Ted Cruz on Hamas
Apparently he's not too impressed with the media's treatment of the latest
Henry Kissinger: How the Enlightenment Ends
In a thoughtful exploration of philosophy and technology, Kissinger argues that AI developers should start thinking through the philosophical questions raised by AI and that the government should start seriously thinking about AI and its possible dangers. It's difficult to excerpt because he uses the entire article to make his point, but here is his hook:
As I listened to the speaker celebrate this technical progress, my experience as a historian and occasional practicing statesman gave me pause. What would be the impact on history of self-learning machines—machines that acquired knowledge by processes particular to themselves, and applied that knowledge to ends for which there may be no category of human understanding? Would these machines learn to communicate with one another? How would choices be made among emerging options? Was it possible that human history might go the way of the Incas, faced with a Spanish culture incomprehensible and even awe-inspiring to them? Were we at the edge of a new phase of human history?
"A Terrorist Organization"
Hamas, which claims 50 of the dead from yesterday's protests in Israel, is a named Foreign Terrorist Organization -- but all the coverage I've read is treating the deaths as if they were innocent "protesters."
The NRA, on the other hand....
The NRA, on the other hand....
War and Natural Law
Soon I’ll have the ability to engage pieces like this again. I’m looking forward to it. For now, I’ll just forward it to your attention.
Felony relo
A Seattle councilwoman wants felony charges brought against Amazon for threatening to leave town if the city taxes workers to make a dent in the affordable housing crisis.
Socialists really need to find a solution to this problem of the golden goose walking off. Has anybody thought of putting up guard towers at the borders?
Socialists really need to find a solution to this problem of the golden goose walking off. Has anybody thought of putting up guard towers at the borders?
"Property can’t leave, so seize it."
Illinois flirts with the Caracas solution, a/k/a the Cuban (etc.) solution.
Speaking of Caracas, what amazes me if that buyers are still making cash offers on real estate, and even more, that sellers are still holding out for a better price. Let's hope they get one before cholera and cannibalism set in.
Speaking of Caracas, what amazes me if that buyers are still making cash offers on real estate, and even more, that sellers are still holding out for a better price. Let's hope they get one before cholera and cannibalism set in.
Happy Nabka Day
Seventy years after Israel had the effrontery to become a nation, seventy-three years after the Allies liberated the few remaining survivors at the concentration camps, a diseased culture still can't get over its antisemitism and do anything productive about refugees from long-lost wars.
Alt-Country That I Want to Like
I really like the sound of the Old 97's, but the lyrics ...
(Foul language and sexual content warnings apply, not to mention stupid drunkenness, immaturity, and word plays -- but it's Saturday. Best paired with something cheap and tasteless.)
Don't tell me you weren't warned.
(Foul language and sexual content warnings apply, not to mention stupid drunkenness, immaturity, and word plays -- but it's Saturday. Best paired with something cheap and tasteless.)
Don't tell me you weren't warned.
It Takes a Worried Man to Sing a Worried Song
The alt-country band Old 97's used a line from that in their song "Big Brown Eyes."
The (obvious) problem with equating skin color with "priviledge"
Mild language warning, (well deserved) emotional violence against a clueless leftist:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/993513778653290497.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/993513778653290497.html
Speaking of Birthdays and Events on May 8
Friedrich August von Hayek was also born on that day. Karl Marx and Friedrich Hayek share a birthday. Huh.
Jerry Douglas, Edgar Meyer, Russ Barenberg
These three musicians put out one of my favorite instrumental albums, Skip, Hop, and Wobble. There's a clear bluegrass influence, but they take it new places.
You can listen to the whole thing on YouTube, but here are the first two tunes.
You can listen to the whole thing on YouTube, but here are the first two tunes.
Kingship in the Viking Age
An essay on whether scholars are 'reading in' Anglo-Saxon values when they study the Norse sagas.
Grim's Hall
Some of you expressed thoughts about the place, including a request for photographs. Here are a few that give the sense of the place. You can see how much it resembles what you had thought it would look like.
Dragon's breath at sunrise.
Inside the hall.
Below the waterfall.
Gangstagrass
Best known for the theme song to the series Justified, Gangstagrass also has a couple of albums out.
Don't call my bluff
Rookie moves from a prosecutor who's more political than prosecutorial:
Alas, figuring that he was playing with the house money, Mueller made a reckless bet: He charged not only Russian individuals but three Russian businesses. A business doesn’t have the same risks as a person. A business can’t be thrown in jail. And while members of Mueller’s prosecutorial stable have a history of putting real businesses out of business, a business that is run by a Putin crony and serves as a front for Kremlin operations is not too worried about that either.
So . . . guess what? One of those Russian businesses, Concord Management and Consulting, wants its day in court. It has retained the Washington law firm of Reed Smith, two of whose partners, Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly, have told Mueller that Concord is ready to have its trial — and by the way, let’s see all the discovery the law requires you to disclose, including all the evidence you say supports the extravagant allegations in the indictment.
Needless to say, Mueller’s team is not happy about this development since this is not a case they figured on having to prosecute to anything more than a successful press conference. So, they have sought delay on the astonishing ground that the defendant has not been properly served — notwithstanding that the defendant has shown up in court and asked to be arraigned.What's even funnier is that they asked for a few weeks to brief that extraordinary position.
The Steeldrivers
This might be our theme song ...
Maybe add some horses and bikes, UH-60s, claymores ... but, pretty close.
Maybe add some horses and bikes, UH-60s, claymores ... but, pretty close.
Sunday Night Movie Music Video
Haven't done this in a while, but this caught my eye yesterday. I think I own all these movies. Mifune will hold his own against anybody you care to compare him with.
Grim’s Hall
We are moving again, which explains the recent lack of posts. This time, we are moving to a place that befits the name “Grim’s Hall.” I’ll be another three weeks with it at least, but that’s what is keeping me away.
Elmore James (1918-1963)
"Dust My Broom" opens with one of the best-known blues riffs of all time. BB King used it later on.
James wrote "The Sky Is Crying" in 1960 or so. Stevie Ray Vaughn (1954-1990) did a good version of it.
James wrote "The Sky Is Crying" in 1960 or so. Stevie Ray Vaughn (1954-1990) did a good version of it.
An Interesting Take on Hume's NOFI Principle
David Hume famously argued that you cannot logically deduce an ought from an is, which principle can be abbreviated as NOFI: No Ought From Is. This seems reasonable but it potentially leaves morality in a quandary.
Some time back we discussed whether or not there could be moral facts; I thought there could be moral facts, but some here vehemently disagreed. One of the possible conclusions from NOFI is that moral facts are impossible. Maybe a moral statement like "murder is wrong" is simply cheerleading: "Yay for not murdering people!" Or maybe it is a command: "Don't murder!" But it cannot be a fact that murder is wrong because there is no way to deduce what ought not be done just from what is.
Philosopher Charles Pigden disagrees. He has a different explanation for NOFI and its implications. Since I am not a philosopher, nor do I play on one TV, it is best to read his explanation if you are interested. However, in brief, as I understand it, he uses historical evidence and reason to clarify that Hume's NOFI claim was that there was no logically valid way to derive ought from is, but that Hume left open analytically valid ways to derive morality. This, then, would leave the door open for an objective basis for morality.
As to why I am considering Hume's NOFI principle at 4:12 a.m., I will leave that to the reader's imagination, but note that champagne was involved.
Good night, all.
Some time back we discussed whether or not there could be moral facts; I thought there could be moral facts, but some here vehemently disagreed. One of the possible conclusions from NOFI is that moral facts are impossible. Maybe a moral statement like "murder is wrong" is simply cheerleading: "Yay for not murdering people!" Or maybe it is a command: "Don't murder!" But it cannot be a fact that murder is wrong because there is no way to deduce what ought not be done just from what is.
Philosopher Charles Pigden disagrees. He has a different explanation for NOFI and its implications. Since I am not a philosopher, nor do I play on one TV, it is best to read his explanation if you are interested. However, in brief, as I understand it, he uses historical evidence and reason to clarify that Hume's NOFI claim was that there was no logically valid way to derive ought from is, but that Hume left open analytically valid ways to derive morality. This, then, would leave the door open for an objective basis for morality.
As to why I am considering Hume's NOFI principle at 4:12 a.m., I will leave that to the reader's imagination, but note that champagne was involved.
Good night, all.
In the Cathedral of May
But how many months be in the year?
There are thirteen, I say;
The midsummer moon is the merryest of all
Next to the merry month of May.
IN summer time, when leaves grow green,
And flowers are fresh and gay,
Robin Hood and his merry men
Were [all] disposed to play.
Then some would leap, and some would run,
And some use artillery:
'Which of you can a good bow draw,
A good archer to be?
'Which of you can kill a buck?
Or who can kill a doe?
Or who can kill a hart of grease,
Five hundred foot him fro?
"It's a matter of consumer perception"
Yeah, I'll say it's a matter of consumer perception. New York restaurants are coming unspooled over the consequences of the minimum wage hikes that, in theory, both they and their fashionable patrons support 100%. But wait, someone has to pay the higher wages. Let's see, can we eat into restaurant profits? Surely not. Magically save money somewhere else? Apparently we can't. Well, we could charge the patrons more for the food. How do we do that?
It's very complicated. There are these things called menus that reveal the prices. Suppose we change the numbers there to higher numbers? What, and spook all the people impressing their clients and their dates by taking them to expensive fashionable restaurants?
I know, let's leave the menu prices alone and add a surcharge at the very last minute on the check, when everyone's too drunk to notice. Because social justice for the back-of-the-house staff.
The problem is, apparently the restaurants need a city ordinance to allow them to add such a last-minute surcharge, and the city fathers aren't dumb enough to catch this hot potato when it's tossed back to them. The patrons believe in social justice, the restaurateurs believe in social justice, and the politicians believe in social justice. They just don't want to be blamed for it. Thus the spectacle of restaurants running full-page ads demanding the right to impose the surcharge and blaming the city for subjecting them and their underpaid staff to financial hardship. We want to pay the staff more! You just won't let us, you meanies!
It's very complicated. There are these things called menus that reveal the prices. Suppose we change the numbers there to higher numbers? What, and spook all the people impressing their clients and their dates by taking them to expensive fashionable restaurants?
I know, let's leave the menu prices alone and add a surcharge at the very last minute on the check, when everyone's too drunk to notice. Because social justice for the back-of-the-house staff.
The problem is, apparently the restaurants need a city ordinance to allow them to add such a last-minute surcharge, and the city fathers aren't dumb enough to catch this hot potato when it's tossed back to them. The patrons believe in social justice, the restaurateurs believe in social justice, and the politicians believe in social justice. They just don't want to be blamed for it. Thus the spectacle of restaurants running full-page ads demanding the right to impose the surcharge and blaming the city for subjecting them and their underpaid staff to financial hardship. We want to pay the staff more! You just won't let us, you meanies!
Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done
The Pope wants to ban all weapons. All weapons, which potentially means almost every physical object. Water is a weapon.
OK, so, the goal isn't practical. But should it at least be aspirational? After all, the Bible says something about beating swords into plowshares. On the other hand, the Bible also says something about beating plowshares into swords, and pruning hooks into spears: and "let the weak say, 'I am a warrior.'" For everything, there is a season.
As for the New Testament, Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword, and urged his disciples to buy themselves swords if they had to sell their coats.
In terms of Natural Theology, it's hard to think that God is very interested in a world without arms. Animals tend to have natural weapons better than our own for their size; and all animal life, including human beings, can only sustain itself by the consumption of other things that were once alive. If you can know something about God by knowing His works, you would have to reason that God is not opposed to violence. Violence has a purpose in God's scheme.
Banning weapons means that the strong rule over the weak; men over women; the large tribe over the small one. But God favored the David and his sling over Goliath, Judith and her sword over Holofernes, and the Jews over the Egyptians, as well as the other tribes they destroyed in the age of Joshua.
It's a strange sentiment for a Pope to express. It is out of order, as far as I can tell, with reasoned theology whether based on revelation or nature.
OK, so, the goal isn't practical. But should it at least be aspirational? After all, the Bible says something about beating swords into plowshares. On the other hand, the Bible also says something about beating plowshares into swords, and pruning hooks into spears: and "let the weak say, 'I am a warrior.'" For everything, there is a season.
As for the New Testament, Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword, and urged his disciples to buy themselves swords if they had to sell their coats.
In terms of Natural Theology, it's hard to think that God is very interested in a world without arms. Animals tend to have natural weapons better than our own for their size; and all animal life, including human beings, can only sustain itself by the consumption of other things that were once alive. If you can know something about God by knowing His works, you would have to reason that God is not opposed to violence. Violence has a purpose in God's scheme.
Banning weapons means that the strong rule over the weak; men over women; the large tribe over the small one. But God favored the David and his sling over Goliath, Judith and her sword over Holofernes, and the Jews over the Egyptians, as well as the other tribes they destroyed in the age of Joshua.
It's a strange sentiment for a Pope to express. It is out of order, as far as I can tell, with reasoned theology whether based on revelation or nature.
Iran: We Can Enrich Better Than Ever!
Somehow the fact that they've improved their enrichment capacity under the deal is meant to be a good argument for keeping the deal in place? This is not the best deal ever.
Is "Free Speech" Code for Racism and Sexism?
An argument that it is not. Some evidence:
Some questions are dangerous, of course, but the basic question -- are there such differences? -- is surely worth asking. Even if the answer is "yes," as it is with sex, there remains a wide open field of possible answers to the following question about what to do about those differences.
In my estimation, few things divide the right as much as traditional gender roles. The divide is not just ideological, pitting traditionalist social conservatives against right-leaning libertarians, but also generational. As the gay marriage debate showed, a typical Baby Boomer and a typical Millennial, right or left, hold vastly different views about the shifting norms of gender and sexuality.Nevertheless, it is true (as the argument he is countering goes) that much of the effort at suppressing free speech is pointed at arguments that there are innate differences between groups. I think that the sexes are obviously, truly innately different; the real issue is what to do about it, rather than whether or not it is the case. There's a better question about what is commonly called "race," but it's hard to know what to make of it because people who set out to study it are hounded out of the academy.
Polls strongly suggest that the right has achieved nothing like consensus on these issues. Of course, public-opinion data typically measure the beliefs of Americans as a whole, not those of intellectuals in particular. Still, it is telling that 55 percent of Republicans favor women taking on combat roles in the military, one of the starkest departures from traditional gender roles in our society.
Lots of other survey data reveal similar lacks of consensus.
In one survey, Pew reported, “About two-thirds of Democrats who say men and women are basically different in how they express their feelings, their approach to parenting, and their hobbies and personal interests say these differences are rooted in societal expectations. Among their Republican counterparts, about four-in-ten or fewer share those views.” In another Pew study, when Republicans were asked about changing gender roles, 36 percent said they’ve made it easier for women to lead satisfying lives, 32 percent said they’ve made it easier for parents to raise children, 53 percent said they’ve made it easier for women to succeed at work, and 26 percent said that they’ve made it easier for marriages to be successful. Twenty-six percent of Republicans said the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights.
Some questions are dangerous, of course, but the basic question -- are there such differences? -- is surely worth asking. Even if the answer is "yes," as it is with sex, there remains a wide open field of possible answers to the following question about what to do about those differences.
Fixes
The Clinton-appointed judge appointed a Clinton-appointed "special master" to review the President's communications with his lawyer.
Hillbilly Hip Hop?
I first heard this musical mix when I started watching Justified.
More recently, I've been listening to Crowder.
More recently, I've been listening to Crowder.
An Interesting Analogy
It was 43 years ago that feminist British film theorist Laura Mulvey coined the term male gaze in her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”: “The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact.”Motherhood tends to be idealized because it is a form of service on which civilization depends, as soldiering is. The gaze of male attraction to women is not similarly idealized, but treated as selfish and offensive. On the other hand, without the male gaze there is no mothering; motherhood depends on male attraction to women, excepting relatively rare cases of medical intervention.
The neo-Expressionist Eric Fischl (while clarifying that “I don’t do nude, I do naked. Naked is psychological; it involves a much more complicated set of emotional relationships to physicality, to need, to desire, to pleasure”), believes that it’s important to analyze how the male gaze works in making art. But he’s also of the opinion that men looking at women is, to some extent, “a genetically engineered reflex for very particular reasons.” To try to make it somehow “an unnatural aspect of being a man” doesn’t make much sense, he says. “It would be the same as supposing the children of women who paint mothers and children said, ‘Stop the motherly gaze; it’s inappropriate, invasive, objectifying.’ What would the women do? They’d say, ‘It’s natural for me to look at this aspect of womanness,’ and the children would say, ‘No, you’re not treating me as though I’m separate and other.’ ” Fischl laughs.
Interestingly to me, the consent we usually invoke to justify male attraction to a female is entirely absent in the mother/child relation. The child has no capacity to reject his mother's attention, or her mother's; similarly, the mother can impose either her motherhood or death upon the child at will until the child is born. The child's interests are not considered until birth, and even then they are legally subordinated. In that way the cases differ sharply.
Otherwise the analogy holds pretty well. Children are certainly objects of their mother's gaze, and her attention: hopefully, also of her love and affection. A man who loves a woman hopefully also gives her a kind of love and affection in addition to his gaze. If he doesn't, the problem is with the absence of the love; it is possible to be a bad mother (or father) by withholding those things, too.
H/t: Arts & Letters Daily.
Happy Birthday
My father died in 2016. This was his birthday. I don't think I noticed the first one when he was gone. I was too busy that year, finishing his business as well as my own. In fact I'm still finishing up some of his business even now, and lately I'm all but overwhelmed with my own. A man like him leaves a hole in the world. It's a deal of work to close such business. To fill the hole would be a life's work of its own.
I wish I had better words for the occasion, but I don't. I will refer you to the same essay I linked below by the picture of his father, my grandfather. It's a piece I'm glad to have written. I'm even more glad that the original was written in 2004. I had twelve years after that to try to make it right with him. I did my best.
I wish I had better words for the occasion, but I don't. I will refer you to the same essay I linked below by the picture of his father, my grandfather. It's a piece I'm glad to have written. I'm even more glad that the original was written in 2004. I had twelve years after that to try to make it right with him. I did my best.
America is a Philosophy
Here's a man from Yorkshire who'd have fit in at the Boston Tea Party. He'll be doing 8 months in prison, a fact the police celebrate in their message to the public. I have no printable response to them, but I hope that when he's done being a political prisoner he'll come home to America.
Old Cheese
This article is about the Viking-era cheese of that name, or Gamalost in the Norsk. There's also an Arabic dish whose name also translates as "old cheese," but it has very different qualities.
That Thing You All Knew Was True
The DOJ IG report found administration interference in investigations for political reasons.
For the Ladies
Some of you might prefer a firearm, but swords are an option too.
(Note the small print citation, giving credit to what I hope is the original artist. It's based on a sketch from our friends at The Art of Manliness, which you can see here.)
(Note the small print citation, giving credit to what I hope is the original artist. It's based on a sketch from our friends at The Art of Manliness, which you can see here.)
Grouchy Farmers in the UK
A farmer fed up with ‘townies’ complaining about the noise and smells of the countryside has posted a sign outside his farm in a dig at sensitive city dwellers.Stephen Nolan, 48, put up the notice after receiving consistent complaints for four years about noise from his animals.‘This property is a farm. Farms have animals and animals make funny sounds, smell bad and have sex outdoors’, it reads.‘Unless you can tolerate the above, don’t buy a property next to a farm.’The cheeky missive, erected at Laneside Farm in Lancashire, has received a lot of love on social media from locals who described it as ‘hilarious’.
I'd be pretty grouchy about it too, especially the bit later on about neighbors threatening to sue if he builds a bigger stables for his horses. He has Shire horses and Clydesdales.
Angelo Codevilla: Living With Politics as War
Codevilla's article at American Greatness argues that it's too late to make peace with the Left and that a counter-march through the institutions would be pointless. He argues for creating a strong separate conservative culture that would replace the Left-dominated institutions. He talks about boycotts, state nullification of federal laws, replacing universities, etc. It's a good article, although I don't know how far I agree with it. In the very long run, pushing for more balance at currently-Left-dominated institutions may be productive.
There are some specific recommendations he makes that I'd like to post about later, but it's a good read whether I get around to that or not.
There are some specific recommendations he makes that I'd like to post about later, but it's a good read whether I get around to that or not.
The Carlos Hathcock Method of Sighting in a Rifle
An excerpt just to get you started on a good story:
I didn’t know Carlos then and did not know of his exploits in NM and Sniper shooting. Ted talked to Carlos about it and Carlos stopped by the shop later that afternoon. Carlos looked at me and said, “So you want to sight in your rifle, eh? OK, thoroughly clean the bore and chamber. Dry the bore out with patches just before you come down to Range 4 tomorrow at noon on the 200 yard line. Have the sling on the rifle that you are going to use in hunting.” Then he went on about his business.
Jack T.
We're a bit past the Ides of March, which was his birthday, but today I came across a photo of my grandfather. He was called "Jack T." in the same way that John Wayne was "John T." in Rio Bravo -- short for "John T. Chance," in that case.
Here's what he looked like.
I also learned today that he was a soldier in his youth, which I'd never known. We found a picture of him in uniform at Ft. Oglethorpe, undated. His uniform included a 1911 Campaign Hat. I was told he'd been rejected for enlistment in WWII because he was a welder, and needed more at home -- he worked on the nuclear program at Oak Ridge in that capacity. It turns out, he must have been trying to reenlist.
Here's what he looked like.
I also learned today that he was a soldier in his youth, which I'd never known. We found a picture of him in uniform at Ft. Oglethorpe, undated. His uniform included a 1911 Campaign Hat. I was told he'd been rejected for enlistment in WWII because he was a welder, and needed more at home -- he worked on the nuclear program at Oak Ridge in that capacity. It turns out, he must have been trying to reenlist.
The Clintons, then and now
I've been watching old "Larry Sanders Show" episodes, inspired by an enjoyable HBO restrospective of the career of the late Garry Shandling. These shows roughly coincide with the 1990s Clinton Era, and I've been surprised by the number of casually biting hits on both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the fictional talk-show host's monologues. Bill appears as a clownish lecher, Hillary as a mean, dangerous criminal. One joke from last night concerned the hardships of a documentarist trying to interview employees at the White House in order to investigate rumors of a fascist atmosphere. A telephone operator begged the interviewer to go away before someone saw them talking, because Hillary would "hurt him." A typical monologue joke turns on Hillary's exposure to criminal prosecution, requiring no explanation for the audience.
Shandling was no right-winger; his jokes at the expense of the GOP were if anything more harsh. It makes me realize the extraordinary--though unsuccessful--effort to rehabilitate Ms. Clinton during the Obama Era.
Shandling was no right-winger; his jokes at the expense of the GOP were if anything more harsh. It makes me realize the extraordinary--though unsuccessful--effort to rehabilitate Ms. Clinton during the Obama Era.
A Hoax Pointed at Starbucks
This is really an urban phenomenon. One thing I really hate about going to the city is all the locked bathrooms. We don't get this out in the country. People know that going to the bathroom is something human beings have to do once in a while, and that it can be rather urgent at times. Locks are unwelcome.
All the same, every city I ever go to has locked bathrooms everywhere.
I could use this moment to make one of the comments to which I am personally inclined about how living in the city is a less worthy life, but I won't do that. Instead I'll admit that cities offer some advantages in terms of access to wealth and trade, and the goods that those things can bring -- goods like theaters, orchestras, and the like. You don't find those out in the middle of the country either.
In return, however, you have to live with a lot more indignity. Cities have a high cost of living in terms of taxes, higher rent, and the like. They also cost more of your dignity. If you are going to live in easy proximity to those goods, you're going to pay for the privilege. Part of that cost is that you will be less free, treated with less respect, and subject to many more daily humiliations. That's true for everyone, though of course it is worse if you are poor.
Crossing the line
You may or may not be aware of a little controversy in Jacksonville FL recently. This article summarized it nicely, and rather than do so here, I trust you will get the gist quickly.
The citation was probably accurate under the city code as written, wrongheaded, and it looks like that rule has been amended to allow for military flags. But honestly, that wasn't particularly shocking to me, being just a poorly written and overly non-specific rule. The code enforcer's treatment of a veteran in the store (not the business owner being cited, but just a customer who happened to be in the store) was outrageous, and while it crossed the line, that's not actually so much what I want to talk about.
Instead, it got me thinking. This woman is a city employee. A government official. Can the government fire her for being rude? Should the government be able to fire an employee for stating an unpopular opinion? I go back and forth on this. Sure, if she were a private employee, her employer could toss her out the door for bringing controversy to the business. But the government is bound by the First Amendment in a way that private businesses are not.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there is not some rule or regulation about representing the city in a negative light, or perhaps mistreatment of the public as being a fireable offense, and if such a rule exists, and it was a condition of her employment, controversy over... mostly. If there is no such rule, then I don't know that she can legally be fired for being rude to a veteran. And I don't know if she ought to be.
I am a veteran. I can hardly think of a more grave insult you can pay to a wounded vet that "you did nothing for this country" (which is what was originally reported, but I will accept the article's interpretation that she actually said what the vet did overseas does not matter [in the context of the citation]). But insults still are protected speech. Oh, one may face social opprobrium for saying such a thing. One may be ostracized and publicly shamed, and rightfully so. But the government cannot punish someone for expressing an opinion, regardless of how unpopular it may be. They are prohibited from doing so, and should be prohibited from doing so. And I don't know that I want the government to start getting into the business of deciding what speech is protected, and what is not. Because that is a VERY short slope towards the modern leftist desire to label all speech they do not like as unprotected "hate speech", and then using that to legally ban such speech.
The citation was probably accurate under the city code as written, wrongheaded, and it looks like that rule has been amended to allow for military flags. But honestly, that wasn't particularly shocking to me, being just a poorly written and overly non-specific rule. The code enforcer's treatment of a veteran in the store (not the business owner being cited, but just a customer who happened to be in the store) was outrageous, and while it crossed the line, that's not actually so much what I want to talk about.
Instead, it got me thinking. This woman is a city employee. A government official. Can the government fire her for being rude? Should the government be able to fire an employee for stating an unpopular opinion? I go back and forth on this. Sure, if she were a private employee, her employer could toss her out the door for bringing controversy to the business. But the government is bound by the First Amendment in a way that private businesses are not.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there is not some rule or regulation about representing the city in a negative light, or perhaps mistreatment of the public as being a fireable offense, and if such a rule exists, and it was a condition of her employment, controversy over... mostly. If there is no such rule, then I don't know that she can legally be fired for being rude to a veteran. And I don't know if she ought to be.
I am a veteran. I can hardly think of a more grave insult you can pay to a wounded vet that "you did nothing for this country" (which is what was originally reported, but I will accept the article's interpretation that she actually said what the vet did overseas does not matter [in the context of the citation]). But insults still are protected speech. Oh, one may face social opprobrium for saying such a thing. One may be ostracized and publicly shamed, and rightfully so. But the government cannot punish someone for expressing an opinion, regardless of how unpopular it may be. They are prohibited from doing so, and should be prohibited from doing so. And I don't know that I want the government to start getting into the business of deciding what speech is protected, and what is not. Because that is a VERY short slope towards the modern leftist desire to label all speech they do not like as unprotected "hate speech", and then using that to legally ban such speech.
A Hoard of Harald Bluetooth
A boy has made a major find:
Braided necklaces, pearls, brooches, a Thor’s hammer, rings and up to 600 chipped coins were found, including more than 100 that date back to Bluetooth’s era, when he ruled over what is now Denmark, northern Germany, southern Sweden and parts of Norway.That late a date means that it would have been after Bluetooth's conversion to Christianity. Bluetooth is, of course, the king with whom the protagonists of The Long Ships feasted one memorable Yule. He is also the namesake of those "Bluetooth" devices you see everywhere; the logo is a bindrune of his initials, the runic forms of H and then B.
“This trove is the biggest single discovery of Bluetooth coins in the southern Baltic Sea region and is therefore of great significance,” the lead archaeologist, Michael Schirren, told national news agency DPA.
The oldest coin is a Damascus dirham dating to 714 while the most recent is a penny dating to 983.
The find suggests that the treasure may have been buried in the late 980s – also the period when Bluetooth was known to have fled to Pomerania, where he died in 987.
Purely Coincidence, Your Honor
The judge who is overseeing the dispute between Trump and his DOJ employees was Bill Clinton's second (failed) Attorney General nominee, and personally officiated at the last wedding of George Soros.
Is there anyone involved in the Mueller investigation, apparently to include the judges themselves, who isn't a member of the Clinton faction?
Is there anyone involved in the Mueller investigation, apparently to include the judges themselves, who isn't a member of the Clinton faction?
Kimberley Strassel on Comey
She has a series of penetrating questions of the sort that, of course, Comey has not been asked. He ought to be, though.
The Constitution, How Does It Work?
The President is going to court to force the Department of Justice, which works for him, to take his lead on how to handle the seizure of his own attorney's papers. This is roughly like the House of Representatives suing the Senate in Federal Court because they disagree with how the Senate has handled a bill they forwarded.
What the court should say, of course, is that this is an internal Executive Branch matter over which the court has no power. Instead, they are apparently taking seriously the assumption that a court should have authority to rule over a dispute between the President and his employees in the Executive Branch.
Meanwhile, the Senate is considering a law that would give a Special Counsel recourse to the courts to sue if they are fired and get themselves reinstated. Presumably that would have to be passed into law over the President's veto, but if so it would represent a seizure of constitutional authority from the Executive by the other two branches of government.
The proposed law also seems to create the Department of Justice as a kind of independent secret police. You can see how wise this is if you substitute in the name of any other secret police: "...a [Stasi investigator] may be fired only by the [head of the Stasi], and only for good cause, like misconduct." I'm sure we all have a higher opinion of the DOJ and the FBI than we do of the Stasi or the Gestapo, but the point of constitutional limits on power is to assume that someday bad people might get in charge. Do you really want to set up a secret police that is fully independent of elected officials?
This really has turned into a constitutional crisis.
What the court should say, of course, is that this is an internal Executive Branch matter over which the court has no power. Instead, they are apparently taking seriously the assumption that a court should have authority to rule over a dispute between the President and his employees in the Executive Branch.
Meanwhile, the Senate is considering a law that would give a Special Counsel recourse to the courts to sue if they are fired and get themselves reinstated. Presumably that would have to be passed into law over the President's veto, but if so it would represent a seizure of constitutional authority from the Executive by the other two branches of government.
The proposed law also seems to create the Department of Justice as a kind of independent secret police. You can see how wise this is if you substitute in the name of any other secret police: "...a [Stasi investigator] may be fired only by the [head of the Stasi], and only for good cause, like misconduct." I'm sure we all have a higher opinion of the DOJ and the FBI than we do of the Stasi or the Gestapo, but the point of constitutional limits on power is to assume that someday bad people might get in charge. Do you really want to set up a secret police that is fully independent of elected officials?
This really has turned into a constitutional crisis.
The real problem with greed
I'm often exasperated by attacks on the profit motive. The one area where I'm willing to attack it is the action of an individual who knows what's right and what's wrong but chooses the wrong because he's paid to do it. From a surprising source--CBS, for Pete's sake--comes this spot-on criticism of James Comey's new book "A Higher Loyalty":
As Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com tweeted, it's "not particularly honorable, if you have information you believe is of immediate and vital national importance, to wait 11 months to release it until you can have a giant book launch and publicity tour." Silver—no Trump fan--calls the book "A Higher Royalty."
Truth and pity
Chesterton on virtue:
When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.
Prediction is hard
Powerline chuckles at the latest strike of the "Al Gore Effect," which is the juxtaposition of record-cold temperatures in Minnesota with a "March for Science" dominated by climate alarmists. He notes, of course, that these days HotColdWetDry is as eager to explain record cold as record heat by pointing to catastrophic climate something or other. Whatever we just experienced, it was somehow linked to original climate sin. I like his conclusion: "I will be more impressed with the alarmists’ models when they predict something before it happens."
Separation of powers
At last, some clear thinking on the rule of law from Andrew McCarthy:
If lawmakers believe the president is abusing his power by firing good public servants arbitrarily, they can impeach the president. Or they can try to bend the president into better behavior by cutting off funding, refusing to confirm nominees, or holding oversight hearings that embarrass the administration. Congress has these powerful political tools. But it does not have legal means to usurp the president’s constitutional power. Those powers do not come from Congress. They come from Article II. The Constitution cannot be amended by a mere statute or a regulation. Congress may not enact a law that purports to place conditions on the president’s power to dismiss subordinates who exercise his powers.
Comey's goals
Per Powerline, a clip from Comey's interview with George Stephanopoulos. Comey freely acknowledges that he never told President Trump that the Steele Dossier was funded by Clinton's campaign. It wasn't important for Comey's goals, he says, which were simply to let Trump know that the FBI had this information. You have to admire an administrator for keeping such a tight focus on his own organization's welfare, at a time when it would have been easy to be distracted by principles of honesty or justice, or the broader good of the nation.
Comey is oddly un-self-conscious. I have the idea that if you charged him with amorality, he wouldn't take offense but would only gaze at you in mild blankness, wondering what you were getting at.
Comey is oddly un-self-conscious. I have the idea that if you charged him with amorality, he wouldn't take offense but would only gaze at you in mild blankness, wondering what you were getting at.
A Kinda Frightening CIA Blunder
Christopher Harper over at Da Tech Guy lists a few CIA blunders. This one was kinda frightening to me:
I don't regularly read Da Tech Guy, and I don't know if this story is true. An ABC report seems to confirm it, though.
My all-time favorite happened in Lebanon.
The pro-Iranian group Hezbollah identified numerous CIA operatives by staking out a Pizza Hut in Beirut. How did Hezbollah figure out that the CIA was meeting with double agents and informants at Pizza Hut? The CIA decided to use the code word “pizza” when communicating with agents.
The code literally meant to meet at a pizza joint for pizza! Ten agents had their identity revealed, and numerous other informants were discovered—some of whom were executed. The CIA was left essentially blind in Lebanon for several months, having to pull the agents out, because agents were lazy and uncreative with their tradecraft.
I don't regularly read Da Tech Guy, and I don't know if this story is true. An ABC report seems to confirm it, though.
Days of Our Lives
Does it strike anyone else as strange that we're watching a for-real national saga in which the President is being prosecuted by a man who is best friends with the star witness in the case against the President, while that star witness has just started profiting off a book tour that will be more successful insofar as the prosecution seems serious? Doesn't that seem like an ethical issue to anyone? As far as I can tell, the main concern (even among members of the President's party) is protecting the investigation.
Shifts in the Night
Is Paul Ryan's departure the end of the 'one party that acts as if it were two'? Possibly, but it'll be costly.
The Democratic party has gone hard left since the defeat of Clinton; the capacity to move hard on ideology is realized because they are at a low point in terms of holding statewide or national office. They have nothing much to lose, so they can say what they want.
Is it worth the exchange? No, in the case of the Democrats: socialism is bad. What about in the case of an America-first party?
The Democratic party has gone hard left since the defeat of Clinton; the capacity to move hard on ideology is realized because they are at a low point in terms of holding statewide or national office. They have nothing much to lose, so they can say what they want.
Is it worth the exchange? No, in the case of the Democrats: socialism is bad. What about in the case of an America-first party?
Calexit
A small problem for that vision of the future in which California is the model for the whole United States. What if people would rather be free?
Disney Princesses & Abortion
A very sad piece by a woman who worked for Disney as a "princess," who did in fact have an abortion. I forward it because she ends up endorsing a thought that Chesterton also endorses, and that I reflect on myself from time to time: that the old fairy tales are reliable.
The stories little girls need to continue to hear are already exemplified in the fairy tales that teach us about goodness and truth. It has always been the witches plotting to confuse the princesses, attempting to lure them away from their noble pursuits ... Cinderella, battling through unplanned circumstances as an orphan in the fire before being transformed into a sparkly princess and future queen, is a story that brings hope and teaches us about true empowerment. It’s a story of making something beautiful out of the life surprises that threaten to burn us.I think you're forbidden to suggest that there are "evil women" in the world, or that they bear responsibility for the harms caused by their words. But it is a prominent feature of the old stories, for what are doubtlessly wicked and patriarchal reasons.
Cinderella’s crown represents victory over the lies of evil women that told us we were dirty girls destined to sit in the cinders rather than future monarchs destined to rule. Princess fairy tales have lasted ages and teach women about goodness, mercy, kindness, power, perseverance, and strength in a world trying to whistle songs of death past little ears.
Jacksonian Foreign Policy
An interview with one David Reaboi, a former member of the "New York city avant garde" jazz scene, until he was present at 9/11. Present at the creation, as it were. His insights on foreign policy thought on the right are worth hearing.
Update on British Self-Defense Case
From no less than Kim du Toit, we learn that the police have decided not to prosecute the elderly man who successfully defended himself from home invasion. However, the police are also not doing much to protect him against apparent revenge attempts by the career criminal relatives of the dead invader.
So in defending himself from two murderous intruders, he now has to live his life cowering behind boarded-up windows, in fear of reprisal from the dead asshole’s relatives; because while the Britcops are very efficient in arresting the law-abiding, they’re completely incompetent when it comes to protecting them. And of course, there is no way in hell Our Hero is ever going to be allowed to own a shotgun to protect himself....
So when our local would-be gun controllers confiscators talk about “reasonable U.K.-style gun laws”, please note that this would be one of the outcomes for us law-abiding folks.
Viking Sunstones
A detailed article on the subject of the legendary stones.
The team simulated 3600 voyages taken during the spring equinox, the presumed start of the open seas travel season, and the summer solstice, the longest day of the northern year....
When navigators took readings every 4 hours, their ships reached Greenland between 32% and 59% of the time. Readings every 5 or 6 hours meant the ship had a dramatically poorer chance of making landfall. But for voyages on which the seafarers took sunstone readings at intervals of 3 hours or less, ships made landfall between 92% and 100% of the time, the researchers report today in Royal Society Open Science. In addition to the frequency of readings, key to a successful journey was using the sunstone for an equal number of morning and afternoon readings, the researchers say. (That’s because morning readings can cause a ship to veer too far northward and afternoon readings can cause it to veer too far southward, sometimes missing Greenland altogether.)
Privilege
An idea isn't necessarily bad just because the person who came up with it is rich or privileged in certain ways. However, there is a valid criticism when -- as here -- the idea's plausibility depends on the very access to wealth or privilege that isn't always present for others.
There is another issue around the analogy between police and maids. I imagine the police wouldn't appreciate being analogized to maids for the rich, but they do sometimes speak of 'cleaning up the streets.' They don't mean this literally, in terms of sweeping the sidewalk. They mean they are arresting and throwing people into prison, so that those people -- in the analogy, the trash -- are not on the streets anymore. Who are those people who are analogically 'trash'? Not the rich!
So the issue isn't just that the suggestion is 'have the maid do it' when not everyone can afford a maid. Another issue is that not everyone can rely on the maid to think of them as one of her clients.
Of course, one could counter-argue that no one would benefit from a good maid as much as those who currently find themselves surrounded by trash. Surely that's true, as long as the maid is reliable in discerning the trash from the clients who need help with the cleaning.
Fact-checking the fact-checking
Well, this is very meta, but seems a useful tool. Real Clear Politics analyzes the methods of a number of fact-checking organizations such as Politifact and Snopes.
A New Model for Sportswriting
There's some promise here.
When I worked at NHL.com, we had to write these “Why the [TEAM NAME] will win the Stanley Cup” pieces before every postseason that were just nightmares, especially when you didn’t believe what you were writing... We were guaranteed to get 15 of 16 of these stories wrong every spring yet we did them anyway.I don't know much about the current state of hockey, but the model he's hit upon is clearly valid.
Six years later, I’ve found the perfect antidote to that insufferable optimism—telling you why your team isn’t going to win the Cup. I’m guaranteed to get 15 of 16 correct! You can’t beat those odds!
A voice and a heart
From a Gutenberg project I'm working on, this excerpt from Browning's An Epistle Containing the Strange Medical Experience of Karshish, an Arab Physician, "the startled utterance of
the Syrian contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth":
"... think, Abib; dost thou think?
So, the All-great were the All-loving too!
So through the thunder comes a human voice
Saying: "O heart I made, a heart beats here!"
The NRA and Race
It's a point we've featured here before, but it's worth hearing it again.
The NRA, from its very beginnings, took seriously the issue of black Americans' right to defend themselves with firearms. The worst that can be said about them is that they could do more, for example in cases like Philando Castile's; but that wish for more happens in a context in which very few are doing anything to protect their rights at all. Many, in fact, are doing the best they can to strip their rights away.
The NRA, from its very beginnings, took seriously the issue of black Americans' right to defend themselves with firearms. The worst that can be said about them is that they could do more, for example in cases like Philando Castile's; but that wish for more happens in a context in which very few are doing anything to protect their rights at all. Many, in fact, are doing the best they can to strip their rights away.
Nonsense, Mr. Khan
"There is never a reason to carry a knife"? The knife is one of the most universal tools in human history. There are hundreds of reasons to carry a knife, which is why everyone everywhere has typically done so.
Self-defense is a valid reason, for that matter. The collapse of order in your city, Mr. Khan, is a more than adequate reason by itself. But for goodness sake, don't try to sell me on "never." I carry a knife everywhere, and I find it endlessly useful. Other people who have neglected to carry a knife very regularly ask to borrow mine.
Why don't you try establishing a civilization in which you don't have to ban ordinary useful tools in order to have peace and good order? The British used to know how to do that.
Middle-Earth Announces Heavy Tariffs On Narnian Imports
MINAS TIRITH, GONDOR—Kicking off a major trade war between the two
kingdoms, the Middle-Earth Trade Federation has announced heavy tariffs
on the import of Narnian steel, sending the stock market into a freefall
Thursday...
Happy Dance
Speaking of MercyMe ...
I had a teacher once who told me, "I can't sing worth anything, but I can sure make a joyful noise."
I had a teacher once who told me, "I can't sing worth anything, but I can sure make a joyful noise."
The Left's Enemies Must Be Crushed
The head of Twitter endorsed this article on eliminating the political opposition, so you might want to read it.
It's not well-argued, and there's almost nothing of value in its extremely loose historical analogies. The endorsement thus isn't based on the notion that this is a tightly argued piece that maps out a plausible way forward. The endorsement is of the overarching vision of a nation where only Democrats exercise political power, where Republicans and conservatives are as powerless as in California, and where 'the wrong side' is crushed and subordinated.
California accomplished this, the author says, so the nation as a whole can as well. There are in fact substantial road blocks to doing that in the rest of the country, but you might usefully ask how California became so reliably Democratic. The answer is straightforward: Democrats endorsed mass immigration, Republicans opposed it, and the massive number of immigrants voted for Democrats as a result. It's actually completely unlike the historical analogues chosen by the author, i.e., the Civil War and the FDR era that arose in the Great Depression. Those political outcomes were the result of calamities that persuaded people to accept a new order. In California, they just imported enough new voters to tip the scales.
California also exported a lot of Republican voters, of course, as they fled the state for Texas or other friendlier climes. In the envisioned scenario, there would be nowhere to go.
It's not well-argued, and there's almost nothing of value in its extremely loose historical analogies. The endorsement thus isn't based on the notion that this is a tightly argued piece that maps out a plausible way forward. The endorsement is of the overarching vision of a nation where only Democrats exercise political power, where Republicans and conservatives are as powerless as in California, and where 'the wrong side' is crushed and subordinated.
California accomplished this, the author says, so the nation as a whole can as well. There are in fact substantial road blocks to doing that in the rest of the country, but you might usefully ask how California became so reliably Democratic. The answer is straightforward: Democrats endorsed mass immigration, Republicans opposed it, and the massive number of immigrants voted for Democrats as a result. It's actually completely unlike the historical analogues chosen by the author, i.e., the Civil War and the FDR era that arose in the Great Depression. Those political outcomes were the result of calamities that persuaded people to accept a new order. In California, they just imported enough new voters to tip the scales.
California also exported a lot of Republican voters, of course, as they fled the state for Texas or other friendlier climes. In the envisioned scenario, there would be nowhere to go.
The Great Leveler
On Jordan Peterson's recommendation, I'm about to start "The Great Leveler," an attempt to analyze how much income inequality has occurred from 9,000 B.C. through the present. The general consensus is that the author is descriptivist not prescriptivist and has no political agenda to push. His overall conclusion is that income inequality is persistent, interrupted only by cataclysms like war and pestilence, which foster an equality by general immiseration.
It's interesting to read the most positive and negative reviews, as I usually do before taking a chance on a book: about the same number of negative reviewers object that his political bias is obvious. Some, however, object that he is betraying a bias to the left by arguing that inequality must be bad, without explaining why or noting that what's important is how tolerable life is for those on the bottom. Others object that he is betraying a bias to the right by arguing that equality can be achieved only by violent disaster, whereas all sensible and compassionate people know that inequality occurs only when bad men use violence. The positive reviews tend to find him apolitical, whether the reviewer betrays a disposition towards the left or the right. The author himself apparently offers no suggestions other than to be careful what we wish for.
It's interesting to read the most positive and negative reviews, as I usually do before taking a chance on a book: about the same number of negative reviewers object that his political bias is obvious. Some, however, object that he is betraying a bias to the left by arguing that inequality must be bad, without explaining why or noting that what's important is how tolerable life is for those on the bottom. Others object that he is betraying a bias to the right by arguing that equality can be achieved only by violent disaster, whereas all sensible and compassionate people know that inequality occurs only when bad men use violence. The positive reviews tend to find him apolitical, whether the reviewer betrays a disposition towards the left or the right. The author himself apparently offers no suggestions other than to be careful what we wish for.
"I'm the Majority" - the Law Abiding Citizen
Four minutes that perfectly explain the gun issue. Thank you Mr. Mark Robinson of Greensboro, North Carolina. I'll say no more and just get out of his way...
Pueblo Sin Fronteras
More looking-glass-world news coverage this week. President Trump announced that there would be some really unpleasant consequences to Mexico if a caravan of illegal immigrants from Central America were ushered politely through Mexico to the southern U.S. border, and magically, they called the march off and dumped the participants into Mexico City. Now it seems that there is an annual caravan of this type, organized by a group called "Pueblo Sin Fronteras" (People Without Borders), whose website asks for donations but doesn't give any information about where it's based or who runs it. PSF explained that the halt had nothing to do with Trump, whatever you might have assumed, but was a rational response to the fear of the dangers of an arduous train ride that normally forms the next link in this standard trek.
You might think that the news coverage would stress the fact that this is an annual organized attempt to challenge the U.S. borders and to spin up favorable news coverage for open-border enthusiasts, but instead the coverage is . . . strange. This NBC story, for instance, explains that President Trump is misleading everyone into thinking that there's a large organized group of illegal immigrants being shepherded through Mexico on their way here, because it's really an annual publicity stunt that's been going on for years, what's the big deal? Snopes takes the same strange view: you may have heard that there's a caravan, etc., but a quick look at the facts shows that it's just the usual annual, etc. What's more, no one is planning an illegal entry. Instead, they intend to ask for asylum, as usual. It's true that, in order to ask for asylum, they have to present themselves to immigration officials inside the U.S., having first crashed the border, but what's the big deal? Why is Trump being a meanie all of a sudden? The whole purpose of the annual march is to highlight the plight of people on an annual march to crash the U.S. border, and suddenly you guys want to make it harder?
I think "People Without Borders" is a better description of us than of the organization that organizes the annual caravans. PS, as the Washington Examiner points out, there is also an American organization called People Without Borders that facilitates assimilation of legal immigrants, but it is getting flak from people who have confused it with Pueblo Sin Fronteras. PSF's Facebook page is short on background but identifies itself as an "International Migrant Outreach Collective," whose "product" is "humanity."
You might think that the news coverage would stress the fact that this is an annual organized attempt to challenge the U.S. borders and to spin up favorable news coverage for open-border enthusiasts, but instead the coverage is . . . strange. This NBC story, for instance, explains that President Trump is misleading everyone into thinking that there's a large organized group of illegal immigrants being shepherded through Mexico on their way here, because it's really an annual publicity stunt that's been going on for years, what's the big deal? Snopes takes the same strange view: you may have heard that there's a caravan, etc., but a quick look at the facts shows that it's just the usual annual, etc. What's more, no one is planning an illegal entry. Instead, they intend to ask for asylum, as usual. It's true that, in order to ask for asylum, they have to present themselves to immigration officials inside the U.S., having first crashed the border, but what's the big deal? Why is Trump being a meanie all of a sudden? The whole purpose of the annual march is to highlight the plight of people on an annual march to crash the U.S. border, and suddenly you guys want to make it harder?
I think "People Without Borders" is a better description of us than of the organization that organizes the annual caravans. PS, as the Washington Examiner points out, there is also an American organization called People Without Borders that facilitates assimilation of legal immigrants, but it is getting flak from people who have confused it with Pueblo Sin Fronteras. PSF's Facebook page is short on background but identifies itself as an "International Migrant Outreach Collective," whose "product" is "humanity."
Amazing Grace
This song in one form or another has come up in my life several times over the last week. Might as well put the Dropkick Murphy's version up.
I Can Only Imagine
Also a good movie, though of the two I preferred "Paul, Apostle of Christ."
If you aren't familiar with it, the song "I Can Only Imagine" launched MercyMe's career in the Christian music world and I believe is the best-selling Christian single ever.
If you aren't familiar with it, the song "I Can Only Imagine" launched MercyMe's career in the Christian music world and I believe is the best-selling Christian single ever.
UK Holds 78 Year Old For Defending Himself
A pensioner in London is under arrest after stabbing one of two men who invaded his home and assaulted him.
The injustice of this is apparently not obvious to British authorities. One begins to suspect it is the desired future for some of our fellow Americans, too.
The injustice of this is apparently not obvious to British authorities. One begins to suspect it is the desired future for some of our fellow Americans, too.
The California Secession
States control their own ballots for their own state and local elections, and they can let non-citizens vote if they want to do. However, in Federal elections, they must ensure that only citizens vote. If they knowingly register non-citizens to vote without ensuring that those non-citizens can be excluded from Federal elections, they're out of order. What's to be done about it?
Imagine a better alternative. Suppose that President Trump announces today that the new California law has made all future elections unconstitutional and illegal, because foreigners are now allowed to tilt the outcome. Neither he nor the Republican House and Senate will accept the credentials of anyone elected by California (one of eight states, incidentally, that have more registered voters than voting-age citizens).I can imagine that, but what's the mechanism for not counting the votes of Presidential electors appointed by California? Does the Office of the Federal Register have the authority to do that? Would they exercise it?
Imagine after November's vote that California's two Democratic senators and 53 members of Congress (39 of whom are Democrats) are not seated until a new California election purges all illegal aliens and other foreigners from the voter rolls in federal elections. No California presidential votes will be counted in 2020. Imagine the federal government requiring voter IDs and declaring it a felony punishable by permanent forfeiture of future U.S. citizenship if a non-citizen votes illegally in any federal election.
Two Against the Conventional Wisdom
This first one shouldn't be a surprise. Maslow's famous hierarchy of needs suggests that only people who have succeeded at fulfilling more basic needs will have attention for ideology. It takes a high degree of resources to have time and attention for the processes of radicalization, which involve study and thought. All the same, it will be a surprise, because the basic assumption of many is that some sort of actual injustice is behind radicalization: poverty and its resentments.
The second one isn't surprising either, since the numbers they're putting up mirror the population far better than the ones the NYT ran. In a high-stakes election like 2016, it makes sense that the population would turn out in numbers that are more representative than less. But, again, it'll be a surprise even though it shouldn't be.
The second one isn't surprising either, since the numbers they're putting up mirror the population far better than the ones the NYT ran. In a high-stakes election like 2016, it makes sense that the population would turn out in numbers that are more representative than less. But, again, it'll be a surprise even though it shouldn't be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)