In Capitalist America, Your Groceries Shop for You!
Walgreens is testing out cameras to watch shoppers, analyze them for demographic information, and refine their marketing systems. And they aren't the only ones.
Impossible!
One of many, many affectionate tributes to the late Richard Feynman, whose delight in a surprising phenomenon knew no bounds. He was well guarded against the danger of refusing to acknowledge inconvenient truth, because his joy came from grappling with it. His "Impossible!" really meant "What a wonderful toy you've given me to play with!"
This is a Penrose tile, I think, and below is a supposedly forbidden pentagonal natural array from a quasi-periodic crystal.
This is a Penrose tile, I think, and below is a supposedly forbidden pentagonal natural array from a quasi-periodic crystal.
Eat the Rich, Eat Your Zoo Animals
Rep. Omar calls for considering a 90% top marginal tax (apparently 70% wasn't enough).
Also, cuts in Defense:
People on the Left get confused about that because their professors put up charts on the wall with the "discretionary budget," which DOD dominates. That gives you the impression that we spend more on DOD than anything else. But most of the Federal budget isn't defined as discretionary, but as entitlements. Social Security and Medicare are each larger than DOD's budget. Military spending is only 16% of the total.
Now you might want to get that down to 2%, and spend the rest on Green New Deals or Free College or Universal Health Care.
By the way, even with a 70% marginal tax you'll still need a lot more money. Even should you zero out defense, you'd save around seven trillion dollars in a decade, and Medicare for All is expected to cost $32 trillion in that time. Add that to the $720 Billion you'd get from the 70% tax, over that decade, and you'd still be over twenty-four trillion short.
Elizabeth Warren, who is smarter than these two younger Congressfolk, has a "wealth tax" that gets you closer. Total wealth in the United States is estimated at $54 Trillion, so you'd only need to take about half of everything.
To cover the first decade of Medicare for All, I mean. The Green New Deal and Free College are another story. And presumably there will be a second decade -- will you have regenerated that $24 Trillion, while operating under such a punishing set of taxes?
There's just not enough money, no matter the tax scheme.
No problem: just print it. The author thinks it could be done without sparking Zimbabwe-style inflation, but really? You're going to dump $2.4 Trillion a year in new money into the market, and it's not going to cause runaway inflation?
This is how you kill an economy. Even the greatest economy in the world.
Also, cuts in Defense:
“I’m also one that really looks at the defense budget that we have, Rep. Omar said. “That has increased nearly 50% since 9/11. And so, most of the money that we have in there is much more than with we spend on education, on healthcare.”That's not remotely true. Medicare alone consumes more money than the DOD. Medicare spending was north of $750B in 2017; the DOD's budget for this year is $686B.
People on the Left get confused about that because their professors put up charts on the wall with the "discretionary budget," which DOD dominates. That gives you the impression that we spend more on DOD than anything else. But most of the Federal budget isn't defined as discretionary, but as entitlements. Social Security and Medicare are each larger than DOD's budget. Military spending is only 16% of the total.
Now you might want to get that down to 2%, and spend the rest on Green New Deals or Free College or Universal Health Care.
By the way, even with a 70% marginal tax you'll still need a lot more money. Even should you zero out defense, you'd save around seven trillion dollars in a decade, and Medicare for All is expected to cost $32 trillion in that time. Add that to the $720 Billion you'd get from the 70% tax, over that decade, and you'd still be over twenty-four trillion short.
Elizabeth Warren, who is smarter than these two younger Congressfolk, has a "wealth tax" that gets you closer. Total wealth in the United States is estimated at $54 Trillion, so you'd only need to take about half of everything.
To cover the first decade of Medicare for All, I mean. The Green New Deal and Free College are another story. And presumably there will be a second decade -- will you have regenerated that $24 Trillion, while operating under such a punishing set of taxes?
There's just not enough money, no matter the tax scheme.
No problem: just print it. The author thinks it could be done without sparking Zimbabwe-style inflation, but really? You're going to dump $2.4 Trillion a year in new money into the market, and it's not going to cause runaway inflation?
This is how you kill an economy. Even the greatest economy in the world.
Whited Sepulchers
A moving condemnation of New York's new infanticide law.
I have been hearing defenders say that the only women who would seek an abortion at nine months are those whose child poses a mortal threat to them. The argument is that the child must be removed for the mother's health, and is probably dying itself anyway. If so, you could see an argument that some sort of abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, and the child cannot be saved; and in that case, at least utilitarians would think it unethical not to abort. (Catholics, of course, are taught that it is never right to do an evil action, even to prevent another evil.)
However, this study of later term abortions suggests that medical reasons aren't really the main reason.
Now this study is for 'after 20 weeks,' rather than 'nine months,' but it's interesting that "experiencing a medical emergency" isn't even one of the five profiles.
As I think of Mike's point, I wonder how this law could be constitutional. The 14th Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" and that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Once the birth occurs, the argument that 'it's the woman's body, so it's her choice' clearly does not apply; and the child, having been born, is a citizen due the protection of the laws.
Unless, of course, the child is not a person. That's been the dodge all along.
I have been hearing defenders say that the only women who would seek an abortion at nine months are those whose child poses a mortal threat to them. The argument is that the child must be removed for the mother's health, and is probably dying itself anyway. If so, you could see an argument that some sort of abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, and the child cannot be saved; and in that case, at least utilitarians would think it unethical not to abort. (Catholics, of course, are taught that it is never right to do an evil action, even to prevent another evil.)
However, this study of later term abortions suggests that medical reasons aren't really the main reason.
Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."Nulliparous," if you don't want to look it up, means that they've never delivered a baby before.
Now this study is for 'after 20 weeks,' rather than 'nine months,' but it's interesting that "experiencing a medical emergency" isn't even one of the five profiles.
As I think of Mike's point, I wonder how this law could be constitutional. The 14th Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" and that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Once the birth occurs, the argument that 'it's the woman's body, so it's her choice' clearly does not apply; and the child, having been born, is a citizen due the protection of the laws.
Unless, of course, the child is not a person. That's been the dodge all along.
The Backchannel
The core insight -- that people put on a public face different from who they are in confidence -- is so obvious as to be undeniable. Apparently, journalists really don't like to admit it.
And academia:
They just can't admit it, not in public.
And academia:
Since the beginning of my graduate education, I have been someone who other academics feel that they can come to in order to voice their shock and dismay at just how toxic the culture within academia has become. They tell stories about petty witch hunts and show trials within their departments. They share their fear about objecting to arguments they find unfair or unsupported. They say they feel compelled to follow current academic fads for fear of being labeled. They are convinced that stepping out of line with the constant search for offense will render them permanently unemployable, even though they are themselves progressive people. You’ve heard the litany before. They share it with me.I've had similar experiences. Not everyone in the academic world is completely sure of gun control; not everyone is committed to abortion rights. Some -- maybe most -- of the women doggedly pursuing academic careers would rather be home with their children.
Because they know that they can trust that I won’t ever betray their confidence, and because of my (self-aggrandizing, I admit) indifference to my professional reputation, they email me. They find me at conferences. And they always say the same thing: I could never say this publicly, but…. The Tuvel situation is just one example of a pervasive culture of fear, a feeling that even when one has the strong sense that an injustice is being done, academia is not a place where such reservations can be freely voiced.
Some will insist that this is just the secretly conservative saying what they truly believe, that this is all white men decrying a changing academic world. I suppose on balance the backchannel to me is paler and maler than the academy writ large. But the truth is that all kinds of people discuss this stuff with me: white and black, male and female, trans and cis. And the people who approach me aren’t mostly those rare academic conservatives, who barely exist these days, but rather liberals and leftists who believe in the movement for equality but find that the way that movement operates in the contemporary university has become toxic and unjust.
They just can't admit it, not in public.
Up Helly Aa AAR
Sounds like the fire festival was a lot of fun.
However, it sounds like the festival may not be around much longer. It sounded like entirely too much fun for the current version of the UK, and the decision to form a "new squad called #MeToo" looks like an attempt to destroy it before any more fun is had.
However, it sounds like the festival may not be around much longer. It sounded like entirely too much fun for the current version of the UK, and the decision to form a "new squad called #MeToo" looks like an attempt to destroy it before any more fun is had.
I have no clever title for this
New York State passed the most permissive abortion law in US history. Virginia says "hold my beer".
Now I've made few bones about the fact that I find the Federal government to be far too obtrusive in our lives. I'm a (small 'l') libertarian who would rather let people figure out complex issues in their own lives and keep government out of it. As such, while I find abortion morally hateful, I'd rather not have the government put it's greasy paws all over the issue (indeed, my solution is to leave abortion laws up to the States).
But let's be clear, this proposed law in Virginia legitimizes blatant infanticide. No civilized nation on the planet has any qualms referring to a child born and breathing on its own, separated from the womb completely, as a human being. Virginia's proposed law would then let the mother and two doctors declare "yeah, but it's inconvenient so put it to death". Not withhold extraordinary care, not take it off life support, no... actual positive steps to kill the baby.
I literally cannot type coherently about this. It's beyond insanity.
Now I've made few bones about the fact that I find the Federal government to be far too obtrusive in our lives. I'm a (small 'l') libertarian who would rather let people figure out complex issues in their own lives and keep government out of it. As such, while I find abortion morally hateful, I'd rather not have the government put it's greasy paws all over the issue (indeed, my solution is to leave abortion laws up to the States).
But let's be clear, this proposed law in Virginia legitimizes blatant infanticide. No civilized nation on the planet has any qualms referring to a child born and breathing on its own, separated from the womb completely, as a human being. Virginia's proposed law would then let the mother and two doctors declare "yeah, but it's inconvenient so put it to death". Not withhold extraordinary care, not take it off life support, no... actual positive steps to kill the baby.
I literally cannot type coherently about this. It's beyond insanity.
Everything is Racist? Mary Poppins and Coal Miners
The NYT runs a piece examining the underlying racism in Mary Poppins, the 1964 movie about a book from the early 20th century. The books were moreso, the movie eliding almost all of that content out. But it remains, sort of: there was an association with lower class men who got very dirty doing their work, and blacks whose condition was thought lower by nature. I recall reading about a similar thing from the Raj days, in which a British military officer was stunned to realize -- while his men were taking a communal bath on maneuvers -- that the lower-class infantrymen were white underneath their uniforms. All the marching in the sun made them darker, and he assumed they were somehow of a lower (i.e. darker, according to the fashion of the times) race.
A photo of coal miners relaxing after work receives similar treatment.
I might have thought this was all evidence of progress; even in 1964, people realized the old mode was a problem and began to elide it into non-racist forms. They were still classist, but those classes in Britain were rapidly fading even in the 1960s. That class consciousness was a major source of humor in Monty Python just because it was on the way out. The racism of the earlier period was already embarrassing in the 1960s, and was being written out.
Progress on classism, too, in the fact that working men no longer show up at the bar covered in filth from head to foot. Working conditions have improved dramatically, even for coal miners. If that weren't true, people wouldn't look at this photo and think, "Blackface!" They'd look at it and think, "Oh, coal miners."
But apparently actual progress is forbidden by progressives. We need to make sure to hold on to the grievances that actual progress might weaken, since the real goal isn't progress but power.
A photo of coal miners relaxing after work receives similar treatment.
I might have thought this was all evidence of progress; even in 1964, people realized the old mode was a problem and began to elide it into non-racist forms. They were still classist, but those classes in Britain were rapidly fading even in the 1960s. That class consciousness was a major source of humor in Monty Python just because it was on the way out. The racism of the earlier period was already embarrassing in the 1960s, and was being written out.
Progress on classism, too, in the fact that working men no longer show up at the bar covered in filth from head to foot. Working conditions have improved dramatically, even for coal miners. If that weren't true, people wouldn't look at this photo and think, "Blackface!" They'd look at it and think, "Oh, coal miners."
But apparently actual progress is forbidden by progressives. We need to make sure to hold on to the grievances that actual progress might weaken, since the real goal isn't progress but power.
Authoritarians and "Patriotism"
Listen, it wouldn’t be fair to accuse presidential hopeful Kamala Harris of supporting state control over the means of all production. To this point she’s only focused on the energy, health care, auto-manufacturing and education sectors. Good candidates prioritize....
Human Dragons on Piles of Rubies
Hot Air was pretty close to agreement on that point last week.
Ocasio-Cortez is basically stating a premise that most Christians would hear in church — that the gross hoarding of wealth violates the self-sacrificing love that should exist among God’s children in terms of overall distribution of Creation’s bounty intended for all. Calling the system “immoral” might be a bit hyperbolic, but many people would at least agree that recent outcomes of our economic system have become imbalanced, if not warped. The problem isn’t capitalism itself but in our lack of effort to enforce anti-trust laws to keep wealth — and therefore political power — accruing into fewer and fewer hands. That trend has accelerated the rise of populism on both sides of the ideological divide and corroded confidence in our public institutions....
Shotgun Weddings in the UK
More knives and hammers than shotguns these days, I guess. But still.
Well, the practice is a little different too in that the forced marriage happens before sex, rather than as a consequence of it. And it might not lead to sex, either.
Well, the practice is a little different too in that the forced marriage happens before sex, rather than as a consequence of it. And it might not lead to sex, either.
That's Just Orthodoxy
Headline: 'Co-founder of Satanic Temple: Pence "really scares me"'
Ivanhoe:
Ivanhoe:
“I uncanonical!” answered the hermit; “I scorn the charge—I scorn it with my heels!—I serve the duty of my chapel duly and truly—Two masses daily, morning and evening, primes, noons, and vespers, 'aves, credos, paters'—-”
“Excepting moonlight nights, when the venison is in season,” said his guest.
“'Exceptis excipiendis'” replied the hermit, “as our old abbot taught me to say, when impertinent laymen should ask me if I kept every punctilio of mine order.”
“True, holy father,” said the knight; “but the devil is apt to keep an eye on such exceptions; he goes about, thou knowest, like a roaring lion.”
“Let him roar here if he dares,” said the friar; “a touch of my cord will make him roar as loud as the tongs of St Dunstan himself did. I never feared man, and I as little fear the devil and his imps. Saint Dunstan, Saint Dubric, Saint Winibald, Saint Winifred, Saint Swibert, Saint Willick, not forgetting Saint Thomas a Kent, and my own poor merits to speed, I defy every devil of them, come cut and long tail.—But to let you into a secret, I never speak upon such subjects, my friend, until after morning vespers.”
Ain't No God in Thailand
CNN:
Fox:
Fox:
A Belarusian model, who said she had proof that President Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election, has now backtracked and says she made up the claims....[T]he model now claims her story was just an effort to attract media attention and save her life while she was detained in Thailand.Can't blame her much for that. It's an old story.
“I think it saved my life, how can I regret it? If journalists had not come at that time and that story had not come to the newspapers, maybe I would die [be dead by] now,” she told CNN.
A Reasonable Plan
Headline: "Abolish the Federal Government and Realign the Nation Based on Football."
It actually works out pretty well!
It actually works out pretty well!
Reason: The Shutdown Proves We Can Shrink the Government
I'm willing to believe.
I do wonder, though, if Americans' emotional reactions to having government workers unemployed doesn't make it impractical. Nobody likes suffering, but the suffering associated with losing a job is inherent to private capitalism. Government jobs provide security, and who doesn't like security? Seeing all those people upset at losing their security was clearly upsetting to lots of ordinary Americans who sympathize.
To make the government much smaller is the wise move. Is it still within the realm of the possible, without waiting for the whole thing to first collapse under its own weight?
I do wonder, though, if Americans' emotional reactions to having government workers unemployed doesn't make it impractical. Nobody likes suffering, but the suffering associated with losing a job is inherent to private capitalism. Government jobs provide security, and who doesn't like security? Seeing all those people upset at losing their security was clearly upsetting to lots of ordinary Americans who sympathize.
To make the government much smaller is the wise move. Is it still within the realm of the possible, without waiting for the whole thing to first collapse under its own weight?
The Worst Candidate of All
We've seen a bunch of people throwing their hats in for 2020, but one of them is head and shoulders worse than all the rest: Sen. Kamala Harris.
How awful is she? Let us count the ways. Of course we know about her recent argument that membership in the Knights of Columbus should be thought disqualifying for judges, meaning that she violates her oath to uphold the Constitution and its prohibition of religious tests for office.
She is a politician who is confirmed in the Jackboot Thug approach to authority. She strongly supported granting search warrants against you based on no evidence beyond the fact that DNA found at the scene of a crime was similar to that of your relatives.
She also celebrated "using the stick" to make American families "behave," including sending poor parents, even single parents to jail if their kids were truant at school.
She has expansive ideas about how she'd like to use the new power she hopes to win.
And, of course, she's a committed opponent of the 2nd Amendment. She'd have to be. You couldn't leave Americans in possession of firearms before you made them give up their cars.
There may be no good candidates next year, but so far this is by far the worst one.
How awful is she? Let us count the ways. Of course we know about her recent argument that membership in the Knights of Columbus should be thought disqualifying for judges, meaning that she violates her oath to uphold the Constitution and its prohibition of religious tests for office.
She is a politician who is confirmed in the Jackboot Thug approach to authority. She strongly supported granting search warrants against you based on no evidence beyond the fact that DNA found at the scene of a crime was similar to that of your relatives.
Harris was also a big booster of familial DNA searches, a controversial technique whereby investigators compare a DNA sample to other samples in a DNA database to find possible relatives, then use additional genetic testing and analysis to confirm the match, all in order to solve crimes. Due to privacy concerns, the technique hasn’t been adopted in Canada, and was outlawed in both Maryland and DC. Among the concerns are the not-infrequent cases of human error in DNA evidence, the fact that familial testing would disproportionately impact communities of color, the potential revelation of family secrets, and the already existing instances of mistakes being made with the technique....She also supports civil asset forfeiture, in which the state can take your property without proving you guilty of anything, and you have to prove your innocence to get it back. She made it a practice to withhold exculpatory evidence from defense lawyers in criminal cases.
In fact, California’s use of familial DNA testing is particularly invasive, as the state allows the collection and preservation of DNA samples from anyone who is arrested, even if they’re not charged with a crime. The ACLU originally sued to block California’s DNA collection when an Oakland woman had been arrested during a San Francisco protest against the Iraq War and forced to give a DNA sample despite not being charged with any crime.
She also celebrated "using the stick" to make American families "behave," including sending poor parents, even single parents to jail if their kids were truant at school.
She has expansive ideas about how she'd like to use the new power she hopes to win.
But the queen of the ban was just getting starting. Along with banning private health insurance, Harris also wants to ban for-profit colleges, assault weapons, fossil fuels, personal cars, and presumably members of the Knights of Columbus serving as federal judges. It’s quite a list, and a sign of the times in the party of Jefferson and Jackson.Speaking of health insurance, did you ever get any you only kind of hate after Obama's promise that you could keep the stuff you liked? Too bad, it's gone again.
And, of course, she's a committed opponent of the 2nd Amendment. She'd have to be. You couldn't leave Americans in possession of firearms before you made them give up their cars.
There may be no good candidates next year, but so far this is by far the worst one.
Up Helly Aa
Tuesday, 29th January is the annual Up Helly Aa festival in the Shetland Islands.
One of these years I just need to set aside January to spend in Scotland, with a slight trip into England for the Jorvik festival in York.
One of these years I just need to set aside January to spend in Scotland, with a slight trip into England for the Jorvik festival in York.
What we click on
From Jim Geraghty: North Dakotan columnist Rob Port with a difficult but accurate observation: “Free markets and democracy are very good at delivering people what they want, even when they claim they don’t want it.”
A Documentary Debut
You're meant to be clever enough to understand that this is clever.
I always think, 'Abyssus abussum invocat,' and display a Tolkien-like wariness about even using the name. Perhaps that means I'm not clever enough. I do appreciate the attempts to defend a Constitutional principle; I don't, especially, appreciate the way in which actual religious belief is viewed as dispensable. There are many things I would do to tolerate and make room for sincere religious feeling that I wouldn't do at all for someone who's just trying to make a political point. The toleration of sincere religious belief is humane, in the strictest sense of the word; the other applies a kind of acid to the humane principle.
I always think, 'Abyssus abussum invocat,' and display a Tolkien-like wariness about even using the name. Perhaps that means I'm not clever enough. I do appreciate the attempts to defend a Constitutional principle; I don't, especially, appreciate the way in which actual religious belief is viewed as dispensable. There are many things I would do to tolerate and make room for sincere religious feeling that I wouldn't do at all for someone who's just trying to make a political point. The toleration of sincere religious belief is humane, in the strictest sense of the word; the other applies a kind of acid to the humane principle.
A Bishop Apologizes
Covington Catholic's bishop has submitted a page-long written apology for his conduct in last weekend's scandal.
The Smell of Death
What follows is an essay I wrote many years ago now on Winds of Change, which is now defunct. I hadn't thought about it in years, but I went to find it again today and discovered the link was dead. I decided to dig it out of the Internet Archive. I don't know how much it is still of interest to anyone, but here it is, minus the internal links which are all now broken:
The Smell of Death
Armed Liberal has, I gather from his posts, been taking some time to reconsider his posts on killing your own meat. Since he seemed to feel like he and I were talking about the same things, let me venture a few words on the topic.
Today I took a long morning walk -- six miles or so over the Georgia hills, a good stretch of the legs. Much of this was along country backroads, but for two miles in the middle, it was along a two-lane highway. Logging trucks went roaring by, their wake turning the stagnant, humid air into a brief cyclone.
As one such truck tore past, the rush of air behind it whipped up a smell that some of you will know. I knew at once that some large animal was dead nearby, and sure enough, as the air settled the smell remained.
It grew stronger and stronger as I kept my pace, until off in the forest, just away from the road, I could see the corpse of a buck, bloated with the heat of late summer.
It had died of blunt force trauma, struck no doubt by one of those same trucks, limping off to die a few feet in the forest. I could tell this because it was not butchered, as a poacher would do. Anyone who has found where poachers keep court knows that deer who meet their end that way are found in a far worse condition. Heaps of gore are common, where unwanted hooves and organs, and sometimes the heads, are left to rot after venison is stripped from the bones.
The smell of death is a singular one. Anyone who has smelled it once strongly will know it again immediately. Like all smells, it is hard to put into words. It disgusts, and repels.
A scientific mind knows why. The smell is only the way that the human brain interprets certain chemicals, in certain quantities, touching certain nerves in the nose. The sense that comes with it is a chemical reaction in the brain. That we can smell it, and recognize it, is only a feat of engineering -- the work of evolution, no different for men as for any beast that smells.
What is interesting, to a philosopher, is that is smells bad. It is only a collection of chemicals, as is the breath of a rose: it might have smelled as sweet.
Evolution explains this too. For untold thousands of years, men -- aye, and beasts before we were men -- had no better protection than their senses against disease. However it arose, by mutation or design, those for whom rotting corpses smelled bad had an advantage. We shy from the bloated corpse, and it is well for us that we do: its flesh is putrid, harbors disease and deadly microbes, sickens and kills. No good comes from the association.
This is not the only thing about death that repels us. Return for a moment to the alternative scene, the one where a buck is killed by a poacher. It is clear why death smells bad, but why does the death of a butchered animal look worse than the death of one killed at a blow by a speeding truck?
There is a reason, but it is not as immediately obvious. We have been hunters since before the beginning, as far as Mankind is concerned. Why should it be true that the sight of a butchered animal should bother us? The sight of a steak does not: it makes us hungry. It is not the simple fact of blood, or flesh, or parts of an animal slashed and chopped to order. It is the encounter with an animal that was plainly slain by a predator.
To understand this factor of ourselves, we have to reach back to a time when we were not the top of the food chain. We have to remember that Man grew up with lions.
Nor was it only lions. Our brains carry memories more ancient than our species, and far more:
Marco Iacoboni and associates at the ucla Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center used fMRI machines to observe the neural impact of Super Bowl ads in five volunteers.... For example, during a Fed Ex ad a caveman ends up being crushed by a dinosaur. Although subjects described the ad as funny, it also elicited a strong response in the amygdala, which governs responses to threats or fear. They may not have consciously experienced fear, but their brains were assessing the threat of that dinosaur.
We see the pile of gore, and something deep within us lights up in alarm. We are on guard, to see if we might be next.
All those ancient lessons are whispering in our minds at the sight of a corpse. They work on deep and secret parts of us. Yet there is still one more, the greatest secret of death magic. It is the mystery of the severed head.
Today, among Americans, only hunters have encountered this directly. It comes in the time when you are cleaning a kill. You cut the head from the body, and hold it in your hand. Though you slew the beast yourself, though your own knife did the cutting, seeing the head disjoined from the body is the most disquieting experience it is easy to know.
Indeed, the hunter finds, it is as if the whole power of the animal were in the head. The body, with the head set aside, no longer really resembles an animal at all. It is plainly dinner, and a hide to use as a blanket in winter.
We do not react to the severed leg as we do a severed head: a drumstick is a delight to the eye; the haunch of a deer or a pig both looks and smells fine as it roasts on the fire. Or think of a fish, if you have ever had one served as they serve it in China: with the head still attached. It is a very different experience to eat such a one, than to eat a fillet.
This is why some hunters take the heads of their beasts, and place them as trophies upon the wall. It is why the ancient Gael took the head of his famous and noble foe, and tied it by its own braids to his chariot as a warning to others. It is why the more ancient Celt built temples to the severed head, with alcoves and emplacements specially constructed for displaying honored skulls.
It is why we have legends of Mimir, and Celtic tales of other severed heads that spoke wisdom to the wise. They conversed with us from the realm of death; they kept the power of great men.
All these things move us at a level deeper than we know how to understand. It is easy to explain why the smell of death repels us. Though not so obvious for a hunting people, it is yet still possible to understand why the butchered corpse is more upsetting than the whole one. The power of the severed head, though, is not easy to explain. Yet it is just as universal among mankind.
Armed Liberal wrote about the problem of those who 'keep their hands clean,' never hunting, buying meat prepackaged and without an awareness of the moral cost. I disagree: there is no moral cost. We are monsters, who butcher though it creates mounds of gore: who sever heads, and find it moves us though we know not why.
But it isn't killing that makes us monsters. We are exactly that same kind of creature, whether we have ever killed or not.
The moral problem of 'the clean hands' is that it is an illusion. It makes people believe they are better than they are, and therefore that others can also be better than they can be. It creates a class of people who feel clean, because they have never felt blood on their hands.
Yet all these things arise from things buried deep in the genetic code. You cannot walk away from them. The failure to experience these things does not mean you would not react to them in just the same way as everyone else: it only means that you cannot understand how you would react, and how others do.
The man with clean hands is just the same as the hunter. It is only that he does not know it. He does not understand that part of his soul, as it lurks beyond his experience. He comes to believe that there is a kind of human that is and can be clean: perhaps that sweet, aged lady on the corner, who in her youth broke necks every night before dinner.
Failing to understand what Man really is, he opens himself more than is wise, and defends himself less. The man with the clean hands believes in diplomacy but not the force that makes diplomacy viable. He believes in staying clean, because he believes it makes him better than you. He does not understand that it only makes him blind.
This is not a call to amoralism, but precisely the opposite. It is a call for true morality, which can only begin with awareness of sin. It can only come from a recognition of how deep-set, how permanent, how personal sin is in each of us.
It is only in that way that we can begin to put real chains on sin: by recognizing the truth about it. We must learn to face the truth about ourselves, so that we can better ourselves: we must learn to face the truth about others, so we will recognize when murder is in their hearts.
In Zen Lessons: The Art of Leadership, translated by Thomas Cleary, there is a lesson to which my mind often returns. It is a lesson taught by a great master of early Zen Buddhism, called Chan in the Chinese. He had made a life given to fasting and simplicity, relinquishment and moderation. One day he visited a hermit, preparing a simple meal of rice:
The master said, "Why do crows fly away when they see a man?" The hermit was at a loss; finally he put the same question back to the Chan master. The master said, "Because I still have a murderous heart."
So do you. And so do I, and know it. For which cause I set guards on myself, chains of chivalry and courtesy, forgiveness in spite of anger. Our ancestors knew it, for which cause they learned to fight duels instead of wars, and make laws that legitimized violence in defense but not aggression.
Armed Liberal is right. Modern society has given many, for the first time, the problem of clean hands. It has yet to teach them how to overcome that problem.
Iran may teach them, soon. Al Qaeda has already tried, and failed. I counsel them, as [Armed Liberal] tried to do, to take up hunting: for this is a lesson that can only be grasped by hunting or by war. If you do not grasp it soon, war is coming to teach you. Yet there is still time, now, to learn the better way.
The Strength of Diversity
Let us count the ways in which this is a diverse group. Ideology? Age? Socio-Economic class? Preference for Macs?
I'll bet it's 'views on abortion.'
UPDATE: A folksong.
What A Weird Coincidence
As the longest government shutdown ever continues, new applications for jobless benefits have dropped to a low not seen since 1969.
It's as if there were some connection between less intrusive Federal government and more employment. But you know, correlation doesn't equal causation and all that. It's probably nothing.
It's as if there were some connection between less intrusive Federal government and more employment. But you know, correlation doesn't equal causation and all that. It's probably nothing.
Gun Rights and the Supreme Court
Slate's Stern thinks this SCOTUS case involving NYC gun laws will be a big deal. I'm not as convinced.
Stern's argument that it might be:
The reason is that NYC's ban is extremely vigorous. It bars you from removing a lawfully-owned firearm from your home except to take it to a shooting range within city limits (and therefore subject to the city's restrictions). The lawsuit is by gun owners who would like to be able to take their guns to shoot in tournaments outside the city, which is currently illegal because they'd be removing their lawfully-owned guns from the city limits. One would think that NYC would be delighted to have you do this, even if only for a couple of days, since they apparently believe that having the guns physically present in their town poses some sort of danger all by itself. At least for the weekend, my gun won't kill anyone in NYC if the gun is moved to Ohio for a shooting tournament, right? But even this obvious concession to sport shooters is refused by the city, which makes no concessions to gun owners except under duress.
You could easily rule, thus, "Eh, a city can't justify a ban on removing the guns from homes on the grounds of the public safety of others in the city if the guns are also to be removed from the city. You could insist that they be removed only in an unloaded and locked condition, and shipped separately from their ammunition, in order to ensure that the transportation itself posed no danger to anyone." That wouldn't get you to any kind of robust 'public carry.' It would only permit you to transport an unloaded firearm, separated from any ammunition.
Maybe Kavanaugh will be bloodthirsty after his confirmation hearings, though. SCOTUS doesn't have to be nice.
Stern's argument that it might be:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found a right to concealed carry outside the home. So did the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, found no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun in public. And the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has split the baby, upholding limitations on concealed carry while invalidating restrictions on open carry.Well, I sure hope so. But I think there's plenty of room for a more limited solution.
Despite this circuit split, the Supreme Court has declined to take a public-carry case and resolve the matter once and for all. The main reason appeared to be Justice Anthony Kennedy, who compelled Justice Antonin Scalia to add limiting language to the Heller decision establishing an individual right to bear arms. Given Kennedy’s wobbly support of gun rights, the conservative justices avoided taking a case that might result in a 5–4 decision upholding public-carry bans. Now Kennedy is gone, replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a gun-rights enthusiast who takes a breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment. With a firmly pro-gun majority in place, the conservative justices finally seem ready to supercharge Heller.
The reason is that NYC's ban is extremely vigorous. It bars you from removing a lawfully-owned firearm from your home except to take it to a shooting range within city limits (and therefore subject to the city's restrictions). The lawsuit is by gun owners who would like to be able to take their guns to shoot in tournaments outside the city, which is currently illegal because they'd be removing their lawfully-owned guns from the city limits. One would think that NYC would be delighted to have you do this, even if only for a couple of days, since they apparently believe that having the guns physically present in their town poses some sort of danger all by itself. At least for the weekend, my gun won't kill anyone in NYC if the gun is moved to Ohio for a shooting tournament, right? But even this obvious concession to sport shooters is refused by the city, which makes no concessions to gun owners except under duress.
You could easily rule, thus, "Eh, a city can't justify a ban on removing the guns from homes on the grounds of the public safety of others in the city if the guns are also to be removed from the city. You could insist that they be removed only in an unloaded and locked condition, and shipped separately from their ammunition, in order to ensure that the transportation itself posed no danger to anyone." That wouldn't get you to any kind of robust 'public carry.' It would only permit you to transport an unloaded firearm, separated from any ammunition.
Maybe Kavanaugh will be bloodthirsty after his confirmation hearings, though. SCOTUS doesn't have to be nice.
NYC Celebrates Abortion
New York just passed a new law permitting elective abortion all the way up to birth. Although abortion is allegedly justified on the grounds that the woman should have control over her own body, this allows the mother to kill an infant who could survive perfectly well if simply removed from her body.
Naturally, New York decided to celebrate. They lit One World Trade Center up in pink to mark the occasion.
Fitting, when you think about it. It's mostly the girl babies who get aborted.
Naturally, New York decided to celebrate. They lit One World Trade Center up in pink to mark the occasion.
Fitting, when you think about it. It's mostly the girl babies who get aborted.
House Passes Package to Fund Govt -- Except DHS
So Trump's proposal is funding the government, plus a wall and extra border enforcement; the apparent counter proposal is funding the government, but leave DHS out. Maybe they'll get something in another bill.
Compromise sure sounds like it's right around the corner, eh?
Compromise sure sounds like it's right around the corner, eh?
Curious Kalashnikov
TS reports that in Texas this week, a man was attacked by 5 home-invaders with rifles. He returned fire with his own AK, killing 3.
“A neighbor who lives nearby said he was on his porch with his baby when two men showed up with large rifles,” KHOU writes. “That neighbor says he ran inside his home and took cover. He said he believes the men were at the home to rob his neighbor, however he says he does not know what they were after. He said he doesn’t know his neighbor’s name and only calls him ‘Flaco’.”Good shooting, "Flaco," but I think maybe we all have some questions about why five guys with rifles came after you so close to the Mexican border. That suggests there might be a bigger problem that needs addressing.
Shutdown to Close Federal Courts
Most criminal offenses are state-level, and many Federal laws are nonsense regulations that would be better unenforced, repealed, or barred. Still, this will certainly delay the resolution of some important work.
Justice delayed is justice denied, they say. Of course, injustice delayed is injustice denied by an exactly similar argument.
Justice delayed is justice denied, they say. Of course, injustice delayed is injustice denied by an exactly similar argument.
Famous Old Norse Names in Runes
You may have wondered what they'd look like, and these are done in the correct runic script.
Many thanks as always to Dr. Crawford.
Many thanks as always to Dr. Crawford.
DD-214
There has been some question about the stature of the alleged "Vietnam Veteran" from the weekend. This guy dug up his service record. Or so he says; but he runs an outfit that looks legit to me. My old friend "Tiny" Robinson used to do the same thing many years ago, under the name of "AuthentiSEAL," and the guy's basic claims about how SEAL status can be checked sound all correct to me. He was also positively reviewed by The Washingtonian.
So my guess is that this DD-214 will check out.
So my guess is that this DD-214 will check out.
Sexual Assault at the Women's March
It was carried out in broad daylight, on video, in front of dozens of police officers -- but since the offender was a woman and the man was wearing a MAGA hat, no arrests or prosecutions are forthcoming. The woman even flatly agreed, on tape, that she was guilty of sexual assault.
Of interest to me, though, is the response the man gives. He points out that this is proof of tremendous privilege enjoyed by women -- that she can commit what she recognizes is a sexual crime, in front of the police, and know with smug confidence that she won't be arrested. When he points this fact out, however, she smiles and nods in a way that suggests not agreement, but mockery of the very idea whose truth she has just demonstrated.
Of course men are the ones with privilege. Everyone knows that. No one knows anything else.
Of interest to me, though, is the response the man gives. He points out that this is proof of tremendous privilege enjoyed by women -- that she can commit what she recognizes is a sexual crime, in front of the police, and know with smug confidence that she won't be arrested. When he points this fact out, however, she smiles and nods in a way that suggests not agreement, but mockery of the very idea whose truth she has just demonstrated.
Of course men are the ones with privilege. Everyone knows that. No one knows anything else.
Free Exchange of Ideas
So there's a story about a teaching assistant at the University of Georgia's philosophy department. I've drunk some beers with this guy. He's not going to kill anybody. He is forwarding some explosive ideas, but that's what a philosophy department is for.
So, OK: at least at one moment in history, it was necessary to kill (a lot of) white people in order that black people should be freed. Is that still true? Well, that's the point at which the discussion would become interesting (and worth ordering another round of beers to discuss). It would be nice to think it wasn't true, especially since it was me or mine you'd probably be thinking should be killed. But if you do think it is true, I'd like to know it. I'd like to understand the idea, if only for the purpose of constructing a better defense against it.
We are in a dangerous time, and I think we can see that the racializing angle of the Left is having a perilous effect on our politics. Even so, philosophy departments exist precisely to talk through ideas that are for one reason or another dangerous. Which ideas these are -- Darwinism, evolution, philosophy of race, feminism, Marxism -- that changes from one generation to another. But this is the place for them, whatever they are.
“Some white people may have to die for black communities to be made whole in this struggle to advance to freedom,” the TA said. He further claimed that to suggest otherwise is “ahistorical and dangerously naive.”The point he is making here is one that probably most people agree with, if it is framed instead: "Chattel slavery of blacks in North America probably would not have ended if the North had not defeated the South in the American Civil War." I used to think otherwise, but I realize that I had been persuaded by a teacher with a basically Marxist frame of social analysis. The argument I found persuasive, when I was younger, was that the changing from an agrarian to an industrial capital model would make chattel slavery undesirable as a social form, in favor of having a class of free labor that you could pay only as long as you needed them and then fire or lay off as soon as you didn't. In retrospect, I don't think that's necessary; chattel slavers could have rented out slaves to industry on a piecework basis and still made out OK. Besides, the Confederacy's long-term plan was definitely built around institutionalizing race-based slavery.
So, OK: at least at one moment in history, it was necessary to kill (a lot of) white people in order that black people should be freed. Is that still true? Well, that's the point at which the discussion would become interesting (and worth ordering another round of beers to discuss). It would be nice to think it wasn't true, especially since it was me or mine you'd probably be thinking should be killed. But if you do think it is true, I'd like to know it. I'd like to understand the idea, if only for the purpose of constructing a better defense against it.
We are in a dangerous time, and I think we can see that the racializing angle of the Left is having a perilous effect on our politics. Even so, philosophy departments exist precisely to talk through ideas that are for one reason or another dangerous. Which ideas these are -- Darwinism, evolution, philosophy of race, feminism, Marxism -- that changes from one generation to another. But this is the place for them, whatever they are.
"Abortion Rights Under Threat From SCOTUS"
Maybe if there were a stronger basis for the idea that abortion was (or could be) a "right" than SCOTUS rulings, you wouldn't be in this position. What only SCOTUS gives, SCOTUS can take away.
The March for Life this weekend appears to have produced some very significant fireworks. It's been interesting to see the mob turn on minors, and then -- when all the positive claims fell apart -- decide that it was sufficient that the kids were at the March for Life. Or wearing MAGA hats. Whatever: dox them! beat them! (Or chop them up.)
In a way this was the second running of the Kavanaugh fiasco, where felt empathy for the alleged victims completely overwhelmed any interest in the question of the actual guilt or innocence of the accused. Not shockingly, it's really over the very same issue at its foundation.
But there's also a general point to be made about the perils of empathy. Empathy is linked to unreasoning aggression against those who stand accused of harming the empathetic victims -- or even, as the study found, those who are just bystanders to the empathetic victim's alleged suffering.
The March for Life this weekend appears to have produced some very significant fireworks. It's been interesting to see the mob turn on minors, and then -- when all the positive claims fell apart -- decide that it was sufficient that the kids were at the March for Life. Or wearing MAGA hats. Whatever: dox them! beat them! (Or chop them up.)
In a way this was the second running of the Kavanaugh fiasco, where felt empathy for the alleged victims completely overwhelmed any interest in the question of the actual guilt or innocence of the accused. Not shockingly, it's really over the very same issue at its foundation.
But there's also a general point to be made about the perils of empathy. Empathy is linked to unreasoning aggression against those who stand accused of harming the empathetic victims -- or even, as the study found, those who are just bystanders to the empathetic victim's alleged suffering.
There is a history of this sort of thing. Lynchings in the American South were often sparked by stories of white women who were assaulted by blacks, and anti-Semitic attacks prior to the Holocaust were often motivated by tales of Jews preying on innocent German children. Who isn’t enraged by someone who hurts a child?I keep hearing people say that America needs more empathy, but I think we really need a lot less of it. Stop feeling, start thinking.
Similar sentiments are used to start wars.
SCOTUS Lifts Injuction on Trump, Transgenders in Military
This is a big deal because it means medical outs for a fair number of people that the Obama administration admitted, or allowed to remain in the military after they declared their status. Lower courts had held that these folks shouldn't be forced out until and unless the final court ruling was that it was right and proper for the Commander in Chief to discriminate in this way.
I've always held that 'the needs of the service' is the right standard in all of these cases, and that the application of discrimination law was an error. The rights one has as a citizen are properly pre-political in some cases, e.g., natural rights; others are civic rights that come about as a result of your having the status of being a member of this polity at this time and not that one at that time. Even for the pre-political rights, and definitely for the civic rights, the realization of those rights as enforceable realities depends upon the establishment and defense of a polity that will do the practical work of enforcing them. Thus, the work of the military has priority over the question. First, we have to keep a military that will defend the space in the world in which the polity exists; within that space, we can enforce rights both natural and civic.
If it turns out that the military needed to be all male again to be effective at that task, then we should make it all male again. If it happened that an all female force was required to make the space in the world and defend it from all comers, then we should do that. If it turned out it needed exactly 10% women for particular functions, that would be the right choice. If we need transgenders in the service for some particular cause, then we should permit them to serve in the role according to the needs of the force.
Should a demographic, or an excessive percentage of a demographic, actually prove harmful to the needs of the force then it should be culled. It's nothing personal. It's just that we have to defend the space within the world in order for any of the other rights to be practically realizable. We are not doing a great job of defending our space right now; I would guess that in my lifetime, or shortly after, large parts of what is now the United States will depart the union because of just this issue of letting the space go undefended. We need to stop messing around with this stuff.
And as for Europe, well...
I've always held that 'the needs of the service' is the right standard in all of these cases, and that the application of discrimination law was an error. The rights one has as a citizen are properly pre-political in some cases, e.g., natural rights; others are civic rights that come about as a result of your having the status of being a member of this polity at this time and not that one at that time. Even for the pre-political rights, and definitely for the civic rights, the realization of those rights as enforceable realities depends upon the establishment and defense of a polity that will do the practical work of enforcing them. Thus, the work of the military has priority over the question. First, we have to keep a military that will defend the space in the world in which the polity exists; within that space, we can enforce rights both natural and civic.
If it turns out that the military needed to be all male again to be effective at that task, then we should make it all male again. If it happened that an all female force was required to make the space in the world and defend it from all comers, then we should do that. If it turned out it needed exactly 10% women for particular functions, that would be the right choice. If we need transgenders in the service for some particular cause, then we should permit them to serve in the role according to the needs of the force.
Should a demographic, or an excessive percentage of a demographic, actually prove harmful to the needs of the force then it should be culled. It's nothing personal. It's just that we have to defend the space within the world in order for any of the other rights to be practically realizable. We are not doing a great job of defending our space right now; I would guess that in my lifetime, or shortly after, large parts of what is now the United States will depart the union because of just this issue of letting the space go undefended. We need to stop messing around with this stuff.
And as for Europe, well...
Ouroboros
I’m writing on the train leaving Washington, D.C. following a normal weekend in the nation’s capital which hosted tens of thousands of activists who interrupted traffic flows and traipsed around town shouting slogans at no one in particular under the mistaken impression that their actions would somehow cause the narrative of history to turn in their favor.
They traveled here. They made signs. They walked and walked. They screamed and yelled. They gave speeches to each other. But so far as I could tell this morning, nothing changed because of their efforts.
Hawkins Misses a Shot
John Hawkins has a post that got an Insta-link about masculinity coming under attack. Most of what he has to say is right, more or less. However, there's one place where he misses something important.
Honor is due to the honorable, and she is among them.
The very traits that the APA says are so harmful -- “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression” -- are the same traits that built the entire world. If anything, saying that 98 percent of the great industrialists, scientists, generals, inventors, heroes, and leaders have been men with traditional masculine values is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Who created the Constitution? Who won every war America has ever fought? Who put men on the moon? Who built the internet you’re reading this article on? Men with traditional masculine values.Read charitably, it's certainly true that 98% of the people 'who put men on the moon' were men. But it's not true that they all were. One of the most crucial roles was filled by Katherine Johnson, a mathematician who calculated moonshot trajectories without a computer.
Honor is due to the honorable, and she is among them.
Houthi "Rebels" Kidnap, Torture Women
Iran's men in Yemen, if you're trying to remember who a "Houthi" might be.
Press Credibility
I've written this elsewhere, and perhaps I've nibbled at it
here, too, but—prompted by one of Grim's comments in a thread below concerning
NLMSM integrity—I'm offering this in full.
If the NLMSM hopes to gain any measure of credibility at
all, it must do some things, and it must do them satisfactorily in the minds of observers and consumers of the NLMSM's output.
- a journalist must identify at least some of his sources, rather than hanging the thesis of his article exclusively on the claims of anonymous sources
- if an anonymous source refuses to be identified, the journalist must show with concrete, measurable evidence two things
b. why the source should be believed, given that by speaking publicly, even in anonymously, he's likely violating his terms of employment if not his oath of office
3. if the journalist is representing the anonymous source as a whistleblower, the journalist must provide concrete, measurable evidence that the source has used up all of his employer's internal whistleblowing channels before he decided to leak to the journalist.
All of this must be done in the opening paragraph(s) of his piece, even ahead of the Who, What, Where, When that used to form the lede (but seems to no longer).
And the largest question of all:
4. The press used to have a standard that required two on-the-record sources to corroborate the claims of a journalist's anonymous sources. The journalist's editor must explain why he's chosen to walk away from that standard of integrity.
Eric Hines
Providence
The Dems aren't getting their semi-auto ban through Congress right now, but they might in the future. It's blatantly unconstitutional: the AR-15 is the most protected firearm under both Heller and Miller. Still, they mean to do it whether it's constitutional or not.
So why not build a non-semiautomatic AR?
The trigger pull is cocking the weapon, or so it appears; if so, it's no more semi-auto than a traditional revolver.
So why not build a non-semiautomatic AR?
The trigger pull is cocking the weapon, or so it appears; if so, it's no more semi-auto than a traditional revolver.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)