It’s not hard to find analysts, usually Trump-leaning, scoffing and confidently predicting that the Democrats will not pass a single article of impeachment. That scenario is hard to envision. The House not impeaching Trump after all of this would set off a civil war within the Democratic party. That scenario would require 15 House Democrats to quietly and privately go to Nancy Pelosi and tell her they can’t vote for impeachment. Only two House Democrats voted against starting the inquiry. Recall that about ten years ago, a lot of House Democrats voted for Obamacare, knowing it would probably cost them their seats; back then, support for Obamacare was lower than the current support for impeachment, around 40 percent in most polls. When the Democratic party really wants to pass legislation, its leaders can make legislators take votes that will end their careers in order to get something passed.
Maybe not a bad trade-off
From Jim Geraghty:
Dangerous Virtue
Theodore Dalrymple cites a passage by Chesterton in a piece on the London attack.
But of course virtues are potentially dangerous, because virtues are strengths. Strength can help you break chains, but strength also helps you forge them. Worse, if not connected to the virtue of practical wisdom, you may not know whether forging or breaking chains is the better course.
The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues . . . 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.That passage is valuable. Another author, reading Chesterton, commented on the idea. "I had never considered virtues as something potentially dangerous, but that is exactly what Chesterton says is happening."
But of course virtues are potentially dangerous, because virtues are strengths. Strength can help you break chains, but strength also helps you forge them. Worse, if not connected to the virtue of practical wisdom, you may not know whether forging or breaking chains is the better course.
Mission Already Accomplished
Bernie says he wants "population control" as part of his climate agenda.
An audience member asked Sanders about "educating everyone on the need to curb population growth."In fact, we may already be there. Too, it is exactly for the reason Bernie cites as his goal: education, particularly of women. Women are simply deciding to have a lot fewer kids, and medicine has given them the power to control that decision.
"Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it's crucial to face," the audience member asked. "Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?"
"The answer is yes," Sanders responded. "And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions."
In Praise of Censure
Writing in The Hill, a former Republican Congressional staffer offers a proposal: Censure the President rather than impeaching him.
He has a number of arguments in favor of doing this, one of which is important: Nancy Pelosi would get to control the process, rather than turning it all over to the Republican-led Senate. That would allow the Congressional Democrats to escape from the trap they have built for themselves by staging this drama on Ukraine, where not only Joe Biden but Nancy Pelosi herself, along with John Kerry and Mitt Romney, have children with sweetheart deals from energy companies. If this goes to a Senate trial, there's the potential for humiliating blowback once the Republicans are in charge of who gets called as a witness and what they are asked.
He also suggests that a censure might be bipartisan, though he himself wouldn't vote for it. Of course, we have already had a bipartisan vote on this: some Democrats voted against opening the impeachment inquiry, after all.
He has a number of arguments in favor of doing this, one of which is important: Nancy Pelosi would get to control the process, rather than turning it all over to the Republican-led Senate. That would allow the Congressional Democrats to escape from the trap they have built for themselves by staging this drama on Ukraine, where not only Joe Biden but Nancy Pelosi herself, along with John Kerry and Mitt Romney, have children with sweetheart deals from energy companies. If this goes to a Senate trial, there's the potential for humiliating blowback once the Republicans are in charge of who gets called as a witness and what they are asked.
He also suggests that a censure might be bipartisan, though he himself wouldn't vote for it. Of course, we have already had a bipartisan vote on this: some Democrats voted against opening the impeachment inquiry, after all.
Jigsaw puzzles
More pieces to fill in:
From Epoch Times (possible paywall) via Ace.
The Obama holdover heading the Pentagon office reportedly under investigation by the U.S. attorney who is conducting the criminal probe of the Trump–Russia investigation was accused of leaking a classified document, in a recent court filing for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. The connection hasn't been previously reported.
According to a Nov. 21 report by independent journalist Sara Carter, U.S. Attorney John Durham is questioning personnel in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA). ONA awarded about $1 million in contracts to FBI informant Stefan Halper, who appears to have played a key role in alleged U.S. intelligence agency spying on 2016 Trump campaign advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.
In addition, however, a court filing indicates that ONA's director, James H. Baker, "is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls" to The Washington Post. Specifically, the filing states, "ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius."
The filing adds that Baker "was Halper's 'handler'" at ONA.
From Epoch Times (possible paywall) via Ace.
Thanksgiving Retrospective
A graphic showing the passengers of the Mayflower, and those who survived to the first Thanksgiving.
Fighting Terror with a Unicorn's Horn
Today in London, a convicted terrorist who'd been let free (albeit with a tracker on his person) attacked people on London Bridge with a knife. He was battled by a guy with a five-foot Narwhal tusk, which the fellow took off the wall at Fishmonger's Hall. Police later showed up and shot the bad guy, although presumably our hero could have done that himself if he hadn't been disarmed by his own government.
Well, and he found himself a proper tool. The Narwhal tusk was long sold in Europe by the Vikings as unicorn horns that could dispel poison. The story is an amusing one, and touches both Eiríkr Thorvaldsson, better known as 'Erik the Red,' and his son the famous Lief Erikson.
Well, and he found himself a proper tool. The Narwhal tusk was long sold in Europe by the Vikings as unicorn horns that could dispel poison. The story is an amusing one, and touches both Eiríkr Thorvaldsson, better known as 'Erik the Red,' and his son the famous Lief Erikson.
Post-Thanksgiving cooking
It's leftovers week! We're already at work on turkey soup, and I'll insist on our usual turkey tetrazzini tomorrow. For lunch I'm chewing on turkey wings with dressing, gravy, and smoky greens.
The news yesterday and today about our dangerously ill next-door neighbor is so encouraging that I find myself coming out of a dejected fog and being inspired to cook. I volunteered to bring a dessert to a public gathering tomorrow. It seemed a good time to try something I've been tempted by on Facebook: pecan pie brownies.
Mine didn't come out as self-contained or dignified as this stock photo, being more like a pecan-pie-brownie cobbler, but admirably gooey inside and crunchy outside, like the old joke about the polar bear and the igloo. Because the Facebook recipe advocated a brownie mix, which is out of the question, I substituted a Julia Child fudge-style brownie base with a Craig Claiborne pecan pie filling for the top. (You pour the brownie mix in the bottom and the pecan pie filling on the top, then bake at 350 degrees until it's Alton-Brown-style GBD, "golden brown and delicious.")
Presentation-wise, it might work better with a cake-style brownie and a shorter cooking time, so the pecan pie topping would be easier to cut while at the same time the brownie base would set up a little more. Nevertheless, I'll let people spoon out their servings, and there's certainly nothing wrong with the flavor. If I make it again, I may cut back on the sugar in the brownies, for contrast. Barely-sweetened whipped cream wouldn't hurt a thing.
The news yesterday and today about our dangerously ill next-door neighbor is so encouraging that I find myself coming out of a dejected fog and being inspired to cook. I volunteered to bring a dessert to a public gathering tomorrow. It seemed a good time to try something I've been tempted by on Facebook: pecan pie brownies.
Mine didn't come out as self-contained or dignified as this stock photo, being more like a pecan-pie-brownie cobbler, but admirably gooey inside and crunchy outside, like the old joke about the polar bear and the igloo. Because the Facebook recipe advocated a brownie mix, which is out of the question, I substituted a Julia Child fudge-style brownie base with a Craig Claiborne pecan pie filling for the top. (You pour the brownie mix in the bottom and the pecan pie filling on the top, then bake at 350 degrees until it's Alton-Brown-style GBD, "golden brown and delicious.")
Presentation-wise, it might work better with a cake-style brownie and a shorter cooking time, so the pecan pie topping would be easier to cut while at the same time the brownie base would set up a little more. Nevertheless, I'll let people spoon out their servings, and there's certainly nothing wrong with the flavor. If I make it again, I may cut back on the sugar in the brownies, for contrast. Barely-sweetened whipped cream wouldn't hurt a thing.
So now it's about the rule of law again?
These dizzying reversals: when conservatives object that the impeachment farce is ignoring due process, we hear that impeachment is a political process that obeys political rules rather than all those tiresome and legalistic restraints. That's actually close to my own view: impeachments, like elections, are a vehicle for political opposition, not law enforcement. Legal violations affect public opinion indirectly just as they do in elections and other disputes, but the people called upon to make a judgment aren't bound by the same intricate and straitlaced rules that are enforced in a criminal trial.
The prosecuting party in an impeachment, therefore, is technically allowed to throw due process in the trash. The flip-side, however, is that the defense gets to use political tools of its own to ridicule the essentially free choices of the prosecution, and voters are free to decide what they think about it all. So far, to the prosecution's horror, voters are bored or hostile about the results.
Predictably, the anti-Trump camp now begins to worry that their sacred ritual of impeachment is being infected by lowdown politics. Well, if this dumpster fire clears the House and the Senate conducts a trial, they'll get a chance to see how they fare in a more traditional legal setting. Nevertheless, the political problem won't go away. If the charges are as spurious in that more formal trial setting as they are in the current kangaroo court, the political problem will only intensify.
The prosecuting party in an impeachment, therefore, is technically allowed to throw due process in the trash. The flip-side, however, is that the defense gets to use political tools of its own to ridicule the essentially free choices of the prosecution, and voters are free to decide what they think about it all. So far, to the prosecution's horror, voters are bored or hostile about the results.
Predictably, the anti-Trump camp now begins to worry that their sacred ritual of impeachment is being infected by lowdown politics. Well, if this dumpster fire clears the House and the Senate conducts a trial, they'll get a chance to see how they fare in a more traditional legal setting. Nevertheless, the political problem won't go away. If the charges are as spurious in that more formal trial setting as they are in the current kangaroo court, the political problem will only intensify.
A Considerable Irony
The World Socialist, that grand elder of anti-American Communist propaganda outlets, publishes an interview with noted historian Gordon Wood on how unfair the New York Times “1619 Project” is to the Founding.
Q. For our readership, perhaps you could discuss something of the world-historical significance of the Revolution. Of course, we are under no illusion that it represented a socialist transformation. Yet it was a powerful revolution in its time.There’s a lot to like here. It’s worth reading to see how much the actual Communists object to the assumptions that the Times is making.
A. It was very important that the American colonial crisis, the imperial crisis, occurred right at the height of what we call the Enlightenment, where Western Europe was full of new ideas and was confident that culture—what people believed and thought—was man-made and thus could be changed. The Old World, the Ancién Regime, could be transformed and made anew. It was an age of revolution, and it’s not surprising that the French Revolution and other revolutions occur in in the wake of the American Revolution.
The notion of equality was really crucial. When the Declaration says that all men are created equal, that is no myth. It is the most powerful statement ever made in our history, and it lies behind almost everything we Americans believe in and attempt to do.
CIA disease
It's not just a disease of the CIA, of course; confirmation bias is always trying to undermine our ability to face facts. But times of great political hysteria are fertile ground.
People are always trying to persuade me that we are more polarized and generally crazy these days than ever before. I'm not really seeing it. I was just reading a biography of William Bowditch, noting that around the turn of the 18th century many public-spirited men were shocked at the damage suffered by old and valued friendships from bitter disagreements over federalism.
Our Thanksgiving dinner was apolitical, though it's true that it was a small gathering of like-minded neighbors that presented no special challenges in that direction. I wore my "It's beginning to look a lot like Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself" holly-and-berries sweatshirt without fear of giving offense. It was a slightly somber gathering, though. Our neighbor, whom we had expected to join us, is gravely ill in an ICU in Houston, the victim of completely unexpected complications from minor surgery. Life is fleeting. We are thankful for our health.
Our labrador lightened the atmosphere by eating half a trayful of the white turkey meat while we were distracted out on the porch. Luckily there was still plenty, but she was a little restless and gaseous all night, the rotten creature. She hasn't learned a thing and would do it again in a heartbeat.
People are always trying to persuade me that we are more polarized and generally crazy these days than ever before. I'm not really seeing it. I was just reading a biography of William Bowditch, noting that around the turn of the 18th century many public-spirited men were shocked at the damage suffered by old and valued friendships from bitter disagreements over federalism.
Our Thanksgiving dinner was apolitical, though it's true that it was a small gathering of like-minded neighbors that presented no special challenges in that direction. I wore my "It's beginning to look a lot like Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself" holly-and-berries sweatshirt without fear of giving offense. It was a slightly somber gathering, though. Our neighbor, whom we had expected to join us, is gravely ill in an ICU in Houston, the victim of completely unexpected complications from minor surgery. Life is fleeting. We are thankful for our health.
Our labrador lightened the atmosphere by eating half a trayful of the white turkey meat while we were distracted out on the porch. Luckily there was still plenty, but she was a little restless and gaseous all night, the rotten creature. She hasn't learned a thing and would do it again in a heartbeat.
The Rolled Turkey
It came out pretty well, given that it was my first attempt. Slow-roasted for 14 hours, then finished at a higher temperature for half an hour to crisp the skin.
As promised, three kinds of pie, so lighter on the traditional side dishes than usual. I hope your feast went well also.
As promised, three kinds of pie, so lighter on the traditional side dishes than usual. I hope your feast went well also.
Thanksgiving
Nothing is ever as good as it could be, and often I think of the ways in which it could be better; but for all the ways in which it is good, and for the very experience of goodness at all, I give thanks.
Brilliance by Discipline
Instapundit linked this study to explore different ideas among students about male vs. female professors. I want to point out, instead, the good things it says about philosophy professors! They are the most brilliant, above average on funny, and below average on both meanness and rudeness.
Watch Out For The Traumatized, Part II
Exactly as predicted, the government has chosen the easy and wicked route.
Also, suffering poverty means that you are dangerous:
A small percentage of teens who are depressed or bullied will respond with violence. After reading a recent report on school violence from the U.S. Secret Service, however, you’d be led to believe that every one of them is a potential mass-murderer.Seeking help, then, is a red flag. That should not have any negative unintended consequences whatsoever.
“Secret Service research findings [indicate that] targeted school violence is preventable,” the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) Director James Murray writes in a new NTAC report. All schools have to do is treat any student in any sort of distress as a potential danger to everybody else and respond accordingly....
"This approach is intended to identify students of concern, assess their risk for engaging in violence or other harmful activities, and implement intervention strategies to manage that risk. The threshold for intervention should be low, so that schools can identify students in distress before their behavior escalates to the level of eliciting concerns about safety.... The fact that half of the attackers had received one or more mental health services prior to their attack indicates that mental health evaluations and treatments should be considered a component of a multidisciplinary threat assessment, but not a replacement. Mental health professionals should be included in a collaborative threat assessment process that also involves teachers, administrators, and law enforcement."
Also, suffering poverty means that you are dangerous:
The Secret Service lists the following household “difficulties” as contributing to the likelihood of a young person one day coming to school with the purpose of murdering his associates:Naturally, of course, the remedy for your weakness is that your whole family should be disarmed by government agents.
• Bankruptcy
• Eviction
• Homelessness
• Failure to Pay Child Support
• Foreclosure
• Fraudulent Check(s)
• Lien
• Low Income
• Poverty
Most attackers used firearms, and firearms were most often acquired from the home: Many of the attackers were able to access firearms from the home of their parents or another close relative. While many of the firearms were unsecured, in several cases the attackers were able to gain access to firearms that were secured in a locked gun safe or case. It should be further noted, however, that some attackers used knives instead of firearms to perpetrate their attacks. Therefore, a threat assessment should explore if a student has access to any weapons, with a particular focus on weapons access at home. Schools, parents, and law enforcement must work together rapidly to restrict access to weapons in those cases when students pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.Once again, exactly as predicted. "Since it is the only thing that is really likely to work, though, injustice is the most probable outcome of future government action on this issue. My sense is that we have much more to fear from any government attempts to address mass killings than we have to fear from the tiny number of killers, bad as they are."
Traditional Mongolian Music Vs. The Hu
After being introduced to The Hu here recently, I checked out the original folk style. I don't remember ever hearing Mongolian throat singing before, and I haven't decided what I think about it yet.
Here are two songs about Chinggis Khaan (apparently the Mongolian transliteration for the name), one traditional and one by The Hu.
The lyrics below the second video introduced me to Tengrism, a Central Asian religion which apparently is undergoing a revival since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Interesting stuff.
Here are two songs about Chinggis Khaan (apparently the Mongolian transliteration for the name), one traditional and one by The Hu.
The lyrics below the second video introduced me to Tengrism, a Central Asian religion which apparently is undergoing a revival since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Interesting stuff.
The Family that Slays Together, Stays Together
Dateline Florida: "A home invasion was stopped by almost every member of the family. The family awoke to the noise of the burglar trying to break in and everyone grabbed their guns. One member of the family fired a warning shot through the glass to deter the burglar but was unsuccessful. The intruder broke through the door and which point every member fired at him."
Warning shots are never a good idea. Shoot to stop, or don't shoot at all.
Warning shots are never a good idea. Shoot to stop, or don't shoot at all.
PETA vs UGA
The notoriously idiotic vegan activists demand that UGA permanently retire Uga, the beloved bulldog mascot.
That dog has a happier life than most people.
That dog has a happier life than most people.
Cultural Revolution
Most of the way through an article on how crazy Progressives are boosting Trump's re-election chances, a Maoist note:
These stories in which doctors lop the breasts off of teenage girls, or peeling the skin off a boy’s penis and inverting it to make a fake vagina, are a long, long way from Yale Stadium or the faculty lounge. But there is a continuum here. Left-wing extremists are controlling institutions, mostly because liberals within those institutions and fields are afraid to say no to whatever the extremists want. And conservative lawmakers are afraid to touch this stuff too.We do need to figure out how to put the brakes on some of this stuff. Perhaps educating the young about Mao is one way to do it; the "Red Guards" these young activists are emulating didn't end up in a happy place. The reason was the same: even for someone as committed to cultural revolution as Mao, cultural stability turned out to be important enough that his own nurtured movement could not be allowed to continue to exist.
Many, many people feel powerless to stop these cultural revolutionaries. (By the way, I’ve reached out to the reader who commented here the other day about his wife, a Chinese immigrant who saw people killed during the madness of Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution, bursting into tears when she saw the raging mob at Berkeley on the TV news the other night; she wept because she fears for her adopted country, and doesn’t understand why Americans can’t see the mounting danger. I am going to have an interview with her in this space soon.)
Aristotle Ascends
Via Arts & Letters Daily, scientists are echoing Aristotle -- and have much to learn yet. One example:
Augustine's interpretation of evil as privation of the good shows how this can work. Can an all-good God make evil, and if not, how can evil come to be? Augustine's answer is that evil is a failure to achieve the fullness of the good inherent in God's creation. Evil is a privation. Notice that this is just another way of saying that evil is a failure to actualize the potential good in something.
Still, discussions of this sort are exactly the kind of 'learning from Aristotle' that we could all stand to do. "Aretê, boys: You've either got it or you don't."
Edward Feser, in his contribution to Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives, draws a parallel between this teaching and the idea of the “block universe,” which is based on the theories of Einstein and his teacher Hermann Minkowski. The block-universe concept holds that we must understand time as a fourth dimension tied up with the three dimensions of space, so that the universe is like a four-dimensional block that contains all of space and time — past, present, and future. Minkowski would refer to this four-dimensional block as “world,” because the mathematical formulation suggested that all of time is already established, just like space. Our common-sense notion that space is static, allowing us to move around within it, whereas time “flows,” taking us along with it, is illusory. Just as the universe doesn’t have an “up” or “down,” so likewise there is no past or future, except in the sense that it seems that way to us. Much like for Parmenides there is only the Whole, for Minkowski and Einstein there is only the “world.”Well worth reading in full, though I dissent from his understanding of Aristotle as offering 'privation' and 'actuality vs. potentiality' as two different ways of overcoming the Parmenides problem. To say that a doctor comes from a non-doctor and to say that a non-doctor realizes their potential to become an actual doctor is just two ways of saying the same thing. As Aristotle also says, in his description of potentiality, 'one cannot make a saw out of wool.' That is to say that wool is even more deprived of the actuality of the saw than is raw iron. The "two" models are just different ways of describing one.
Feser’s critique of the “block universe” borrows key moves from Aristotle’s responses to Parmenides, though because he does not explicitly engage with them, it is unclear to what extent he is aware of the borrowing. In the beginning of the Physics, Aristotle explicitly distinguishes Parmenides and his disciple Melissus from other thinkers whom he calls “students of nature” (physiologoi). Parmenides and Melissus were not students of nature, according to Aristotle, because they denied motion, relegating it to mere appearance: “To investigate whether Being is one and motionless is not a contribution to the science of Nature.” The teaching that change is an illusion is not a teaching on nature, according to Aristotle, because it does not explore the origins or birth of things. Aristotle says he sees no requirement to engage seriously with this teaching in the Physics (remember, physis means both “nature” and “birth”), just as the geometer is not required to engage with those who reject his premises. (As we shall see, Aristotle nonetheless does briefly engage with Parmenides later in the Physics.)
Feser’s essay is constructed as a series of ducks and dodges that allow the Aristotelian idea of change or motion to survive the various challenges of the block universe’s severe determinism, in which the future is already fixed. It isn’t until the end of the essay that Feser hits on the most forceful point, the one that most closely resembles Aristotle: Even if the universe is really a four-dimensional block, “there would be nothing about its nature that requires that a block universe of precisely that sort, or any block universe at all for that matter, exists.” Just as Parmenides’ denial of motion is not an explanation of the origins of things, so the block universe is not an explanation of why we have this universe rather than some other one. The theory that explains the universe as a whole cannot explain the particulars. But note how Aristotle’s original critique is more forceful than Feser’s: Those who do not examine coming-into-being, and thereby fail to explain the world as it is, do not examine nature.
This should be a sobering call to today’s scientists, for Parmenides’ reasoning was sound in many respects, and our thinking today strongly resembles his.
Augustine's interpretation of evil as privation of the good shows how this can work. Can an all-good God make evil, and if not, how can evil come to be? Augustine's answer is that evil is a failure to achieve the fullness of the good inherent in God's creation. Evil is a privation. Notice that this is just another way of saying that evil is a failure to actualize the potential good in something.
Still, discussions of this sort are exactly the kind of 'learning from Aristotle' that we could all stand to do. "Aretê, boys: You've either got it or you don't."
The CIA vs. Donald Trump
A review of Andy McCarthy's new book, by Spengler, that veers into some strange territory toward the end.
DB: PSYOP Authorized to Wear Tin-Foil Berets
The metallic new beret comes as a compromise between the Special Forces community and the Psychological Operations community. While PSYOP argues that it was technically the first SOF organization, tracing its lineage to PSYWAR, Special Forces argues that PSYOP is dumb.Haters.
Also in satire, the BB has a photo that's worth the price of admission.
Taking the fifth back
In our ordinary lives, we often draw unfavorable inferences from information someone chooses to withhold from us. The impeachment fiasco, however, reminds us why the Constitution forbids using the accused's silence as a presumption of guilt.
Adam Schiff is reduced from impeachment by hearsay all the way down to impeachment by inference: The fallback position is that President Trump did something "incompatible" with his office: impeachment by irreconcilable differences.
Adam Schiff is reduced from impeachment by hearsay all the way down to impeachment by inference: The fallback position is that President Trump did something "incompatible" with his office: impeachment by irreconcilable differences.
REH was Right, Again
The concept of the world of Conan, by Robert E. Howard, is that civilization rises and falls many more times than history tells us. This, worlds of advanced culture and adventures untold of exist to be explored.
Evidence for that proposition continues to appear.
REH was not alone, of course; not even the first.
Evidence for that proposition continues to appear.
REH was not alone, of course; not even the first.
The modern man looking at the most ancient origins has been like a man watching for daybreak in a strange land; and expecting to see that dawn breaking behind bare uplands or solitary peaks. But that dawn is breaking behind the black bulk of great cities long builded and lost for us in the original night; colossal cities like the houses of giants, in which even the carved ornamental animals are taller than the palm-trees; in which the painted portrait can be twelve times the size of the man; with tombs like mountains of man set four-square and pointing to the stars; with winged and bearded bulls standing and staring enormous at the gates of temples; standing still eternally as if a stamp would shake the world. The dawn of history reveals a humanity already civilized. Perhaps it reveals a civilisation already old.
Missing the point
CNN mysteriously got a sneak peak at IG Horowitz's upcoming Dec. 9 report on the scandal that led to a FISA warrant ostensibly aimed at investigating Carter Page as a clandestine Russian agent. CNN is spinning the story this way: yes, it's true that a lower-level FBI lawyer falsified a document that supported the FISA warrant, but the FBI has fired him, and anyway any "mistakes" (I love it) fail to "undermine the premise for the FBI’s investigation." CNN characterizes the premise as the notion “that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.”
What was that premise again? As Andrew McCarthy explains, CNN evidently is not (yet) trying to deny that the criminally faked supporting document could undermine any credible allegation that Carter Page was complicit in any Russian interference. The important fudge here is CNN's startling assertion that "the premise for the FBI's investigation" is Russian election interference. That might be a premise for some kinds of inquiry, but not a FISA warrant.
If an adequate premise for a FISA warrant were a mere suspicion of Russian skullduggery in an election, the Crossfire Hurricane gambit would be golden. That the Russians in fact attempted to interfere is not in controversy. The problem for Clapper, Brennan, McCabe, et al. (and the Obama White House may be included in that "al."), is that a FISA warrant to eavesdrop on a U.S. citizen requires a lot more than a suspicion that Russia is up to no good. It requires a showing that the citizen targeted for eavesdropping, Carter Page, is knowingly engaged in clandestine activities, potentially in violation of federal criminal law, on Russia's behalf.
Page has never been charged with a crime. Nor did the architects of Crossfire Hurricane inform the FISA court that Page had cooperated with the FBI in the past in successful prosecutions against Russian provocateurs. What does the basis for fingering Page as a Russian agent look like if you subtract whatever the fake document said, and add in the FBI's long track record of successful reliance on Page's voluntary assistance reporting on illicit Russian overtures? What's more, might these changes in the FISA presentation have undercut the FBI's and DOJ's showing that intrusive eavesdropping was necessary because other investigative tools were unavailable?
As McCarthy says,
What was that premise again? As Andrew McCarthy explains, CNN evidently is not (yet) trying to deny that the criminally faked supporting document could undermine any credible allegation that Carter Page was complicit in any Russian interference. The important fudge here is CNN's startling assertion that "the premise for the FBI's investigation" is Russian election interference. That might be a premise for some kinds of inquiry, but not a FISA warrant.
If an adequate premise for a FISA warrant were a mere suspicion of Russian skullduggery in an election, the Crossfire Hurricane gambit would be golden. That the Russians in fact attempted to interfere is not in controversy. The problem for Clapper, Brennan, McCabe, et al. (and the Obama White House may be included in that "al."), is that a FISA warrant to eavesdrop on a U.S. citizen requires a lot more than a suspicion that Russia is up to no good. It requires a showing that the citizen targeted for eavesdropping, Carter Page, is knowingly engaged in clandestine activities, potentially in violation of federal criminal law, on Russia's behalf.
Page has never been charged with a crime. Nor did the architects of Crossfire Hurricane inform the FISA court that Page had cooperated with the FBI in the past in successful prosecutions against Russian provocateurs. What does the basis for fingering Page as a Russian agent look like if you subtract whatever the fake document said, and add in the FBI's long track record of successful reliance on Page's voluntary assistance reporting on illicit Russian overtures? What's more, might these changes in the FISA presentation have undercut the FBI's and DOJ's showing that intrusive eavesdropping was necessary because other investigative tools were unavailable?
As McCarthy says,
If the narrative taking shape is that there may have been some abuses but it doesn’t change the fact that Russia meddled in the election, that misses the point. The questions are: What was the FBI’s evidence — which it represented as verified information in the warrant application — that the Trump campaign was in a cyberespionage conspiracy with the Kremlin? What evidence led the Bureau and the Justice Department to allege that Carter Page — who as late as spring 2016 was apparently cooperating in a federal prosecution of Russian spies — was a willful agent of the Putin regime engaged in clandestine activities against his own country?When we find out what the fudged evidence was, we'll be better able to issue comforting assurances that it was extraneous to pinning suspicion on Carter Page. It won't be enough for the FBI and CNN to conclude airily that the faked document was extraneous to the general idea that the Kremlin was trying to stir up trouble in a U.S. election.
Rolled Turkey
We've eaten a lot of turkey over the years, so much so that it's not an exciting meal even on Thanksgiving. In lean years we'd buy frozen turkeys after Christmas, when the price would hit annual lows, and store twelve or fourteen of them in our big freezer. That works out to about one a month, and turkeys take a while to eat, so at this point I'm not generally fired up to have turkey ever at all.
So I'm going to try something very different this year. Here's a French fellow explaining the concept with a chicken, but it'll work on a turkey too.
With an interesting stuffing and some decent spices, that might make for something a little less dull than another roast turkey.
So I'm going to try something very different this year. Here's a French fellow explaining the concept with a chicken, but it'll work on a turkey too.
With an interesting stuffing and some decent spices, that might make for something a little less dull than another roast turkey.
America, Republic and Empire
Quite a remarkable piece of thought-provoking writing. Dr. Codevilla, for those of you who know his work.
John Soloman Again
Tex mentioned him the other day. He's no longer employed by any reputable journalistic outlet as far as I can tell, and The Hill is 'reviewing' his earlier reports. In these intensely partisan times, that could mean that he's been publishing accurate information that defies the media's preferred narrative and that of their political allies; it could also mean that he's violated standards in a way that should be a serious concern to readers. I'm not sure which is the case, or if it's a mixture of both.
In any case, he has a blog now. If you're interested in his side of the story, that's where you can find it.
In any case, he has a blog now. If you're interested in his side of the story, that's where you can find it.
The NYT Against Impeachment
Not the NYT itself, not as a corporate body, but they did publish an opinion piece against it. Good for them: it's more than I expected. It's a pretty good piece.
I hear Fiona Hill loud and clear when she says she was angry when she discovered that the President had set up a parallel process to her own integrated, complex interagency process -- one that was operating without coordinating with them and pursuing goals she and others in the interagency thought unwise and even against American interests. I can understand how that would make you angry. In Iraq once we found out accidentally that Division had sent a guy who reported directly to the Commanding General to meddle in a matter likely to produce violence in our AO, without anyone telling us or warning us. Of course we were understandably angry about that, and the complaint is a rational one -- in our case, it put our lives and our people's lives at risk, just through a lack of coordination. Anger is a reasonable response in such a case.
Nobody thought, though, that the Commanding General should be relieved over it. Clearly he had authority to do it. Clearly here, too, the President has authority to override the interagency, or even just to ignore the interagency. The chain of command does not place the consensus of the bureaucracies over the elected president. As the author of this piece says, too, this particular president was elected precisely on the argument that the bureaucracies needed to be drained of influence. That's what he said he was going to do if elected, and he was -- like it or not, and many of us would have preferred someone else, in my case Jim Webb. Our preferred candidates made arguments too, and they didn't win.
UPDATE: The Nation also publishes an article against.
Mr. Trump’s opponents treat norms as if they were laws. But Mr. Trump openly campaigned in 2016 as someone who would rescind the nonlegal norms of American politics. He said he would “drain the swamp.” Washington’s traditional way of doing business, the legal but corrupt trade in money and influence, was something he was elected to attack. He has only contributed to the problem in the eyes of his critics, but for supporters the goal remains the same.If the investigations he was pursuing were reasonably indicated by the facts, it's not wrong to have asked for them even if it also benefits him politically (and then only in theory, contingent on the increasingly-unlikely success of Joe Biden in becoming his opponent). All of the witnesses this week agreed that the Hunter Biden matter created at least an appearance of conflict of interest; given Joe Biden's position as a high public official, and the direct relationship between himself and firing the man prosecuting his son's company, that seems correct. If there is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, what could be more proper than to ask for it to be investigated to clear up whether there was wrongdoing? We have a treaty with Ukraine governing just that kind of investigation, one that was signed by Bill Clinton and that Joe Biden himself voted to ratify.
Mr. Trump was also elected to transform America’s foreign relations. The nation’s leadership in both parties and the Civil Service had embroiled the country in endless wars and a string of humiliations. That Mr. Trump considers officials serving in places like Ukraine to be part of the problem he was elected to solve is no secret. The testimony such officials have so far offered during impeachment hearings bears him out: Their view of American objectives is different from his....
Testimony at this week’s impeachment hearings from Gordon Sondland and other witnesses only underscores the point: President Trump believed it was right to call for Ukraine’s new president, elected on an anti-corruption agenda, to dig into and make public the links between his country, its government, its oligarchs and oil companies, and American political figures like the Bidens. The questions he was pursuing were bigger than the 2020 election.
I hear Fiona Hill loud and clear when she says she was angry when she discovered that the President had set up a parallel process to her own integrated, complex interagency process -- one that was operating without coordinating with them and pursuing goals she and others in the interagency thought unwise and even against American interests. I can understand how that would make you angry. In Iraq once we found out accidentally that Division had sent a guy who reported directly to the Commanding General to meddle in a matter likely to produce violence in our AO, without anyone telling us or warning us. Of course we were understandably angry about that, and the complaint is a rational one -- in our case, it put our lives and our people's lives at risk, just through a lack of coordination. Anger is a reasonable response in such a case.
Nobody thought, though, that the Commanding General should be relieved over it. Clearly he had authority to do it. Clearly here, too, the President has authority to override the interagency, or even just to ignore the interagency. The chain of command does not place the consensus of the bureaucracies over the elected president. As the author of this piece says, too, this particular president was elected precisely on the argument that the bureaucracies needed to be drained of influence. That's what he said he was going to do if elected, and he was -- like it or not, and many of us would have preferred someone else, in my case Jim Webb. Our preferred candidates made arguments too, and they didn't win.
UPDATE: The Nation also publishes an article against.
The Mysterious Case of Carter Page
One of the shoes we've been waiting to see drop in the "Russia Russia Russia!" case was that of Carter Page, the guy against whom the FISA warrant was actually issued. What's been quite mysterious about his case is the complete lack of charges brought against him for anything at all. The government convinced the FISC that he was dangerous enough to require a robust intelligence collection effort, which allowed them to intercept every communication he had with anyone, and all of their communications as well. The Mueller team prosecuted crimes aggressively, whether or not they were actually related to Russia -- indeed, the folks who went to jail all went down for something else.
So why was Carter Page never charged with anything? Surely, in collecting all of his communications, they must have found something? Surely they'd charge him with anything at all to justify the collection effort, rather than leave it looking as if the very collection effort hadn't proven justified by the facts?
Now we get some evidence for the first time about what's been going on with him.
So why was Carter Page never charged with anything? Surely, in collecting all of his communications, they must have found something? Surely they'd charge him with anything at all to justify the collection effort, rather than leave it looking as if the very collection effort hadn't proven justified by the facts?
Now we get some evidence for the first time about what's been going on with him.
Horowitz reportedly found that the FBI employee who modified the FISA document falsely stated that he had "documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis" for the FISA warrant application, the Post reported. Then, the FBI employee allegedly "altered an email" to substantiate his inaccurate version of events. The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.This will be interesting.
In its initial 2016 FISA warrant application, the FBI flatly called Page "an agent of a foreign power."
Sources told Fox News last month that U.S. Attorney John Durham's separate, ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation -- and that Horowitz's report will shed light on why Durham's probe has become a criminal inquiry.
Boys Need Fathers
Two pieces on the same subject, both by women. One of them is by Shireen Qudosi, who works on counter-extremism projects and thus naturally connects the issue to that of the mass killing problem. Some of you mentioned lack of fathers in the comments to that post, so here's some additional support for your ideas. (Here's more.)
The second is from Belinda Brown in the UK. I'm not very convinced by some of her evidence about the difference between boys and girls -- if girls 'don't want any conflict' and 'try to be equals' and 'forget who won' in conflicts between themselves, I've never noticed it, but I have noticed girls forming intense friendships that fall apart and never recover over internal conflicts. I've also noticed girls forming larger cliques with rigid hierarchies. Although actually her structure is ambiguous enough that I'm not sure if she means 'girls' or 'female chimpanzees' in that section, so perhaps it holds for chimps. In any case, her real topic is boys, and what she says there is more interesting.
Both of the pieces reference mythic-language books about the meaning of manhood, both of which have the word "Warrior" in the title. My sense is that it is society's attempts to get rid of the warrior aspects that is causing a lot of the problems for boys and men; perhaps it lies at the back of the whole of the problem.
The second is from Belinda Brown in the UK. I'm not very convinced by some of her evidence about the difference between boys and girls -- if girls 'don't want any conflict' and 'try to be equals' and 'forget who won' in conflicts between themselves, I've never noticed it, but I have noticed girls forming intense friendships that fall apart and never recover over internal conflicts. I've also noticed girls forming larger cliques with rigid hierarchies. Although actually her structure is ambiguous enough that I'm not sure if she means 'girls' or 'female chimpanzees' in that section, so perhaps it holds for chimps. In any case, her real topic is boys, and what she says there is more interesting.
Both of the pieces reference mythic-language books about the meaning of manhood, both of which have the word "Warrior" in the title. My sense is that it is society's attempts to get rid of the warrior aspects that is causing a lot of the problems for boys and men; perhaps it lies at the back of the whole of the problem.
Raising Standards
The Army has introduced an "Expert Soldier's Badge." At first the idea received a lot of mockery from infantrymen of my acquaintance because they expected it to be analogous to the "Combat Action Badge," which allowed non-infantry soldiers to obtain something like the "Combat Infantryman Badge," the analog in this case being the "Expert Infantryman Badge."
However, the new badge is proving to be a genuinely good idea, as shown by the fact that soldiers are failing to earn it.
I believe the same thing about the failure rates at universities; a university whose four-year graduation rate is much above 50% is probably not in fact a very good school, no matter how highly it is rated or how glorious its reputation. True challenge is what produces the virtues that allow people to rise to the top. The more certain success in a task, the less virtue likely developed in its pursuit.
So good for the Army. Now keep it up.
However, the new badge is proving to be a genuinely good idea, as shown by the fact that soldiers are failing to earn it.
Once a season when those not assigned to the infantry branch could sit back and watch their 11-series counterparts slog around with rucksacks and face paint as they performed a (mandatory) evaluation of their skills- the dreaded EIB.I'm a fan of the new Army Combat Fitness Test for similar reasons. The high failure rate is a good sign, not a bad sign.
No more, however. With the introduction of the Expert Soldier Badge (the Combat Action Badge’s equivalent to the Expert Infantry Badge and Expert Field Medical Badge), troops of all MOSs will now how to suffer through trials and field problems in order to prove their worth.
So far, it seems, that is a pretty tall order.
According to Military.com, of the 95 soldiers who began Expert Soldier Badge testing at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA, on Sunday, only three remained by Thursday.
Between the fitness test and land navigation (day and night) it appears that well over half the participants were either physically unfit or unable to read a map, with 59 participants being cut on the first day of testing.
“Either you meet the standard or you do not meet the standard … and that is the way it should be,” Command Sgt. Major Edward Mitchell, CSM for the Army’s Center for Initial Military Training.
Of the three Soldiers who remain, none are ranked below sergeant- an E-5, an E-6 and an O-3 remain.
I believe the same thing about the failure rates at universities; a university whose four-year graduation rate is much above 50% is probably not in fact a very good school, no matter how highly it is rated or how glorious its reputation. True challenge is what produces the virtues that allow people to rise to the top. The more certain success in a task, the less virtue likely developed in its pursuit.
So good for the Army. Now keep it up.
An Eventful, Uneventful Day
It's amazing to watch reactions to today's impeachment hearings; both sides are sure the game is over, and their side won. Neither side won, or really even moved the ball today. We did get more confirmation that the government isn't really under the control of elected officials anymore, and that's the central problem this whole affair has underlined.
Anyway I spent the day in beautiful Western North Carolina, where the people are friendly and no one ever mentions politics. I met a guy called "Swagnar" who decorates his wine shop with runes, and his very nice assistant Liz who was fascinated to hear about the process of making mead. My wife discussed art with various people, that being her thing. We began laying in supplies for a pie-heavy Thanksgiving, which by request of the eaters is likely to be slim on traditional elements in favor of many desserts.
Hey, we're the adults now. We can do whatever we want.
I guess there was another Democratic debate, but I can't be bothered with it. There's already no candidate I want to be the next President; in fact, I'm pretty sure I don't want another President at all. At some point I'll have to take an interest in trying to limit the damage, but there's no good to be had from this process any longer. It's all about trying to limit the harm it does.
On which subject, I have to change health care plans again. None of the plans available are remotely affordable, not now that the government has taken it all over. Does anyone know of a good alternative, maybe a co-op? Some of you have said you liked those things in the past, and if there's a good one that might serve my part of the country, I'm ready to stop paying the price of a new car every year for coverage with a deductible that's the size of a good used motorcycle. Nothing's been so devastating to our family's wealth than these attempts to make health care 'affordable.' I haven't seen a doctor since 2014, but I've paid many tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of being able to pay only several more thousand dollars a year if I need to do.
Anyway I spent the day in beautiful Western North Carolina, where the people are friendly and no one ever mentions politics. I met a guy called "Swagnar" who decorates his wine shop with runes, and his very nice assistant Liz who was fascinated to hear about the process of making mead. My wife discussed art with various people, that being her thing. We began laying in supplies for a pie-heavy Thanksgiving, which by request of the eaters is likely to be slim on traditional elements in favor of many desserts.
Hey, we're the adults now. We can do whatever we want.
I guess there was another Democratic debate, but I can't be bothered with it. There's already no candidate I want to be the next President; in fact, I'm pretty sure I don't want another President at all. At some point I'll have to take an interest in trying to limit the damage, but there's no good to be had from this process any longer. It's all about trying to limit the harm it does.
On which subject, I have to change health care plans again. None of the plans available are remotely affordable, not now that the government has taken it all over. Does anyone know of a good alternative, maybe a co-op? Some of you have said you liked those things in the past, and if there's a good one that might serve my part of the country, I'm ready to stop paying the price of a new car every year for coverage with a deductible that's the size of a good used motorcycle. Nothing's been so devastating to our family's wealth than these attempts to make health care 'affordable.' I haven't seen a doctor since 2014, but I've paid many tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of being able to pay only several more thousand dollars a year if I need to do.
That's moxie
It can't be easy explaining to people why they'd want to move to South Dakota, but one advertising company grasped the nettle:
Enter the state's new advertising campaign. It starts about as far from the target market of South Dakota as possible — on Mars.
"Mars," the commercial begins. "The air: not breathable. The surface: cold and barren. But thousands are lining up for a chance to go and never come back."
Cut to images of South Dakota as the narrator continues:
"South Dakota. Progressive. Productive. And abundant in oxygen. Why die on Mars when you can live in South Dakota?"
The final graphic reads: "South Dakota. Plenty of jobs. Plenty of air."This is all background to more current messaging efforts, in which the South Dakota governor reassures citizens, "Meth. We're on it."
Watch Out for the Traumatized
Vice News reports on a study on mass shooters.
The problem generalizes. Richard Fernandez recently pointed out that the biggest mass killings used fire, which is quite simply deployed by anyone. Trucks, as were used in the Nice attack in France, are also both more deadly than guns and nearly impossible to ban from cities: without trucks to carry in the food every day, the city could not exist. You could go back to horses, I suppose: have the truckers stage up in yards outside the city center, transfer their goods to carts, and have the horses pull them into town for distribution. That's a pretty costly solution for the problem of mass killings, which are statistically tiny even though they are emotionally disturbing to observe.
So if technology is not the right place to focus, that brings us to the other three factors:
1) Childhood trauma,
2) A 'personal crisis or specific grievance,' and,
3) A validating script.
The third factor is probably intractable in the age of the Internet, and at least in America it has to be balanced against protected liberties. For example, the 'jihadist' ideology taught by the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) can be contested, but it has to be conceptually severed from the protected freedom of religion, including the practice of Islam. Yet the conceptual roots of 'jihadism' are in the faith, and will come to be known to anyone who studies it closely; and anyone who studies the great scholars of Islam will find much support for the idea. Avicenna, that great philosopher, describes jihad as a kind of double good in his Metaphysics of the Healing, because it brings one closer to God's will while also providing you access to practical goods like slaves captured in the war. The philosopher Averroes, in a reflection on Plato's Republic, agrees with Plato that the best kind of women should be admitted to a kind of equality with the best kind of men, and that this equality means that they should be allowed to join in jihad and the taking of slaves and wealth. The Reliance of the Traveler, one of the great medieval works of Islamic jurisprudence, is a favorite example of Andy McCarthy's (who came to know it while prosecuting the World Trade Center bomber, an earlier example of mass killings by bomb).
Apart from not suppressing Islam, you can't suppress (and ought to encourage) the study of Avicenna, especially. In any case, the 'road map' certainly can't be suppressed without trying to drive Islam out of the world. The best you can do is to acknowledge it, and work with those within the community of Muslims who oppose people pursuing violent jihad to try to convince as many people as possible that it's not a legitimate path. Ultimately, though, some will be convinced, and in part because the other side probably has a better case to make about what Muhammad and his companions really meant; certainly about what the great philosophers of his tradition meant. The case is easier when the other side doesn't have a better argument, as is true for example of Klan-type movements that are based on nonsensical readings of science and demonstrably bad readings of history. But then, too, the road to success doesn't lie through suppressing the 'road map,' but in engaging it to illuminate its problems.
Attempts to suppress the 'road map,' meanwhile, run into First Amendment free speech protections. New Zealand made it a criminal offense to share recordings and videos and manifestos from the Christchurch shooter; that's an affront to basic liberty that cannot be tolerated. In Europe, meanwhile, they've apparently decided that the bigger threat is that people will draw conclusions hostile to Islam, and end up trying to suppress not the road map that's causing the bombings, but the one that could potentially cause anti-Muslim violence. All of these things are out of order with human liberty, and to be rejected. Even if you didn't reject them, though, you would find them ineffective without a more general abandonment of the ideals of self-government: you will have to suppress the press talking about these things (and so convince the press that it is unethical to do their actual job as journalists, and then suppress those members of the press who continue to do it). But the courts are going to end up trying some of these mass killing cases, so you'll end up having to suppress citizen knowledge of the facts of cases in open court. That ends up damaging the rights of the accused, who cannot rely on a secret court to also be a fair court; and it destroys our ability to keep tabs on the government, which destroys self-government as a basic idea.
So Factor Three is probably not going to be where we make much progress. You can try to educate people out of these road maps, but you can't eliminate them.
Factor Two is a universal human experience. You can look for people who are undergoing a personal crisis, and potentially make some progress by making help available to people in getting through such crises as they occur. You can't eliminate crises, though, nor grievances either.
So that leads us to Factor One: childhood trauma. Here we readily identify a specific class of people who could be subject to greater scrutiny as potential mass killers. That is to say that, recognizing them as having been victimized once, we shall be sure to continue to victimize them by treating them as dangerous hazards who can't be trusted as much as other people. Even if that conclusion were true (and these killers are so small a percentage of society that it probably isn't even true), it would be fundamentally unjust to punish people for having been traumatized.
Since it is the only thing that is really likely to work, though, injustice is the most probable outcome of future government action on this issue. My sense is that we have much more to fear from any government attempts to address mass killings than we have to fear from the tiny number of killers, bad as they are.
A new Department of Justice-funded study of all mass shootings — killings of four or more people in a public place — since 1966 found that the shooters typically have an experience with childhood trauma, a personal crisis or specific grievance, and a “script” or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap. And then there’s the fourth thing: access to a firearm.That last one is an example of what philosophers call "trivially true," i.e., a truth easily arrived at because of the definition of the class. Obviously, in a study of mass shooters, access to a firearm is going to prove to be one of the things they had. I've often argued that we're rather lucky that our mass killers use firearms as opposed to bombs, which are easily made (in Iraq, 'home made explosive' was readily mixed by children using common household chemicals) and often kill vastly more people than a shooter can manage. This decision to focus on the class of 'shooters' rather than the class of 'killers' tends to lead people to believe that if you could eliminate guns, the problem could be solved 'as it has been in civilized countries,' but Denmark recently closed its border with Sweden over the mass bombing problem.
The problem generalizes. Richard Fernandez recently pointed out that the biggest mass killings used fire, which is quite simply deployed by anyone. Trucks, as were used in the Nice attack in France, are also both more deadly than guns and nearly impossible to ban from cities: without trucks to carry in the food every day, the city could not exist. You could go back to horses, I suppose: have the truckers stage up in yards outside the city center, transfer their goods to carts, and have the horses pull them into town for distribution. That's a pretty costly solution for the problem of mass killings, which are statistically tiny even though they are emotionally disturbing to observe.
So if technology is not the right place to focus, that brings us to the other three factors:
1) Childhood trauma,
2) A 'personal crisis or specific grievance,' and,
3) A validating script.
The third factor is probably intractable in the age of the Internet, and at least in America it has to be balanced against protected liberties. For example, the 'jihadist' ideology taught by the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) can be contested, but it has to be conceptually severed from the protected freedom of religion, including the practice of Islam. Yet the conceptual roots of 'jihadism' are in the faith, and will come to be known to anyone who studies it closely; and anyone who studies the great scholars of Islam will find much support for the idea. Avicenna, that great philosopher, describes jihad as a kind of double good in his Metaphysics of the Healing, because it brings one closer to God's will while also providing you access to practical goods like slaves captured in the war. The philosopher Averroes, in a reflection on Plato's Republic, agrees with Plato that the best kind of women should be admitted to a kind of equality with the best kind of men, and that this equality means that they should be allowed to join in jihad and the taking of slaves and wealth. The Reliance of the Traveler, one of the great medieval works of Islamic jurisprudence, is a favorite example of Andy McCarthy's (who came to know it while prosecuting the World Trade Center bomber, an earlier example of mass killings by bomb).
Apart from not suppressing Islam, you can't suppress (and ought to encourage) the study of Avicenna, especially. In any case, the 'road map' certainly can't be suppressed without trying to drive Islam out of the world. The best you can do is to acknowledge it, and work with those within the community of Muslims who oppose people pursuing violent jihad to try to convince as many people as possible that it's not a legitimate path. Ultimately, though, some will be convinced, and in part because the other side probably has a better case to make about what Muhammad and his companions really meant; certainly about what the great philosophers of his tradition meant. The case is easier when the other side doesn't have a better argument, as is true for example of Klan-type movements that are based on nonsensical readings of science and demonstrably bad readings of history. But then, too, the road to success doesn't lie through suppressing the 'road map,' but in engaging it to illuminate its problems.
Attempts to suppress the 'road map,' meanwhile, run into First Amendment free speech protections. New Zealand made it a criminal offense to share recordings and videos and manifestos from the Christchurch shooter; that's an affront to basic liberty that cannot be tolerated. In Europe, meanwhile, they've apparently decided that the bigger threat is that people will draw conclusions hostile to Islam, and end up trying to suppress not the road map that's causing the bombings, but the one that could potentially cause anti-Muslim violence. All of these things are out of order with human liberty, and to be rejected. Even if you didn't reject them, though, you would find them ineffective without a more general abandonment of the ideals of self-government: you will have to suppress the press talking about these things (and so convince the press that it is unethical to do their actual job as journalists, and then suppress those members of the press who continue to do it). But the courts are going to end up trying some of these mass killing cases, so you'll end up having to suppress citizen knowledge of the facts of cases in open court. That ends up damaging the rights of the accused, who cannot rely on a secret court to also be a fair court; and it destroys our ability to keep tabs on the government, which destroys self-government as a basic idea.
So Factor Three is probably not going to be where we make much progress. You can try to educate people out of these road maps, but you can't eliminate them.
Factor Two is a universal human experience. You can look for people who are undergoing a personal crisis, and potentially make some progress by making help available to people in getting through such crises as they occur. You can't eliminate crises, though, nor grievances either.
So that leads us to Factor One: childhood trauma. Here we readily identify a specific class of people who could be subject to greater scrutiny as potential mass killers. That is to say that, recognizing them as having been victimized once, we shall be sure to continue to victimize them by treating them as dangerous hazards who can't be trusted as much as other people. Even if that conclusion were true (and these killers are so small a percentage of society that it probably isn't even true), it would be fundamentally unjust to punish people for having been traumatized.
Since it is the only thing that is really likely to work, though, injustice is the most probable outcome of future government action on this issue. My sense is that we have much more to fear from any government attempts to address mass killings than we have to fear from the tiny number of killers, bad as they are.
Another Good Guy with a Gun
According to USAToday:
This will be chalked up by many (such as OK State Rep. Forrest Bennett (D)) as another example of gun violence, which it is, but it will not be chalked up by many of the same people as another example of armed citizens stopping murderers.
But the shooter is dead.DUNCAN, Oklahoma – Three people were killed Monday in a shooting outside a Walmart that ended when a bystander pointed a gun at the shooter, police and a witness said....Duncan resident Aaron Helton, an Army veteran, said he was at the Walmart at about 9:45 a.m. local time when he heard nine shots and saw the gunman, gun in hand. Another man walked up, put a pistol to the gunman’s head and told him to stop shooting, Helton said.Helton said he saw the gunman was turning the gun on himself and looked away. Police did not immediately confirm reports that the shooter took his own life.
This will be chalked up by many (such as OK State Rep. Forrest Bennett (D)) as another example of gun violence, which it is, but it will not be chalked up by many of the same people as another example of armed citizens stopping murderers.
The Birth of Dragons
It came earlier than history believes, but what else would you expect about dragons than that they are ancient?
Fake vs. Real News
Fake News (BB): "Josef Stalin Warns Democrats May Be Going Too Far Left."
That wouldn't matter even if it were true, though, because -- Real News -- young people don't generally know who Stalin was. "A poll of 16-24 year-olds found that 28 per cent had never heard of Stalin, almost half had never heard of Lenin and 70% had never heard of Mao Tse Tung ["Zedong," usually, since the PRC prefers the Pinyin system of romanization to the older Wade-Giles. --Grim]."
An allied poll reveals either a complete failure of the educational system, or else a complete success by Communists in corrupting it.
That wouldn't matter even if it were true, though, because -- Real News -- young people don't generally know who Stalin was. "A poll of 16-24 year-olds found that 28 per cent had never heard of Stalin, almost half had never heard of Lenin and 70% had never heard of Mao Tse Tung ["Zedong," usually, since the PRC prefers the Pinyin system of romanization to the older Wade-Giles. --Grim]."
An allied poll reveals either a complete failure of the educational system, or else a complete success by Communists in corrupting it.
The new data show that 64% of Gen Z and 70% of millennials say they’re likely to vote for a socialist. Meanwhile, 20% of millennials think the Communist Manifesto “better guarantees freedom and equality” than the Declaration of Independence.You kids keep your eyes on Hong Kong.
Bizarrely, 36% view communism favorably, and 15% think the world would be better off if the Soviet Union still existed. And 22% of millennials think “society would be better if all private property was abolished,” while 35% view Marxism favorably.
Unscience
G.K. Chesterton in a biography of G.F. Watts:
[The real result of the great rise of science] would painfully appear to be that whereas men in the earlier times said unscientific things with the vagueness of gossip and legend, they now say unscientific things with the plainness and the certainty of science.
Sword Find in Czech Republic
It is a Bronze Age piece, which is rare for swords. It's beautiful, especially given that it is over three thousand years old.
Solomon keeps punching on the Ukraine story
Former Ambassador Yovanovitch must wish there was some way to muzzle investigative reporter John Solomon.
Sounding the Alarm
Strange that this sort of talk should happen the same week as the impeachment hearings go public.
Former President Barack Obama offered an unusual warning to the Democratic primary field on Friday evening, cautioning the candidates not to move too far to the left in their policy proposals, even as he sought to reassure a party establishment worried about the electoral strength of their historically large primary field....That doesn't sound like the voice of a party on the cusp of historic victory.
[H]e also raised concerns about some of the liberal ideas being promoted by some candidates, citing health care and immigration as issues where the proposals may have gone further than public opinion.
While Mr. Obama did not single out any specific primary candidate or policy proposal, he cautioned that the universe of voters that could support a Democratic candidate — Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans — are not driven by the same views reflected on “certain left-leaning Twitter feeds” or “the activist wing of our party.”
“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality,” Mr. Obama said. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”
We can be heroes
Yovanovitch's testimony was appalling generally, but for bad taste, it was hard to equal her evocation of the heroism of the Americans left to die in Benghazi. Powerline sums it up:
And we are Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Patrick Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty—people rightly called heroes for their ultimate sacrifice to this nation’s foreign policy interests in Libya, eight years ago.We honor these individuals. They represent each one of you here—and every American. These courageous individuals were attacked because they symbolized America.
As Tonto asked the Lone Ranger when he announced that “We’re surrounded” (by Indians), “What you mean ‘we,’ kemosabe?”
By the same token, I thought, Yovanovitch might have observed:
This functionary, who as even her fluffers admit served at the pleasure of the chief executive, wasn't even fired. She still works for the State Department in a cushy job at Georgetown.We are Alger Hiss, who used his State Department post to serve the Soviet Union at great risk to his own career. He had the stubborn courage to lie about it to the end of his life.We are Julian Wadleigh, Laurence Duggan, and Noel Field, who also spied for the Soviet Union from inside the State Department.We are former State Department officer Kendall Myers, who continued the tradition in a later generation by giving highly sensitive diplomatic secrets to Cuba.
The fourth branch of government
From Ace of Spades HQ:
The old common wisdom was that the 'Deep State' was just a kwazy konspiracy theory cooked up by kooky konservatives from their paranoid, delusional fantasies. But, upon further reflection, the Deep State is apparently the fourth branch of government, not mentioned in the US Constitution, but nevertheless real and necessary; a bulwark, if you will, that protects the perks, privileges and prerogatives of an unaccountable, bureaucratic elite against American citizens who have the insolence to believe that they're entitled to participate in constitutionally mandated elections."
Metabolic signatures on Mars?
NASA's Curiosity Mars is sending back surprising data about seasonal atmospheric oxygen and methane cycles. Apparently this doesn't necessarily establish the presence of life, even simple microbial life, but it's awfully interesting. This article mentioned that there's such a thing as abiotic processes that can yield both oxygen and methane. Through the magic of Google, it's possible to ask, what kinds of abiotic processes do we know about that can produce methane? How about oxygen? It turns out there are some; geological "serpentinization" is believed to produce methane, and ultraviolet light can knock oxygen loose from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Still, something shot down that Mars Rover. I blame the Ukranians. Or was it the Russians? I keep losing track.
Speaking of nations about which I know less than I should, this list of ten nations that no longer exist was fascinating. Experimental republics do rise and fall, and not only because they are conquered by Martians or the alt-right.
Still, something shot down that Mars Rover. I blame the Ukranians. Or was it the Russians? I keep losing track.
Speaking of nations about which I know less than I should, this list of ten nations that no longer exist was fascinating. Experimental republics do rise and fall, and not only because they are conquered by Martians or the alt-right.
Keeping our eye on the ball
From Steve Cortes at Real Clear Politics:
To put it in the reverse terms: a sitting president can't be obstructed from doing something because it might have an ancillary effect on a political rival. Much if not all of what a president does in office inevitably affects either his ability to stay in office or the fortunes of his political allies. Tough. What's he supposed to do, avoid any policy that might depress the success of the Democratic Party? In a million years, would Trump's opponents advocate applying this standard to a Democratic president? We couldn't even get them interested in why it was wrong to turn the IRS loose on a partisan witch-hunt against conservative non-profits.
[T]he vast majority of Americans quickly tire of a deep dive into an unknown cast of characters enmeshed in a country far away that has little import for America.
To this point, there is only one salient question: Was the information Donald Trump requested from Ukraine’s president useful to the American people? If so, then additional benefits to his 2020 campaign are incidental and immaterial. As a steward of the hard-earned tax money of the American people, the president requested an investigation into corruption in a country rife with fraud. He did not mandate a pre-determined outcome. If the Ukrainians’ inquiry additionally happened to uncover underhandedness on the part of the past vice president of the United States, surely such information would be vital to American voters. Stick to this one question.The money shot: "Was the information Donald Trump requested from Ukraine’s president useful to the American people? If so, then additional benefits to his 2020 campaign are incidental and immaterial."
To put it in the reverse terms: a sitting president can't be obstructed from doing something because it might have an ancillary effect on a political rival. Much if not all of what a president does in office inevitably affects either his ability to stay in office or the fortunes of his political allies. Tough. What's he supposed to do, avoid any policy that might depress the success of the Democratic Party? In a million years, would Trump's opponents advocate applying this standard to a Democratic president? We couldn't even get them interested in why it was wrong to turn the IRS loose on a partisan witch-hunt against conservative non-profits.
Ukraine is a "strategic partner" of the Biden Family trust fund
I wouldn't want to get Mark Steyn on my bad side.
In a functioning system, the head of the government sets foreign policy and the diplomats enact it. So naturally there's not a chance of that in Washington. When Taylor and Kent whine that there seemed to be a "shadow foreign policy", the shadow is theirs; they spent a day testifying that everything had been going ticketty-boo for decades just as they'd always done things - and then Trump came along and took a different view. Oh, my! Anyone would think that, as Barack Obama once proposed, "elections have consequences".But the piece is really worth reading for the rant about silly ambassador names. Spurgeon? Seriously? Spurgeon, Jr., for all love?
What was that about Burisma again?
A good summary from Sheryl Attkinson of the only part of the impeachment testimony that bore on what would be the nub of the controversy if sane people were running the show.
George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State testified that the Obama administration pressed Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma long before President Trump sought an investigation.
Kent agrees today that Burisma should be “fully investigated,” as President Trump has asked.
Kent explained the history of Burisma corruption. He alleged that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky, formerly part of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government (2010-2012), was guilty of self dealing and corruption. Zlochevsky then went on to found Burisma, the largest private gas company in that nation.
Kent stated that in December 2014, a bribe was paid within Ukraine to make an investigation into Zlochevsky’s crimes “go away.” Kent says the bribed official fled Ukraine as the U.S. pressed Ukrainian officials to answer why prosecutors closed the case.Read the whole thing, there's lots more.
Construction
We're hip-deep in construction, but this part is just about finished now: an outdoor kitchen with a cooking hearth and a bread oven.
I've been developing a natural wild-yeast starter, too. The flavor's good, but the rising power needs more time to develop, or I need to modify my proofing times, or both. This morning's experiment was a bit of a brick, but it has a great flavor. I made this one in the ordinary house oven, because the outdoor masonry is still drying. Soon we'll get started out there experimenting with pizza and bread.
I've been developing a natural wild-yeast starter, too. The flavor's good, but the rising power needs more time to develop, or I need to modify my proofing times, or both. This morning's experiment was a bit of a brick, but it has a great flavor. I made this one in the ordinary house oven, because the outdoor masonry is still drying. Soon we'll get started out there experimenting with pizza and bread.
Who stiffed the Ukraine?
Miranda Devine tries to sort out how Trump became the big meanie in Ukrainian-U.S. relations:
That's not "digging up dirt" on a political rival or anyone else. That's following up on an obvious red flag, in this case one pertaining to the actions of someone who at the time was serving as vice president of the United States. If the Ukrainian government had come back with a credible explanation that exonerates Biden, that should have been the end of it. Instead we have a lot of hysterical shrieking that amounts to saying the chief executive of the United States is not even justified in asking the question.
It's not exactly the GPS Fusion approach, is it? Trump didn't hint around that he'd be pretty happy if someone cooked up a bogus dossier and leaked it to a compliant media. "Will no one bring me dirt on this turbulent candidate?" Instead, Trump said someone ought to ask a question about the backdrop to a public statement by a then-high-ranking U.S. official. Frankly, someone still should. If it happened the way Biden and his surrogates claim, it should pretty easy to establish with witnesses and documents.
[T]here was something missing in [the two House Intelligence Committee witnesses’] description of “alarm” at the withholding of US military aid to Ukraine.
For all their concern about Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia, they were remarkably sanguine about the Obama administration’s inaction after Russia annexed Crimea and began aggressing into eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko went to Washington and begged for military assistance but the Obama-Biden administration refused, out of deference to Moscow.
Poroshenko complained at the time: “one cannot win a war with blankets.”
This was surely the low point of Ukrainian-US relations, not Trump’s phone call in July.
Despite the witnesses’ dissatisfaction with President Trump’s Ukraine policy, it was President Trump who approved the supply of weapons to Ukraine.
So if concern for Ukraine is not the real motivation behind the diplomatic community’s alarm about Trump, all that’s left is protecting the Bidens.
Without a real whistleblower we can only think the worst.It's conceivable that the quid pro quo Biden bragged about on video had to do with concern over corruption that a Ukrainian prosecutor was failing to investigate, not corruption that he was threatening to investigate. It's even possible that Biden didn't think any of the un-investigated corruption involved his family, though the second part at the very least paints him as oblivious. If that's the case, though, what I'm seeing is Trump jumping to a fairly natural conclusion after seeing Biden's videotaped statement, and wishing someone would look into it long enough to give us a clue what was going on.
That's not "digging up dirt" on a political rival or anyone else. That's following up on an obvious red flag, in this case one pertaining to the actions of someone who at the time was serving as vice president of the United States. If the Ukrainian government had come back with a credible explanation that exonerates Biden, that should have been the end of it. Instead we have a lot of hysterical shrieking that amounts to saying the chief executive of the United States is not even justified in asking the question.
It's not exactly the GPS Fusion approach, is it? Trump didn't hint around that he'd be pretty happy if someone cooked up a bogus dossier and leaked it to a compliant media. "Will no one bring me dirt on this turbulent candidate?" Instead, Trump said someone ought to ask a question about the backdrop to a public statement by a then-high-ranking U.S. official. Frankly, someone still should. If it happened the way Biden and his surrogates claim, it should pretty easy to establish with witnesses and documents.
The Roads Least Traveled
Linda Poon at CityLab reports that the GPS company Geotab did something cool. They analyzed their traffic data and produced an interactive map of the least-traveled roads in the US. Their links open up Google street views of each one.
Alaska, North and South Dakota, Montana, and Nevada have the top 10 stretches of road least-traveled, but there's something there for all of the states. Great pics of the 10 most scenic at the site.
Alaska, North and South Dakota, Montana, and Nevada have the top 10 stretches of road least-traveled, but there's something there for all of the states. Great pics of the 10 most scenic at the site.
Jimbo: The Deep State Exists
Uncle Jimbo of BLACKFIVE fame wrote a piece for the Federalist under his real (and more professional) name, Jim Hanson.
Vindman gave the game away with his prepared testimony. He believes the permanent bureaucracy should reign supreme, and if some elected politician gets crosswise with the solons of the state, then they must act. So he did, as he detailed in his prepared statement and testimony to Congress. From the statement: “In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.”How they'll howl if he gets prosecuted by a court martial.
There is a lot of wrong in those two sentences, which profoundly illustrate the fundamental flaw Vindman and his fellow Deep Staters operate under. The interagency he mentions is a collection of staff from the major agencies like the State Department, Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies, who meet to coordinate and plan implementation of policy. They most certainly are not supposed to decide what policy the United States will follow.... [despite] his belief that they are the ones whose opinions matter and anyone acting outside of that is acting against U.S. interests. Even if that conflicted with the policy of his superiors all the way up to the president, Vindman and the Deep State would decide what “advanced U.S. policy interests.”
Vindman also took action warning Ukrainian officials he spoke to: “I would tell them to not interfere — not get involved in U.S. domestic politics.”
This was after Vindman says he had determined the calls for an investigation into election interference and anything related to Burisma corruption and the Bidens equaled President Trump trying to get Ukraine to interfere in U.S. politics. He was actively undermining what he believes is the president’s chosen policy—not because it is illegal, but because he disagrees with it and doesn’t think it is important.
That is far beyond Vindman’s duties or authority, and in applying his opinion and actions to counter the president’s goals, Vindman may be violating Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which covers insubordination to the president and other named officials.
This is insubordination and malfeasance, and likely punishable under several sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
How America Ends
An interesting essay, in that it is from the left-leaning perspective, but is trying to grapple with the anger being provoked by intentional changes in American demographics.
* First Amendment-violating bans on 'hate speech';
* First Amendment-violating use of the courts to sue religious organizations like Little Sisters of the Poor to compel violation of their religion;
* Similar suits and laws aimed to destroy people for living by religious principles that defy sexual liberality;
* The complete elimination of the Second Amendment as a governing principle, without the bother of repealing it;
* Allowing sanctuary cities and states to violate Federal law at will, and dissolving agencies meant to enforce those laws, while at the same time constructing all new laws to bind actual American citizens.
In fairness the author does mention 'the excesses of the left,' but mostly seems to mean Antifa. It's the ordinary establishment left, and for that matter their allies among ordinary establishment Republicans, that are driving the bus.
"The stakes in this battle on the right are much higher than the next election. If Republican voters can’t be convinced that democratic elections will continue to offer them a viable path to victory, that they can thrive within a diversifying nation, and that even in defeat their basic rights will be protected, then Trumpism will extend long after Trump leaves office—and our democracy will suffer for it."It would be easier for people on the right to believe that their basic rights will be protected in defeat if the folks on the left would quit running on, inter alia, the following things:
* First Amendment-violating bans on 'hate speech';
* First Amendment-violating use of the courts to sue religious organizations like Little Sisters of the Poor to compel violation of their religion;
* Similar suits and laws aimed to destroy people for living by religious principles that defy sexual liberality;
* The complete elimination of the Second Amendment as a governing principle, without the bother of repealing it;
* Allowing sanctuary cities and states to violate Federal law at will, and dissolving agencies meant to enforce those laws, while at the same time constructing all new laws to bind actual American citizens.
In fairness the author does mention 'the excesses of the left,' but mostly seems to mean Antifa. It's the ordinary establishment left, and for that matter their allies among ordinary establishment Republicans, that are driving the bus.
Impeachment: Over/Under on a Senate Trial?
On the one hand, the movement to impeach the President began the moment he was elected; it is clear that the prior administration put steps into place, and left some stay-behind loyalists, precisely to figure out how to take down the incoming administration. Examples include Sally Yates, the so-called 'whistleblower' whom I won't name mostly because his name is too long to type, the FBI/DOJ lovers, and so forth and so on; the executive order allowing the alleged evidence on Russia to be promulgated much more widely than usual; the ongoing FISA applications to continue to allow spying on the incoming administration. Given the level of commitment, it's hard to imagine they will wave off now.
On the other hand, if this goes to the Senate, they lose control of it. Republicans get to subpoena witnesses and ask whatever they want of them. Ukraine seems to be where many of the bodies are buried: not just Hunter Biden but Nancy Pelosi's son, Mitt Romney's son, John Kerry's son all have similar jobs, and Biden's success at using aid-money as a lever to force them to fire that prosecutor netted the replacement who torpedoed Paul Manafort during the height of the 2016 election, while Manafort was the Republican campaign manager. I wouldn't want to draw attention to Ukraine with the 2020 election just around the corner, not if I was an establishment politician.
So will they pull the trigger? At The Hill, Jonathan Turley wonders.
On the other hand, if this goes to the Senate, they lose control of it. Republicans get to subpoena witnesses and ask whatever they want of them. Ukraine seems to be where many of the bodies are buried: not just Hunter Biden but Nancy Pelosi's son, Mitt Romney's son, John Kerry's son all have similar jobs, and Biden's success at using aid-money as a lever to force them to fire that prosecutor netted the replacement who torpedoed Paul Manafort during the height of the 2016 election, while Manafort was the Republican campaign manager. I wouldn't want to draw attention to Ukraine with the 2020 election just around the corner, not if I was an establishment politician.
So will they pull the trigger? At The Hill, Jonathan Turley wonders.
Slipping new ideas into unwilling minds
This interview with the host of the Legal Insurrection blog starts with a good summary of the Oberlin collage defamation case, but perhaps even more interesting--and heartening--is the blogger's account of how he got some students at Vassar to hear his views on the First Amendment. He appealed to their natural desire to be free from all kinds of intrusion, as protected by other parts of the Bill of Rights, then drew their attention to the importance of freedom of speech.
Feminist Pragmatists
A friend of mine self-describes this way, and is excited about this philosophical conference. I certainly think that pragmatism is the viable way to approach feminism if anything is; a focus on whether or not the theories lead to better practical results makes sense to me. Pragmatism is an essentially American philosophical school, oddly enough (from my perspective) associated with late-19th century progressivism. I'm not sure how well progressivisim has ever worked out, although in fairness in the 19th century it hadn't yet been tried to any degree. The inability to re-evaluate assumptions in the light of subsequent experience suggests to me a basic failure in the ability of people to apply "pragmatism" to ideological preferences.
Still, just because execution is bad doesn't mean the theory is wrong. I'm all for pragmatism for those who can be pragmatic. Or as a different friend of mine used to say, "I believe you should try pragmatism, but if it doesn't work out try something else."
Still, just because execution is bad doesn't mean the theory is wrong. I'm all for pragmatism for those who can be pragmatic. Or as a different friend of mine used to say, "I believe you should try pragmatism, but if it doesn't work out try something else."
Bee Stings
After the Bee perfectly parodied my internal dialog about Ben Shapiro steamrolling snowflakes, I was hesitant to return to America's paper of record.
But I'm not as bad as this guy ... Man In Critical Condition After Hearing Slightly Differing Viewpoint
There is also the obligatory article, Spare Empty Podium Expected To Win Democratic Debates By Wide Margin. Truth? Satire? Who can tell?
And finally a straight news story: Nation's Gen Xers Announce Plan To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Watching Boomers, Millennials Tear Each Other To Shreds.
Although I should keep my mouth shut, I do have a suggestion about that. I think we've all become familiar with the millenials' retort, "OK, Boomer." The Blogfather has started using "OK, Millenial" in reply. But, really, that just doesn't roll off the tongue very well. Can we call them Millys?
What!? I think that's very helpful!
But I'm not as bad as this guy ... Man In Critical Condition After Hearing Slightly Differing Viewpoint
There is also the obligatory article, Spare Empty Podium Expected To Win Democratic Debates By Wide Margin. Truth? Satire? Who can tell?
And finally a straight news story: Nation's Gen Xers Announce Plan To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Watching Boomers, Millennials Tear Each Other To Shreds.
Although I should keep my mouth shut, I do have a suggestion about that. I think we've all become familiar with the millenials' retort, "OK, Boomer." The Blogfather has started using "OK, Millenial" in reply. But, really, that just doesn't roll off the tongue very well. Can we call them Millys?
What!? I think that's very helpful!
For Grim
This might be outside your normal wheelhouse, but I can think of at least three things in this video that would appeal to you:
Happy Veterans' Day
All the best to all of you Veterans who keep making America a better place even after honorable service.
Oaths of office
If you want to be a socialist dictator for life, aren't you supposed to have the military in your pocket? Bolivian president Evo Morales has stepped down after a friendly chat with the nation's "army chief," in which it was suggested that some aspects of the recent election tally didn't look entirely kosher. And also that Mr. Morales's allies' homes were being burnt down, but mostly that the homes were being burnt down. Morales took the well-meant advice and resigned.
I admit that this part gave me pause:
I'd sure rather see political change happen without the intervention of the military. I'll be watching nervously to see whether Bolivia can get its civil act together. It will be good to see the military refuse to support a sham election, but this is playing with fire: undermining faith in elections to the point where violent uprisings seem like the only answer. Note to future tyrants: if you can't get the real consent of the people, at least remember to corrupt the military.
Blessings of the day to our own uncorrupted military. Too often we take their honor for granted.
In other news, progressives cheer as more Americans are taught to cower at the sound of gunfire. Way to keep those tyrants in check, unarmed protesters!
I admit that this part gave me pause:
However, the Cuban and Venezuelan leaders - who had previously voiced their support for Mr Morales - condemned the events as a "coup".I guess they'd know one when they see it. It wasn't a coup earlier, though, when Morales got a friendly court to throw out term limits.
I'd sure rather see political change happen without the intervention of the military. I'll be watching nervously to see whether Bolivia can get its civil act together. It will be good to see the military refuse to support a sham election, but this is playing with fire: undermining faith in elections to the point where violent uprisings seem like the only answer. Note to future tyrants: if you can't get the real consent of the people, at least remember to corrupt the military.
Blessings of the day to our own uncorrupted military. Too often we take their honor for granted.
In other news, progressives cheer as more Americans are taught to cower at the sound of gunfire. Way to keep those tyrants in check, unarmed protesters!
Happy Birthday, Marines
I was just last night at a charity ball for a MARSOC-focused charity. It was part of what took me to the DC Metroplex. Thankfully it is now over; it was a black-tie event that went from 1700 until nearly midnight. Indeed, Marines present were openly plotting to transition right into Birthday celebrations at the stroke of midnight. The Birthday, though technically almost over, will likely be a going concern well into the AM for many Marines.
Have a happy one.
Have a happy one.
One of the best mistakes ever
Did Gorbachev really believe people would stay in East Germany after the wall came down, and he told the soldiers not to shoot?
Shouldn’t we have understood the hollowness of the Soviet system from the moment the wall went up in 1961? If the Soviet Empire had been founded on an ideology, a belief, a hope for a better society, it would not have been necessary to build a wall, surrounded by barbed wire and explosive mines, to prevent East Germans from leaving. The wall had no other significance than to evoke and reinforce fear in the subjects of the empire and among Communist leaders themselves; if they had once believed their Marxist vulgate, the wall proved, starting in 1961, that they no longer believed it. Neither did Stalin in the 1930s, since his essential contribution to the Soviet system (and later, by contagion, the Chinese and the Cuban experiments in inhumanity) was to institutionalize fear, with prison camps, phony trials, arbitrary arrests, and the denunciation of everyone by everyone.
* * *
Communism has been an actual belief primarily in free countries.... Communism only works, it seems, where it is not applied.
Thirty years after the wall came down, some believe that the event has not lived up to its promise. Well—explain that to the Poles, the Baltic peoples, and the Ukrainians! Another quarrel also divides historians: did the wall fall, or was it destroyed—and if destroyed, by whom? By heroes seeking freedom, by brave people seeking bananas, by the preaching of Pope John Paul II, by the prescient 1987 speech of Ronald Reagan in Berlin—“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”? As often happens in history, major events grow out of multiple influences. But of all these factors, the most improbable was Gorbachev’s instructing his troops, “Don’t shoot.” He thought that he was reinventing socialism with a human face. The Soviet Empire was destroyed by the only one of its leaders who believed that real socialism could exist without fear—a fatal, fortunate error.
Stay Alert, Trust No One, Keep Your Weapon Handy
H/t Raven, we are reminded that this can be an axe.
Cold Mountain
Since Tex posted that trailer, with its atrocious Hollywood attempts at Southern accents, I thought I should point out that I was at Cold Mountain just the other day. Here it is:
North Carolina sent more people to the war than any other state, and on both sides. Important raids and battles happened there, but not near Cold Mountain. It was too remote to fight over.
North Carolina sent more people to the war than any other state, and on both sides. Important raids and battles happened there, but not near Cold Mountain. It was too remote to fight over.
I don't even know where to start
If your community can't rise to the challenge of some turkeys, maybe it's time to turn the town over to them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)