes it a wise policy to have a fully-trained militia that can be readily armed as needed.
Huhtasaari has also demanded more immigration controls and has campaigned in favour of a burka ban – a far cry from Finland’s traditionally subdued politics.
Eight Illustrated Philosophical Thoughts
Colorful illustrations of several thought experiments. These are mostly presented for fun, with their meanings sketched rather than argued over tooth-and-knife (as is more customary among philosophers).
Tell Us How You Really Feel, Mr. Sykes
[Missouri Republican U.S. Senate primary candidate Courtland Sykes] said he doesn't want his daughters to grow up to be "career obsessed banshees who forego home life ... to become nail-biting manophobic hell-bent feminist she devils who shriek from the tops of a thousand tall buildings."The article goes on to note that he 'faces an uphill battle' for the nomination. I'll wager.
McCarthy: Release the Memo
His argument is here.
I think this story has gone far enough that releasing the memo can't possibly be enough to resolve the deadly questions raised. We're going to need to see a lot more than that to make a judgment about whether these charges are true, or whether Republicans in Congress have been raising such explosive questions without basis. One way or the other, we need to know.
I think this story has gone far enough that releasing the memo can't possibly be enough to resolve the deadly questions raised. We're going to need to see a lot more than that to make a judgment about whether these charges are true, or whether Republicans in Congress have been raising such explosive questions without basis. One way or the other, we need to know.
"Gang Life"
Looks like an easy win on DACA just got harder. Rubio may have internalized the message that he won't be winning any future Presidential nominations until he gets right with the base on immigration.
I wonder if the Republicans will stand firm on all the things they've now tied to a DACA fix? The wall, e-verify, an end to chain migration and also an end to the visa lottery program -- that's a lot of weight to pull. It could just be the Trump technique of making a 'big ask,' and then settling for less. I won't be surprised if e-verify is discarded, as that would be the part that would actually make it hard for corporations to hire illegals. That would drive up their labor costs, and they can't be happy about the idea.
I wonder if the Republicans will stand firm on all the things they've now tied to a DACA fix? The wall, e-verify, an end to chain migration and also an end to the visa lottery program -- that's a lot of weight to pull. It could just be the Trump technique of making a 'big ask,' and then settling for less. I won't be surprised if e-verify is discarded, as that would be the part that would actually make it hard for corporations to hire illegals. That would drive up their labor costs, and they can't be happy about the idea.
Star Wars Fan Films
After the recent discussion of The Last Jedi, I saw that movie and then started looking for Star Wars stuff on YouTube. Something I discovered is that there are a lot of short fan-made videos out there, and some of them are fairly good, all things considered.
Of course, the classic Troops has been out for 20 years now.
But there's a lot of more recent stuff that's well-made, at least for amateurs. I kinda wish I could make something along these lines.
Here's one that's a little dark ...
Of course, the classic Troops has been out for 20 years now.
But there's a lot of more recent stuff that's well-made, at least for amateurs. I kinda wish I could make something along these lines.
Here's one that's a little dark ...
Mathematics and the Battle of Clontarf
"The Brian Battle," as it was also called, was a turning point in Irish history. However, historians have long debated the exact nature of that turning point. Those with a patriotic Irish heart liked to portray it as a cleansing of Ireland by a native Irish hero, Brian Boru, who led his Irish armies to defeat the invading Vikings. That romantic reading fed the hearts of those who, likewise, wanted to cleanse Ireland of another bunch of invading Germanics.
More sober historians pointed to a lot of factionalism within the Ireland of the day, and suggested that it was probably more of a civil war in which the Vikings backed the losing side.
Now, a mathematical model suggests that the romantics were right, or at least more right than not.
More sober historians pointed to a lot of factionalism within the Ireland of the day, and suggested that it was probably more of a civil war in which the Vikings backed the losing side.
Now, a mathematical model suggests that the romantics were right, or at least more right than not.
To perform the study, the academics examined Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh (“The War of the Irish with the Foreigners”), a chronicle from the early twelfth-century that reported on events in Ireland between 967 and 1014. They wanted to know how all the Irish and Viking characters in the text fit together in a network, monitoring whether the interactions between them were benign or hostile. They developed a mathematical measure to quantify whether hostility in the network mainly connected Irish to Irish or Irish to Vikings.We tend to be inclined to doubt romantic opinions, but sometimes romance wins one.
They then calculated the difference between the measure of hostilities between each type of character (Irish and Viking) and what would have been hostile interactions in the network, indiscriminate of whether characters were Irish or Viking.
A positive value of the resulting measure would signal Irish civil war and a negative number would reflect an Irish versus Viking conflict. The results gave an overall negative value suggesting that the text mainly describes an Irish against Viking conflict.
However, because the negative value was moderate (-0.32 on a scale from -088 to 1) they suggest the text does not describe a fully “clear-cut” Irish versus Viking conflict. Instead, the network portrays a complex picture of relationships and social networks of the time.
Burned at Burns Night
In which Theresa May decides that Robert Burns should be treated as a symbol of enduring Union, and then mangles all the Scottish aspects.
Actually, I imagine that really did capture the spirit of the 'enduring Union' from the Scottish perspective.
Actually, I imagine that really did capture the spirit of the 'enduring Union' from the Scottish perspective.
An Argument on Abortion
Patrick S. Tomlinson has what he thinks is a knock-down argument in favor of abortion. In fact, it's not a particularly difficult argument to answer if you are equipped with a little Aristotle.
The reason "A" is the correct answer depends on the actual/potential distinction. As Aristotle explains in the Physics, potential is a kind of actuality -- he calls it 'first actuality.' A forest is potentially many houses in a way that a sand-filled desert is not, in that one could make houses out of the trees but not out of the sand. Yet you would not be surprised if someone valued one actual house, especially if it were well-made, over a forest of potential houses. The well-made house will keep him from freezing to death in a way that the potential house will not.
So you can set up a perfectly analogous story about a fire department that shows up to a fire that threatens both a well-made house, and also a nearby forest. They can stop the fire from spreading in only one direction. Does the owner prefer to protect his house, or his forest? It's going to be the same answer. What that shows is that abortion is actually irrelevant to the problem; you get the same story even if all the human lives are removed from the problem.
Tomlinson goes wrong in thinking that this means that destroying the embryos is not morally problematic. That's like arguing that it would be morally fine to set fire to the guy's forest since he cares so much more about his house.
It's a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question.Nonsense. "A" is the correct answer; but understanding why it is the correct answer shows that this argument actually tells us nothing much about abortion.
Here it is. You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one.
Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no "C." "C" means you all die.
In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will.
The reason "A" is the correct answer depends on the actual/potential distinction. As Aristotle explains in the Physics, potential is a kind of actuality -- he calls it 'first actuality.' A forest is potentially many houses in a way that a sand-filled desert is not, in that one could make houses out of the trees but not out of the sand. Yet you would not be surprised if someone valued one actual house, especially if it were well-made, over a forest of potential houses. The well-made house will keep him from freezing to death in a way that the potential house will not.
So you can set up a perfectly analogous story about a fire department that shows up to a fire that threatens both a well-made house, and also a nearby forest. They can stop the fire from spreading in only one direction. Does the owner prefer to protect his house, or his forest? It's going to be the same answer. What that shows is that abortion is actually irrelevant to the problem; you get the same story even if all the human lives are removed from the problem.
Tomlinson goes wrong in thinking that this means that destroying the embryos is not morally problematic. That's like arguing that it would be morally fine to set fire to the guy's forest since he cares so much more about his house.
“If they’re allowed to bully they just bully more.”
If you can believe it, that's a quotation from Samantha Power.
Kyle Smith doesn't much care for a new movie about the "Final Year" of Obama diplomacy.
Kyle Smith doesn't much care for a new movie about the "Final Year" of Obama diplomacy.
Actual events don’t align with the Rhodes-Obama rhetoric. Vladimir Putin, frustratingly, keeps failing to be bent by the Arc of History (™) and doing whatever he wants, seizing Crimea and abetting Bashar al-Assad. Perhaps he notices the nonstop signaling from the White House that there’s a new sheriff in town, and said sheriff thinks crime-fighters have been way too tough on outlaws. “The error that we may have made is Putin doesn’t seem to pursue Russia’s national interests. He pursues Putin’s interests,” Rhodes says. In other words, surprise! — Putin doesn’t share a liberal American Democrat’s vision about what’s best for Russia. Only liberal American Democrats would need seven and a half years to figure this out. Power, riding in the back of a car, marvels at Russia’s naughtiness: “If they’re allowed to bully they just bully more.” Funny how that works. Kerry, after Russia breaks the ceasefire in Aleppo in 2016: “It’s just so frustrating because we really had an agreement that could have worked. And unfortunately we have some people who didn’t want to cooperate.”
So The Final Year is about the Obama Doctrine, also known as hashtag diplomacy, also known as leading from behind, also known as voting “present” — also known as hands-off. That a lot of people can get killed while you’re wringing them is the movie’s unintended lesson. Summing up, I give you none other than Samantha “Soft” Power herself, who near the end of the doc says in a moment of sudden clarity: “My world is a world where you have 65 million displaced. Yemen and Syria and Iraq, Nigeria, Cameroon and Chad, Central African Republic, Burundi, South Sudan, Darfur, you know, the list, Afghanistan, of course, Venezuela imploding . . . There are concerns about terrorism and there is a fear of the other and . . . all the trendlines — on democracy, right now, at least — are going in the wrong direction.”
If only she or her friends had held positions of authority, maybe they could have done something about some of that.
That's Why You Wear A Suit And Tie
A new workplace prejudice is identified: 'lookism.'
It’s called “Lookism.” That’s the name for what happens in the job interview process when the way a candidate looks and presents themselves significantly affects whether they get the job. It can be the way they are dressed, the makeup on their face, the handbag at their feet or the style of their hair.Ursula McGeown's approach is remarkably sensible, actually: rather than trying to convince employers that they shouldn't favor candidates who can groom themselves appropriately, she's started a charity to help poorer women dress and groom well.
It can be a myriad of tiny little aesthetic details, all of which subtly affect discrimination in the hiring process. In 2006, a study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that 73 percent of employers admitted that grooming has “a lot of influence” on whether they would hire a candidate.... This is what Ursula McGeown, CEO of Dress for Success Sydney, wants to end.
"We were going to decide what mattered"
I was led to this from http://ace.mu.nu and rather than post Truth Revolt's editorialization of the original, I decided to go to the source itself, to make sure some context or additional verbiage was not being left out so as to color what the original actual said. It did not.
Agreeableness in arguments and success
Another good video clip from Maggie's Farm this morning. I always enjoy Jordan Peterson, but this exchange is especially revealing, not only about the startling unfamiliarity of his interlocutor with ideas outside of her echo chamber, but about Peterson's ability to remain calm and focused in an increasingly irrational argument. There's a lovely moment around minute 23 when the interviewer nearly admits that she has completely lost the ability to deny the reasonableness of his approach--but she recovers quickly and goes back on the attack.
It's really a shame she can't listen to him instead of trying to drown him out. He could do a lot more to advance her ostensibly feminist goals than most of the people she's been listening to so far.
It's really a shame she can't listen to him instead of trying to drown him out. He could do a lot more to advance her ostensibly feminist goals than most of the people she's been listening to so far.
Crimes before the FISA court
From Maggie's farm:
This is a clearer exposition than most, but I still find myself swimming in a story that's hard to keep track of. One part that caught my attention was the late November 2016 visit to Trump Tower by Admiral Rogers, which ex-federal prosecutor Joe di Genova describes as the hidden hero's story in this ugly sage.
Rogers's visit was portrayed by the progressive media at the time as a breach of professional ethics. Di Genova sees it as a principled whistle-blowing, followed immediately by Trump's charges that Obama wire-tapped him, as well as a general decampment from Trump Tower to temporary New Jersey offices until the Trump Tower could be swept and debugged.
This is a clearer exposition than most, but I still find myself swimming in a story that's hard to keep track of. One part that caught my attention was the late November 2016 visit to Trump Tower by Admiral Rogers, which ex-federal prosecutor Joe di Genova describes as the hidden hero's story in this ugly sage.
Rogers's visit was portrayed by the progressive media at the time as a breach of professional ethics. Di Genova sees it as a principled whistle-blowing, followed immediately by Trump's charges that Obama wire-tapped him, as well as a general decampment from Trump Tower to temporary New Jersey offices until the Trump Tower could be swept and debugged.
So, it's working?
My husband warned me that many aspects of this long article were silly, but recommended it for the schadenfreude.
Alexander Hertel-Fernandez of Columbia, and Vanessa Williamson of the Brookings Institution examined the long-term political consequences of anti-union legislation by comparing counties straddling a state line where one state is right-to-work and another is not. Their findings should strike terror into the hearts of Democratic Party strategists: Right-to-work laws decreased Democratic presidential vote share by 3.5 percent. . . . The authors estimate that Democrats control 5 to 10 percent fewer seats in state legislatures (in both chambers) after a right-to-work law is enacted.I enjoyed reading how unfair it was for workers to benefit from unions without paying dues, without any mention of what it was like for workers to have union dues extorted from their paychecks without getting anything back in services that they were interested in.
This leads to a vicious cycle wherein the GOP can use that power to further suppress votes, gut union rights, and gerrymander legislatures—in other words, embark on a fundamental retooling of American political mechanics.The devil you say! That hasn't been done since Democrats used their power to establish public employee unions. Speaking of that,
Right-to-work will decimate private-sector unions, while the five Republican justices on the bench may be poised implement the equivalent of right-to-work nationally for all public-sector unions in the upcoming Janus decision.
Holding Your Own Hostage
To my sorrow, the government shutdown looks likely to end. I was really hoping it would drag on long enough for Americans to realize that there are at least 800,000 Federal employees whom we don't really need. The average Federal salary in 2014 was $84,153 -- half again higher than the average non-Federal worker. Assuming the average holds for workers classified as non-essential, we could save north of $67 billion a year by firing them all.
With all these companies repatriating money thanks to the new tax cuts, they'd even likely find work. Maybe not quite at their old salary, of course, but work all the same. The kind of work that contributes to economic growth instead of taxing it, even.
Federal workers know this, which is why their donations point very heavily to Democrats. It's easy to see why the Democrats in Congress folded. They took their own core constituency hostage.
With all these companies repatriating money thanks to the new tax cuts, they'd even likely find work. Maybe not quite at their old salary, of course, but work all the same. The kind of work that contributes to economic growth instead of taxing it, even.
Federal workers know this, which is why their donations point very heavily to Democrats. It's easy to see why the Democrats in Congress folded. They took their own core constituency hostage.
Gentlemen
Peggy Noonan wants to revive the concept.
There was a time when I wrote about all this quite a lot. I don't think I have anything to say that I didn't say back then about what the concept is, or how it applies; my sense is that the gentleness falls out of the fact that our old norms for gentlemen were invented by men who were essentially a cavalry class. An important part of taming a horse and riding it to war is learning the self-control necessary to control the horse. That's why gentlemen are gentle. Moreover, what makes a gentleman isn't a commitment to be nice to people, but the moral seriousness that comes from taking up the sword in earnest.
Once those ideas were suffused through our society; even Robert E. Howard's Conan, mentioned recently, is frequently described as having 'a rude chivalry' about him because otherwise he would have behaved in despicable ways (and thus not been a suitable hero for 1930s Americans). Actually, I think of Howard as mirroring Tacitus, whose Germania describes the northern barbarians as having similar qualities, and likewise attributes the nobility of those qualities to the very barbarism of the men. “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split," Conan says in The Tower of the Elephant.
The collapse of morals attends the collapse of consequences. Men aren't gentlemen any more because there is so little danger of having their skulls split, or of splitting another's.
There was a time when I wrote about all this quite a lot. I don't think I have anything to say that I didn't say back then about what the concept is, or how it applies; my sense is that the gentleness falls out of the fact that our old norms for gentlemen were invented by men who were essentially a cavalry class. An important part of taming a horse and riding it to war is learning the self-control necessary to control the horse. That's why gentlemen are gentle. Moreover, what makes a gentleman isn't a commitment to be nice to people, but the moral seriousness that comes from taking up the sword in earnest.
Once those ideas were suffused through our society; even Robert E. Howard's Conan, mentioned recently, is frequently described as having 'a rude chivalry' about him because otherwise he would have behaved in despicable ways (and thus not been a suitable hero for 1930s Americans). Actually, I think of Howard as mirroring Tacitus, whose Germania describes the northern barbarians as having similar qualities, and likewise attributes the nobility of those qualities to the very barbarism of the men. “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split," Conan says in The Tower of the Elephant.
The collapse of morals attends the collapse of consequences. Men aren't gentlemen any more because there is so little danger of having their skulls split, or of splitting another's.
Where Are You From?
In Sweden, a campaign tags this question as racist. The idea is that many people, both immigrants and some born in Sweden, may not look exactly like the archetypal Swede. Asking them where they are from is a way of pointing this up, which could be offensive to them.
We had a similar controversy just recently involving the President, who asked a woman of Korean ethnicity where her people were from. Another Korean-American wrote, "[M]any Americans still subscribe to the insidious myth that Korean Americans are somehow less American. Whatever his intention, Trump’s alleged words perpetuate the idea that no matter how long we’ve lived in the U.S., we will always 'really' be from somewhere else."
The thing is, though, ethnicity is treated as of fundamental importance by many on the left, as well as some on the right. The number of people who answer the question "What ethnicity are you?" with "American" is not large, and it is concentrated in my own Appalachian South. That means that, for now, answering "American" is just another way of telling people where you're from.
By Stevey7788 (talk) (Uploads) - Own work, Public Domain, Link
It would be great if we had a lot more people self-identifying their ethnicity in that way. We're so far down the rabbit hole of hyphenated-Americans, though, I wonder if it's possible. Nor is that new: Theodore Roosevelt spoke against the concept in 1915, and John Wayne spoke against it in his 1973 album on patriotism. Ironically for today's debates, this bit contains the line, "A wall you always have to climb" as well as a paean to immigration.
In defense of John Wayne's concept, one of the most American people I ever knew was a first-generation immigrant from Korea who had fought against the Communists before emigrating here. That was a man who knew what America was about, and who knew what made America great. I'd take all the Americans like him we could find, wherever they came from.
We had a similar controversy just recently involving the President, who asked a woman of Korean ethnicity where her people were from. Another Korean-American wrote, "[M]any Americans still subscribe to the insidious myth that Korean Americans are somehow less American. Whatever his intention, Trump’s alleged words perpetuate the idea that no matter how long we’ve lived in the U.S., we will always 'really' be from somewhere else."
The thing is, though, ethnicity is treated as of fundamental importance by many on the left, as well as some on the right. The number of people who answer the question "What ethnicity are you?" with "American" is not large, and it is concentrated in my own Appalachian South. That means that, for now, answering "American" is just another way of telling people where you're from.
It would be great if we had a lot more people self-identifying their ethnicity in that way. We're so far down the rabbit hole of hyphenated-Americans, though, I wonder if it's possible. Nor is that new: Theodore Roosevelt spoke against the concept in 1915, and John Wayne spoke against it in his 1973 album on patriotism. Ironically for today's debates, this bit contains the line, "A wall you always have to climb" as well as a paean to immigration.
In defense of John Wayne's concept, one of the most American people I ever knew was a first-generation immigrant from Korea who had fought against the Communists before emigrating here. That was a man who knew what America was about, and who knew what made America great. I'd take all the Americans like him we could find, wherever they came from.
Outlaw Music
To return for a moment to the Kingston Trio, the one of their songs that always struck me strangely was their treatment of the traditional "Jesse James." They made a joke out of it. I assumed that it was just an attempt to remark that the James Gang wasn't really worthy of the veneration that American folklore had assigned them. But in the talk about 'moving left' as a result of exposure to folk music, I wonder if that was the whole agenda.
Here is a traditional version.
Here's the Kingston Trio's version:
It's a strange complaint to say that 'when his best friend died he was right there by her side/ and he lifted off her golden wedding ring.' The intent is to suggest theft, but to be by one's wife side at death is a sort of ideal seeing-through of the promise to be there 'till death do us part'; and saving the wedding ring to give to a daughter or grand-daughter or niece satisfies the 'something old' tradition as well. It's not a fair hit, even if it were true.
That's not to say that the James Gang aren't fairly criticized on certain points. Here's a piece that dings them fairly, I think. It's solid on the history.
And here's Johnny Cash doing an outlaw song that is fairly critical, also, of another American legendary, John Wesley Hardin.
And here's the Pogues doing the ballad because the Celtic take always has a home here.
If you still want more, Ry Cooder does a beautiful version with a long instrumental part.
Here is a traditional version.
Here's the Kingston Trio's version:
It's a strange complaint to say that 'when his best friend died he was right there by her side/ and he lifted off her golden wedding ring.' The intent is to suggest theft, but to be by one's wife side at death is a sort of ideal seeing-through of the promise to be there 'till death do us part'; and saving the wedding ring to give to a daughter or grand-daughter or niece satisfies the 'something old' tradition as well. It's not a fair hit, even if it were true.
That's not to say that the James Gang aren't fairly criticized on certain points. Here's a piece that dings them fairly, I think. It's solid on the history.
And here's Johnny Cash doing an outlaw song that is fairly critical, also, of another American legendary, John Wesley Hardin.
And here's the Pogues doing the ballad because the Celtic take always has a home here.
If you still want more, Ry Cooder does a beautiful version with a long instrumental part.
No, Let's Go For A Few Months
If we can figure out a workaround to get military personnel paid, let's go for years.
UPDATE: We won, I guess. *Sigh* I suppose we'll have to let them have their government back, for now.
At least maybe Sen. Schumer will have learned not to threaten us with a good time.
Party leaders and rank-and-file senators spent all day Sunday haggling over a deal to reopen the government. But Washington's painful shutdown will nonetheless drag into Day Three.Painful? I spent the day on the motorcycle riding all over north Georgia, and I haven't noticed a damn thing different.
UPDATE: We won, I guess. *Sigh* I suppose we'll have to let them have their government back, for now.
At least maybe Sen. Schumer will have learned not to threaten us with a good time.
Being needed
Arthur Brooks talks about the worst part of poverty.
A few months into the program, I asked Rick, "How is your life?" and he said, "Let me show you." And he showed me an email from his boss: "Rick, emergency bedbug job, East 65th Street. I need you now."
I said, "So what?"
He said, "Read it again: 'I need you now.' That is the first time in my life anybody has said those words to me."
Another Government Shutdown
I guess we'll just have to get along without them, somehow or other.
Hägar the Horrible had a cartoon, years ago, where the little tax-man in his executioner's hood walked into the pub to announce to the assembled Vikings that the government was shutting down. When they throw up a cheer, he exclaims, "You're not supposed to be happy!"
Maybe not, but you'll excuse me if I don't mind particularly. I'm pretty sure we could do without most of what they do even if nobody else ever picked it up -- which somebody would, if it was something they missed. Aside from the military and a few other basic functions I think we could do without them. If I were Congress, I wouldn't get too cocky about us mourning for them and begging them back.
Hägar the Horrible had a cartoon, years ago, where the little tax-man in his executioner's hood walked into the pub to announce to the assembled Vikings that the government was shutting down. When they throw up a cheer, he exclaims, "You're not supposed to be happy!"
Maybe not, but you'll excuse me if I don't mind particularly. I'm pretty sure we could do without most of what they do even if nobody else ever picked it up -- which somebody would, if it was something they missed. Aside from the military and a few other basic functions I think we could do without them. If I were Congress, I wouldn't get too cocky about us mourning for them and begging them back.
What Were Their Names?
AVI has a post up about the Kingston Trio. I mentioned that a particular favorite of my father's was the following song.
On a similar token, we went to see "12 Strong" this afternoon. A few Hollywoodisms aside, it's not bad. My wife said that she appreciated that they avoided the usual heavy-handed attempts to manipulate our emotions common to Hollywood films. When you start the film with 9/11, I guess you don't need them so much.
On a similar token, we went to see "12 Strong" this afternoon. A few Hollywoodisms aside, it's not bad. My wife said that she appreciated that they avoided the usual heavy-handed attempts to manipulate our emotions common to Hollywood films. When you start the film with 9/11, I guess you don't need them so much.
Fighting for Western Civilization and the Church
Yesterday morning’s Dennis Prager show had on as a guest Reverend
Doctor William J. Slattery (Ph.D in philosophy, with a specialization in
epistemology (the theory of cognition) at the Pontifical Gregorian University),
to promote his new book "Heroism and Genius”.
In it, he is promoting the great names of Church history,
and the heroism they exhibited in serving God and preserving and growing
Western Civilization, as a model for priests in today’s world engaging in the
fight for the preservation and elevation of Western Culture.
There’s even a chapter titled “Fathers of Chivalry: A New Type of Warrior”.
He also introduced
me to a fine quote:“No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men.”
-Thomas Carlyle
I’ll be ordering this book immediately.
Blaming Invisible Men
The least surprising headline I've seen lately, except that we haven't had a big mass shooting lately: "Don’t Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings; Blame Men."
This part of the argument was more surprising, but she doesn't I think realize what's surprising about it.
What does it mean that men commit suicide at three times the rate of women? When we speak of other minorities (and men are, however slightly, a minority), a high suicide rate is considered a sign that society is oppressive towards them. Society is blamed for their suffering. Here, of coure, "Blame Men" is the answer because it is always the answer. They are at fault because of "toxic masculinity," which the author describes as not measuring up to the masculine ideal.
This means that nobody wants them. Maybe that's what's driving all the suicide -- and also some of the mass shootings.
This, though, isn't a problem with men -- well, not straight men. It's a problem with women (and gay men). They generally don't tend to find unmanly men attractive.
Should they be retrained, or forced to pretend that they find unmanly men attractive? No one is suggesting it, and of course it's a useless and terrible suggestion. It does happen to be the suggestion being aimed at straight men where trans-women are concerned, of course, because it's always fine to force straight men to carry the blame for problems. But it's a terrible suggestion there, too, as well as an unworkable one. Nobody's going to be attracted to someone they just aren't attracted to, and it's unconscionable to suggest that they have a moral duty to yield themselves up sexually just because (or even though) it would mean a lot to someone else.
As far as I know, feminism doesn't really even have a sketch at an answer to this problem. "Toxic masculinity" is just an attempt to throw the problem of being unwanted back on the unwanted men, who are told that they shouldn't have to measure up. But even if they free themselves from any sense that they ought to measure up, and go around putting on dresses or whatever, still nobody they want is going to want them.
Being isolated like that must be miserable, and it's no surprise that it leads to suicide in many cases. Instead of blaming them, it might be worth at least trying on some sympathy for the bitter loneliness they must be experiencing day in and day out. Mostly they don't kill anyone else, after all. Mostly they just go home one day and kill themselves.
Indeed, the only thing I've read recently that even sounded a little bit like an answer to this problem came from Vox.
This part of the argument was more surprising, but she doesn't I think realize what's surprising about it.
Men don’t just constitute almost all mass shooters in recent history; they are also responsible for the vast majority of gun-associated deaths in the country. Men own guns at triple the rate of women in the U.S., at 62 percent compared to 22 percent—and also commit suicide at nearly triple the rate of women.Mass shootings are a very tiny percentage of shootings. Suicides make up two thirds of deaths from shootings. The problem she wants to talk about is small enough that it's hard to say much of use about it using statistics, because it's already an outlier; but the suicide problem is very much not an outlier. If gun deaths are a problem, then suicide is the main part of the problem.
What does it mean that men commit suicide at three times the rate of women? When we speak of other minorities (and men are, however slightly, a minority), a high suicide rate is considered a sign that society is oppressive towards them. Society is blamed for their suffering. Here, of coure, "Blame Men" is the answer because it is always the answer. They are at fault because of "toxic masculinity," which the author describes as not measuring up to the masculine ideal.
This means that nobody wants them. Maybe that's what's driving all the suicide -- and also some of the mass shootings.
Madfis also notes that many men who commit mass shootings tend to be those who have failed to achieve financial and romantic success in ways that our society values and accredits as “manly.” As a result, Madfis explains, men may feel emboldened to resort to violence to gain both revenge and some level of notoriety as compensation for being denied what they thought they were owed, or felt pressure to attain.This is roughly parallel to the big discussion our culture is having about transgenderism, except that there the idea is that society is at fault for not wanting them -- for not accepting them just as they are. Here there is no similar move to try to find ways to embrace and extend love or respect or acceptance, even though it might really solve the problem. Certainly, it's supposed to be the solution for others who suffer from social rejection.
This, though, isn't a problem with men -- well, not straight men. It's a problem with women (and gay men). They generally don't tend to find unmanly men attractive.
Should they be retrained, or forced to pretend that they find unmanly men attractive? No one is suggesting it, and of course it's a useless and terrible suggestion. It does happen to be the suggestion being aimed at straight men where trans-women are concerned, of course, because it's always fine to force straight men to carry the blame for problems. But it's a terrible suggestion there, too, as well as an unworkable one. Nobody's going to be attracted to someone they just aren't attracted to, and it's unconscionable to suggest that they have a moral duty to yield themselves up sexually just because (or even though) it would mean a lot to someone else.
As far as I know, feminism doesn't really even have a sketch at an answer to this problem. "Toxic masculinity" is just an attempt to throw the problem of being unwanted back on the unwanted men, who are told that they shouldn't have to measure up. But even if they free themselves from any sense that they ought to measure up, and go around putting on dresses or whatever, still nobody they want is going to want them.
Being isolated like that must be miserable, and it's no surprise that it leads to suicide in many cases. Instead of blaming them, it might be worth at least trying on some sympathy for the bitter loneliness they must be experiencing day in and day out. Mostly they don't kill anyone else, after all. Mostly they just go home one day and kill themselves.
Indeed, the only thing I've read recently that even sounded a little bit like an answer to this problem came from Vox.
Inequality has been so much a part of the conversation — in terms of economic inequality, health care inequality, and educational inequality. This is probably overdue. But people don’t talk about inequalities in our access to intimacy and our access to sex. I don’t think we pay attention to the way in which, through no fault of their own, lots of people just have a lot of trouble finding partners.I happen to think that this won't solve the problem, as sex is a small part of the real issue of missing human intimacy. But at least it correctly identifies the problem, rather than resorting to the easy solution of blaming the men nobody wants for the fact that nobody wants them.
They may be disabled. They may just not be conventionally attractive. They may be in situations, like prison or mining camps or something like that, where they can’t find people of the opposite sex. Or they may be gay or lesbian and they may be living in a small town in Alabama. There’s lots of ways in which people just don’t have access to any kind of sexual intimacy. I think that technology may not be as ideal as actually having a human partner, but I think, for many people, it’s better than nothing.
Conan Was Right
One of the conceits of the Robert E. Howard stories is that history has simply forgotten many ancient civilizations, which were far more technologically advanced than believed. He may well have been right about that.
Iceland's First Black Resident
Sounds like a fellow with an interesting story.
Hans Jonatan was born into slavery on a Caribbean sugar plantation, and he died in a small Icelandic fishing village. In those intervening 43 years, he fought for the Danish Navy in the Napoleonic Wars, lost a landmark case for his freedom in The General’s Widow v. the Mulatto, then somehow escaped to become a peasant farmer on the Nordic island.Apparently he was the subject of an academic biography, if you're interested.
Briar Patch
Maybe this threat isn't aimed at Trump voters, whom I agree will probably not be much moved by it.
A Decent Act from the New York Times
The Grey Lady is taking one day off of its constant drum-beat to give a voice to the other side.
"'Mansplaining?' Nonsense, I'm a Democrat"
In fairness to Sen. Booker, 'mansplaining' is a stupid word; he's perfectly right that he should be able to be critical of a cabinet secretary regardless of sex. On the other hand, he wasn't at all fair or reasonable in his conduct at yesterday's hearing.
Ultimately his complaint came down to how unfair it was that the Secretary had produced the report on international terrorism that she had been directed to produce by a formal Executive Order, and not the report on white nationalist domestic terrorism that he would have preferred. He also objected to the fact that she didn't remember the President's use of a word he wanted to take offense to, such that her memory agrees with my Senator (David Perdue) rather than Senator Durbin (who has been known to lie through his teeth on occasion). What he wants is another Sally Yates, a woman who will refuse to do her job or carry out the President's orders, and then call him a racist after she is fired for nonperformance. Anything else? He'll scream at her and insult her publicly.
But that doesn't mean it's sexism. Maybe Sen. Booker would have treated Secretary "Chaos" Mattis exactly the same way, or White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. I mean, no doubt.
Ultimately his complaint came down to how unfair it was that the Secretary had produced the report on international terrorism that she had been directed to produce by a formal Executive Order, and not the report on white nationalist domestic terrorism that he would have preferred. He also objected to the fact that she didn't remember the President's use of a word he wanted to take offense to, such that her memory agrees with my Senator (David Perdue) rather than Senator Durbin (who has been known to lie through his teeth on occasion). What he wants is another Sally Yates, a woman who will refuse to do her job or carry out the President's orders, and then call him a racist after she is fired for nonperformance. Anything else? He'll scream at her and insult her publicly.
But that doesn't mean it's sexism. Maybe Sen. Booker would have treated Secretary "Chaos" Mattis exactly the same way, or White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. I mean, no doubt.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)