I usually prefer transcripts, but for reasons that might be obvious the media has not elected to provide a transcript of this speech that I can find. You can advance to about 45m in if you want to hear the criticisms of Progressivism as basically hostile to the Declaration of Independence, and of Woodrow Wilson -- a man Justice Thomas has reason to hold in disdain quite apart from Wilson's Progressivism. Within about ten minutes of beginning this critique, he reminds the audience that it was old Woodrow who decided to segregate the Federal government and its workforce.
We have been fortunate to have his scholarly mind and quiet presence on the Court for so long. He has no clear equal, nor anyone sadly who is obviously a fit replacement when the day comes for him to retire.
While looking for one of Abbey's aphorisms yesterday, I discovered instead his Master of Arts' thesis. Like a good MA thesis it has little original thought, which is more proper in a Ph.D. dissertation; instead, it is a chance to wrestle with the key texts of an area of study. In that regard it is useful reading for others interested in the history of 19th and 20th century anarchist thought.
To my surprise, he concludes that anarchism -- not at all necessarily connected to violence, but with members of the school occasionally willing to embrace revolution and even terrorism -- had not successfully made a case the violence was either needed nor appropriate to its project. However, what struck me most was I found to be a very persuasive introduction:
Since the Second World War the idea of anarchism has enjoyed a certain revival.... [Each of an impressive list of thinkers] has attempted to draw attention to the excesses of the modern nation-state and advocated, in one way or another, the decentralization of the state's political, economic and military power.
The importance of anarchism lies in the fact that it is alone among contemporary political doctrines in opposing the institution of the state, stressing the danger while denying the necessity of centralized authority. Socialism, Communism, and what is at present called Democratic Capitalism (the Welfare State) have, on the other hand, both accommodated themselves to and actively encouraged the growth of the national state. Thus supported from within and without (through international rivalry) the state has become the paramount institution of modern civilization, and exerts an increasing degree of control over the lives of all who live beneath its domination.
[A]s the state continues to grow, assuming to itself not only political and military power but also more and more direct economic and social power, the average man of today finds his role subtly changed from that of citizen to that of functionary in a gigantic and fantastic ally-complex social machine. This development takes place no matter what the official ideology of the state may be, so that we may now observe a gradual convergence of ends and means In the historical evolution of such [typically] modern states as the U. S, A* and the U. S. S, R., which tend to rese[m]ble each other more and more with each passing year despite the fact that the two states originated under greatly unlike circumstances and attempted to guide their progress by official political philosophies which, in most important respects, are sharply opposed. This process of growth and convergence cannot be satisfactorily explained through the use of such conventional concepts as Democracy versus Communism, or Capitalism versus Socialism; the peculiar relevance and appeal of anarchism consists in this, that it offers a possible theoretical key to the understanding of historical developments which seem to have little connection with their customary labels.
Statement of the Problem:
The idea of anarchism is embarrassed, however, by its traditional association with illegality and violence.
Emphasis added.
"Illegality" is not really a cause for concern, since the state itself sets the laws and naturally enough outlaws the questioning of its existence or necessity. Even the United States, in spite of the protections of the First Amendment -- protections greatly strengthened, as we know, by the effects of the anarchist movement in the early 20th century -- outright bans advocating or teaching the idea, at least if the abolition of the government (expressly to include any subset of government) is tied to an endorsement of violence. So really, as Abbey realizes quickly enough, it's just the violence that is the problem.
The inquiry is worthy; the conclusion that violence has not been shown to be justified even by those who were most open to the idea of using violence is predicated on the fact that the idea that abolishing the state was a desirable end is something that anarchists haven't adequately persuaded enough people to believe yet (or hadn't, at least, in the 1950s). If it's not something that most people agree is desirable, no war to accomplish it is really possible; only terrorist acts and murders, rather than the spark of a genuine revolution. That's a fairly pragmatic, consequently characteristically American, and quite plausible conclusion.
The Pope has said that he thinks the war on/with Iran is unjust. Fr. Gerald Murray disagrees and offers an argument in favor of the war being just according to Just War Theory.
Wretchard, or Richard Fernandez, says that he thinks you can't properly understand the discussion within the context of Just War Theory alone: you have to engage also the theory of Jihad, which is Iran's rather than ours.
Inevitably it requires us to consider not only what Christians believe but what the Islamic equivalent to Just War -- the doctrine of Jihad -- actually teaches. In many ways the two are as different as chalk and cheese. In the first place Christianity is a nonstate religion while Islam aims to be a “universal religion and a universal state”. From this arises a host of differences.
In Just War, the core intention of hostilities is the “righting of wrongs.” Bellum has an earthly origin. Heads of states do not to go to war with the intention of pleasing God but to do particular things. This is not the case with the Jihad, which clearly states that the core intention to wage war must be to please Allah. Just War is a human creation while Jihad is a divine one.
Wretchard is one of my favorite thinkers on the subject of national and international security, so it will not surprise you that I think he has a very valid point that is not being adequately considered elsewhere.
Except here, perhaps; it comes up here and from time to time. So, there are two reasons to suspect myself of confirmation bias here: I already think that Wretchard is very much smarter than most people commenting on these matters, and I already agree with the particular assertion he's making.
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.
Just War Theory is a Western tradition, originally a kind of gift that the Catholic Church gave to a warring Europe. It grew out of the Peace and Truce of God movements, which were attempts to restrain the brutal warfare of the Medieval period first against the Church itself, and then against noncombatants within the broader society. It invokes religion, and takes authority from Jesus' own words on the subject of peacemakers being blessed. Traditionally, it also accepts that secular lords are likely to war upon each other for many reasons, and tries to set limits on when new wars can be started.
I don't see how a war against a regime that murders its own citizens by the tens of thousands can ever be unjust, myself. But within the tradition it always comes down to who the aggressor is (jus ad bellum); and that is never resolvable because it always turns on differential claims from history. I thus don't find the tradition useful as a pragmatic approach to ethics.
(Another bias of mine: In general, the only thing our government does that I really approve of is overthrowing other, even-worse governments. Any government that violates the natural rights of its citizens is righteously overthrown according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence; I see nothing wrong with giving a helping hand to citizens who can't quite manage it themselves, as the French did for us once upon a time.)
If you are advocating for Iran being aggressed-against, you have to ignore the constant violence they have engaged in against us since 1979. Yet if you want to argue that Israel is the aggressor in the current war in Gaza, you argue that Israel is the aggressor in spite of the October 7th attacks because of a longstanding tradition of war and oppression and imperialism etc. The Iran aggression is measured from Trump's first act, excluding everything that came before; Israel's, from the very beginning of it or even earlier during the British Mandate. Very often the same people make both arguments on the same day, and at the same time. We never get to a resolution that provides anything pragmatically useful.
It is perfectly possible to make either argument under JWT, as well, which is another weakness of it as a pragmatic mechanism. The gift the Church keeps giving by continuing to raise it is not that it provides a pragmatically-useful ethical standard. It is, as it was from the beginning, that it provides a brake on the warlike impulses of the powerful secular lords of the world.
What it has never done is provide even a brake on governments like the Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran. It's not even fair to judge them by it; it was never a standard to which they even aspired. They have a standard of their own. It has been very clearly articulated and defended by them for four decades. There is little excuse for refusing to acknowledge and engage with it in trying to understand the moral structure of this conflict. To exclude it as a consideration is folly: perhaps self-centeredness, perhaps simply a refusal to take seriously their ideas in spite of their manifest willingness to live by and die for them (coupled with our own leadership's unwillingness to live or die by any standards, only to talk about them as if the things really mattered).
So: perhaps all of this is an exercise in confirmation bias by me, and it is fair to consider that. Still, for whatever it's worth, I think Wretchard has a good point here.
As the comments wryly point out, the Army brass is interpreting this as the SECWAR giving permission for the soldiers to ask permission, which the brass can then deny across the board. "No way we're giving these chuckleheads weapons!" you can imagine every Garrison Commander muttering under his breath.
If you give out of guilt, don’t call it generosity. It’s emotional leakage.
No wonder you feel used, resentful, and drained. Torah already warns: give without a grudging heart. (Deuteronomy 15:10)
Because giving from guilt isn't giving, it's pain management!
Trauma is isolation, so you don't really need anything to happen to be traumatized. The first time God said something wasn't good was about being alone.
Small people deal with small problems. A person is sized by the size of his problems. Enhance your problems and you will grow....
Never aspire to be the only one winning. The path to wealth runs through partnerships and relationships. When others benefit from your success you'll benefit from theirs. It's a unstoppable chain reaction!
Some fiction captures your imagination in childhood, never to be displaced. I have a vivid memory of a short, satirical science fiction story called "Von Goom's Gambit," including a good bit of the specific wording. Imagine my delight to find that it has been preserved digitally and can still be read.
You won’t find Von Goom’s Gambit in any of the books on chess openings. Ludvik Pachman’s Moderne Schachtheorie simply ignores it. Paul Keres’ authoritative work Teoria Debiutow Szachowych mentions it only in passing in a footnote on page 239, advising the reader never to try it under any circumstances and makes sure the advice is followed by giving no further information. Dr. Max Euwe’s Archives lists the gambit in the index under the initials V. G. (Gambit), but fortunately gives no page number. The twenty-volume Chess Encyclopedia (fourth edition) states that Von Goom is a myth and classifies him with werewolves and vampires. His Gambit is not mentioned. Vassily Nikolayevitch Kryllov heartily recommends Von Goom’s Gambit in the English edition of his book, Russian Theory of the Opening; the Russian edition makes no mention of it. Fortunately Kryllov himself did not--and does not yet--know, the moves, so he did not recommend them to his American readers. If he had, the cold war would be finished. In fact, America would be finished, and possibly the world....
I remember the story as being of an ordinary length for a short story and am amazed to find that it's only a few pages long.
My guess is that it started with the Pope meeting with Obama adviser David Axlerod. Officially the narrative reverses that and claims that the Pope met with Axelrod after nameless Pentagon officials threatened his ambassador to the United States by invoking the Avignon Papacy, but that seems so much like an Obama-era Ben Rhodes sort of scam story that I assume it is an information operation. Probably, anyway; at least one Trump appointee at the Pentagon is enough of a history buff to have a Jerusalem Crosstattoo, a symbol of the Crusades because it was* the flag of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; and the same French king who kidnapped the Pope destroyed the Knights Templar, that most famous of Crusader orders. So maybe it happened like it's being reported in the press; but it's noteworthy that there are no names at all attributed to the threat, and nobody has stepped up to claim it. The Trump administration is not shy about making threats, after all.
The Pope had earlier condemned the war with Iran, but Popes do that sort of thing. Calling for peace is part of the job. Then this alleged meeting supposedly happened, an arcane historical reference was allegedly made by a Trump appointee, and the Vatican allegedly interpreted it as a threat. Then three Cardinals of Archdioceses that happen to also be Democratic Party strongholds -- including Chicago, where the Pope is from himself -- appeared on 60 Minutes, a show that has regularly featured media attempts to known down Republican or prop up Democratic Party figures.
The President having no lack of stomach for publicity fights decided to lash out at the Pope; the Pope, for reasons best known to himself, decided to go on a "Catholics are in Communion with Islam" tour and (people also note that he apparently opened a Muslim prayer room inside the Vatican last November); and then Trump decided to post an image of himself dressed in a costume traditionally associated with Jesus, or with Tarot Cards, while performing a 'laying on hands' healing like Aragorn or a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin. The President of Iran praised the Pope and condemned the President. All this led to a spirited debate about whether Trump or the Pope was actually the Antichrist and apparent Iranian agent Tucker Carlson decided to join in, as did Democratic funnyman John Stewart.
The last, at least, also fits in with a Team Obama information Operation. The general chaos fits in with a Team Trump Standard Operating Procedure.
Like a good Stoic, I recognize that I can't actually fix any of this or even much affect it; so I'm just trying to enjoy the wild ride. What else can you do?
* The flag is still flown in Jerusalem; I have one I brought back with me. The flag flown today is red-on-white, (argent, a Jerusalem Cross gules) rather than the gold-on-white (argent, a Jerusalem Cross or) that the Crusader Kingdom is said to have used. Those familiar with the laws of heraldry will recognize that the gold-on-white violates the Rule of Tincture. Gold/yellow and Silver/white are both 'metals,' and it's normally forbidden to place a metal on another metal. The red-and-white flag is flown by the Church in the Christian Quarter of the Old City; the Order of St. Francis, I believe, has the charge of that quarter.
CATO favors immigration, as libertarians normally do; they therefore intend this as a criticism, not an endorsement.
Asylum seekers entering legally fell 99.9 percent.... Refugees entering legally from abroad fell by about 90 percent.... Immigrant visas for legal permanent residents fell by about half.... H‑1B visas have likely fallen by about 25 percent.... Legal entry cuts are now likely 2.5 times higher than illegal entries....
It is not about stopping “illegal” immigration. It is a broader assault on all types of immigration. As Americans debate the path forward on immigration, that’s a reality everyone should understand.
I wasn't under a different impression. The whole Western world is caught up in political movements that engage the question of trying to put brakes on immigration in order to preserve straining cultures. As I often point out, this set of stresses also applies to internal migration, as it does to the debate around what is called 'gentrification.' In Mexico, they're mad that Americans are immigrating. It's a human universal.
The H-1B thing is the only surprising part, because corporate donors are so much in favor of importing cheaper labor to depress American wages. I wasn't thinking even the Trump administration would stand up to them as much as they apparently have.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security will be holding a hearing on the Second Amendment this morning. [UPDATE: April 15th] The head of the National Association for Gun Rights and a SVP of Gun Owners of America were invited to testify, so at least that part should be helpful.
We Orthodox have finally caught up to the Western liturgical season -- a blessed Pascha to you all!
I would have liked to post Easter greetings this morning, but our night-time service was followed by several hours of feasting and good conversation in and around the fellowship hall and I got home about 4 a.m. and fell peacefully asleep. I highly recommend a great festal potluck after Easter services, no matter your denomination. It seems especially festive after the long Lenten season, if your community observes Lent.
Our small church was bursting at the seams; we had the nave and narthex doors open so people could stand all the way to the entrance. It was our largest gathering ever. I hear that church attendance across denominations is increasing. The Baptist church around the corner recently added on to their building and Catholics on YouTube are talking about all the new enquirers. I hope all of your congregations are growing and thriving as well.
And now, after more than 40 days of fasting, we begin 40 days of celebration. Christ is risen!
Jared Gould reports a bit of a bump in Catholic recruitment, but notes that the Christians voting with their feet are not coming so much from the liturgical wings of the Protestant churches as from the rock-band mega-churches that are more social clubs than religious organizations. The young people crossing over to Catholicism put me in mind of a warning from C.S. Lewis in "Christian Reflections" (quoted at p. 171 in this review):
A theology which denies the historicity of nearly everything in the Gospels to which Christian life and affections and thought have been fastened for nearly two millennia—-which either denies the miraculous altogether or, more strangely, after swallowing the camel of the Resurrection strains at such gnats as the feeding of the multitudes—-if offered to the uneducated man can produce only one or other of two effects. It will make him a Roman Catholic or an atheist. What you offer him he will not recognize as Christianity. If he holds to what he calls Christianity he will leave a Church in which it is no longer taught and look for one where it is. If he agrees with your version he will no longer call himself a Christian and no longer come to church.
Think twice before throwing the first stone, you killjoys:
Police arrested a [Yale alumnus] on Monday morning after he was allegedly seen entering a Tesla repair shop in Berkeley while naked and armed with a shotgun, officials said.
Impressive for a Yalie, maybe, but it doesn't hold a candle to immortal Florida Woman:
A Florida woman was arrested for riding a unicycle through a Walmart while juggling live crabs and drinking a margarita from a pitcher.
Honeslty, I'm not at all sure that one really happened, but the comments are great.It's good to know that some people still know how to be the life of the party.
The challenging heat-shield part should start at around 10 minutes before 7pm Central this evening, Friday, and be over in less than 15 minutes. You can watch it live on Amazon Prime, Netflix, or YouTube.
Probably most people are familiar with the familiar pronouns of early Modern English, such as thee. However, Old English had a whole group of pronouns for 'we two.'
"Wit" means "we two" in Old English, a Germanic language spoken in England until about the 12th Century, which evolved into the English we speak today. Now completely lost, "wit" was part of an extinct group of pronouns used for exactly two people: the dual form, which also includes "uncer" or "unker" ("our" for two people) and "git" ("you two"). That dual form vanished from the English language around the 13th Century....
To illustrate the poetic power of the dual, Birkett gives the example of a love poem, known as Wulf and Eadwacer, that is over 1,000 years old. In the poem, a woman yearns for her lover, Wulf, who is separated from her because he was rejected by her clan. The last line reads, in a modern English translation:
"One can easily split what was never united,
the song of the two of us."
In the Old English original, the words for "the song of the two of us" are "uncer giedd" – meaning "our song", but just for two people.
I think I actually agree that Iryna Zarutska's murderer is incompetent to stand trial. The problem is, I'm not sure our system is sane enough to recognize that he also is incompetent ever to be allowed out of the only feasible alternative to prison, which is a maximum-security psychiatric facility.
In 1931, a German publisher released a book titled “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein,” in which the great physicist’s fellow experts argued against his theory of relativity.“Why 100?” Albert Einstein reputedly responded. “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
It's long been my opinion that President Trump learned his political rhetoric during his time with the World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment. His social media posts in particular make more sense if you read them in the voice and with the beats of Macho Man Randy Savage or Hulk Hogan from the 80s.
However, this morning he's decided to escalate into the scale of Hulk Hogan during his 'New World Order' phase, known in the art of professional wrestling -- i.e., a subset of the art of dramatic performance -- as a 'heel turn.'
That's a ridiculous thing to say. For one thing it's obviously not a credible threat. Even if it were true that he was going to bomb every electrical plant in Iran, plus all the bridges, plus all the water treatment facilities, it wouldn't kill the civilization. It would create a lot of problems; it would probably kill a lot of people indirectly, especially the elderly and the very young (who are especially sensitive to waterborne diseases and/or require electrical power for life-sustaining equipment like oxygen concentrators). Empty threats lessen credibility, and credibility is the currency he is spending.
Secondly, while this is the same nation that firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, carried out Linebacker II and secret wars in Laos etc., even those attacks didn't rise to the level of attempting to kill a civilization. The US military has trained for the mission of civilization-killing, of course, in the context of Mutually Assured Destruction. There's no similar threat that would justify such an action here. It would be genuinely immoral to attempt such an action. Destroying the regime is highly desirable and would be of benefit to the whole world; destroying the civilization is another question entirely.
As I was telling Dad29 yesterday, I don't take President Trump very seriously; I don't expect his rhetoric to match reality. I doubt he thinks seriously about what he is saying himself. For the most part we just roll with it, because most of what he says isn't that important anyway. Probably this isn't either; just more hot air like the rest of it.
All the same, we have a professional military that is excellently executing a complex mission in a highly praiseworthy manner. Trump and Hegseth deserve credit for eliminating the poisonous leadership of the Afghanistan Withdrawal era, which has allowed the healthy levels of the military to perform at their best again. Now it would be the path of wisdom to let them do their jobs without adding this kind of rhetorical nonsense. If the threat were to be carried out, it would be immoral; if it is not, as it is almost certain not to be, it degrades the very coin the President wants to spend to settle the matter.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that Trump's phrasing matches that of the Oracle of Delphi's to Croesus. Fortunately Trump is not a prophet. Still, one might wonder what would happen to our own civilization if it were to carry out such a threat. No foreign power nor collection of them could threaten us; as Abraham Lincoln said, "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years." That remains so.
What we might do to ourselves in the wake of such an action, however, is far less clear.
Buckingham Palace confirmed this week that King Charles will 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 in 2026. He did issue one last year. But this year — the most important holiday on the Christian calendar — the head of the Church of England went silent. This from the same King who recorded a Ramadan greeting in February, acknowledged a Nigerian president’s “sacrifice” during Ramadan at a State Banquet, and has repeatedly elevated Islamic observances in public addresses... The British monarch’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England isn’t ceremonial decoration. It’s a 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 of the Crown, codified since Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy in 𝟏𝟓𝟑𝟒. A king who won’t perform it has abandoned the terms under which he holds the office.
The demand [by former European Parliament MP Godfrey Bloom] was unambiguous: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦.”
Everyone knows that the title Fidei Defensor was given to Henry VIII by the Pope for Henry's defense of Catholicism; ironically Henry decided to keep the title after leading the English Reformation so he could try for sons on a few more wives. However, the Pope of today isn't exactly batting a thousand either.
Pope Leo XIV used his first Easter speech Sunday to deliver a resounding call for peace in times of renewed war, declaring, “Let those who have weapons lay them down!”
No. We often mention Luke 22:36 in this space; the time for laying down arms might come as we look for the Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead. Until it does, we already have a charge on the subject of arms and from a better authority.
Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who heads the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services USA, told CBS News in an interview taped Thursday that the war in Iran would not be justified under the “just war” theory applied by the Catholic Church, arguing that while Iran may have posed a threat “with nuclear arms,” the U.S. is compensating “for a threat before the threat is actually realized.”
“The Lord Jesus certainly brought a message of peace and also, I think, war is always a last resort,” he said in the segment that aired Sunday.
Maintaining faith in the justice system and protecting law enforcement were the themes of the four-day hearing held last week in Robbinsville to determine whether Graham County Sheriff Brad Hoxit — now suspended amid allegations of misconduct tied to an investigation of the ex-husband of his current wife — would be officially barred from returning to office.
District Attorney Ashley Hornsby Welch sought to prevent Hoxit from regaining his badge, arguing that preserving the integrity of the critical institution meant keeping a corrupt sheriff out of power, while Hoxit’s defense team claimed that a message must be sent that a sheriff can execute his duties without fear of political retribution.....
The sheriff is the most powerful person in any county, and Welch asserted that in smaller counties (Graham County has about 8,000 residents), that power is even more outsized. She said Hoxit felt he could use his power for personal ends, even at the expense of others in the community. In her final words to Stetzer, she drove home her thesis. By removing Hoxit, the judge would maintain the public faith in the justice system so crucial to its functionality. In a case this rare and this important, the precedent set will echo well into the future.
“It’s not for his punishment,” Welch said. “It’s for protection, because if we don’t set an example, and we don’t stand up and say, ‘You can’t do this; you are not allowed to get away with this,’ then what are we doing? Why do we have a constitution?”
A decision on the removal -- which is not a civil nor a criminal matter, but resembles a trial and is held in a court under the auspices of a judge -- will not come for weeks.
Georgia had a vast problem with its sheriffs for a long time; when I was young, the various district attorneys referred to the sheriffs as 'the Dixie Mafia.' It used to be that law enforcement from outside the county couldn't enter without the sheriff's permission, which effectively allowed them to forestall any investigations of their bad behavior. Holding them to account was the work of generational reforms that brought them under the power of the state, but that is just another level of (often even more corrupt) government; at best you have the two powers working against each other, creating a tension in which at least sometimes a space is created for accountability.
This mechanism is different: private complaints of corruption have created a legal action, rather than one level of government trying to control and dominate another one. There is an intention to preserve a sense of fairness and due process, though such processes are so vanishingly rare as to be almost ineffective. Graham County is tiny and rural, but capable of making the process work. There are far worse corruptions in the big cities, especially in Mecklenburg County where the mega-city of Charlotte lies. Holding those officers to account seems beyond what anyone can do.
Still, even if justice is too much to hope for, an occasional lapse in injustice is still to be valued.
The great American war ethic was reasserted over the last few days. It is a matter of honor. As we know from the long reading of the EN last summer, that which is most worthy of honor is the most reliable guide to that which is best in life.
As we know from reading Xenophon last winter, this is also the reason the Persians couldn't overrun the Ten Thousand with their hundreds of thousands. The Ten Thousand stood together, ready to fight and die together; the Persian army was there to make a show to please their masters. The Ten Thousand still got themselves into a war that they had to fight their way out of, for a long time over a great distance. Indeed, much of the same territory involved today; and some of the same actors, although the Kurds are on our side this time.
The American war ethic is sometimes misunderstood as risk aversion, as if the Americans could not stand to lose a single life; but in fact the ethic embraces risk, and entails the will to risk hundreds of lives or to sacrifice planes and ships if need be to keep to the ethic. On the other hand it is sometimes portrayed as foolishness or an incapacity to judge the worth of expensive equipment against the cost of training a replacement. That is to put money ahead of honor, a decision that befits not warriors.
UPDATE: From the Egyptian editor of a major paper:
Honor holds things together; shame, by contrast, tears things apart. The only thing keeping Iran's evil government intact is the fear of the people brought on by the ruthless slaughter and executions. As people begin not to fear them, their time is coming.
Mostly the great feast part is spiritual, but some take a lot of pleasure in physical feasting as well. We will be having ham and homemade bread, as well as hard cheese and baked eggs. [UPDATE: I added those Oregon Trail beans, which are as advertised very good.] It's not in my house that much of a physical feast, not like Christmas (or even Thanksgiving, which is only a physical feast). It's relatively simple but traditional food.
By the way, if any of you have heard of the alleged Anglo-Saxon traditions of Ostara, mentioned once by the Venerable Bede as an early pagan goddess, here is a young lady who wants to disabuse everyone of that story. If you like myth debunking -- which I don't, always -- that's really her thing and you might enjoy her other videos.
James meditates on Judas, the man who made the day possible.
We had a good ride this evening after work. It’s probably going to rain much of the weekend, but I’m grateful for the good moments we do get.
Just in the little town of Webster, we came across a lady who was riding her horse in the road. Horses can get spooked by motorcycles, but fortunately she and we both knew what to do. We slowed way down, and she got the horse off the road and turned him to face us. That meant he could see us, but also — important piece of horse riding knowledge — that if he wanted to bolt he’d have to charge right at the thing scaring him. He danced and champed his bit, but he stayed put. The lady waved, appreciating our care for her situation.
Well, I rode horses before I ever rode motorcycles.
The FPC has put out a new scorecard for the various states on firearm rights. New Hampshire friends, congratulations on your top score! You beat North Carolina and Texas both, each of which only qualify as "free-ish state"s.
In spite of my continued irritation with the various governments involved, we have seen a lot of progress on 2nd Amendment rights over the last decades. Partly this is due to the two big SCOTUS decisions, but also it is due to the hard work of state-level groups to press their individual governments in the right direction. It is exactly that work that is now under attack in places like Virginia (currently rated as a "state of confusion").
I remember when the only Constitutional Carry states were Alaska and Vermont; now there are 29 of them. The conversation has moved from seeking "shall-issue" versus "may-issue" permits to the press to disregard permits entirely for the practice of at least some versions of the Constitutional right. That is now the law in the majority of states, and the vast majority of the land area of the United States; and it has generally accompanied a downward trend in violent crime, although there was a spike around the COVID era.
In keeping with the Old West theme, the local university had a whole series of these. They were posted alongside Woody Guthrie posters and similar socialist propaganda, so I imagine it's the local student socialist union or whatever. I captured three of them, but there were several more for various Trump administration officials.
I guess they've collected on a couple of these lately. Not sure who gets the meat. At least it's real meat, or at least real pretend meat, and not Impossible Burgers.
Sewing machines have always baffled and repelled me; I never could get the hang of threading them. I like to crochet, however, and also have wondered how the two interlocking stitching methods compared, which led me to this instructional video.Lots of people developed and perfected the machines, but it was Singer who figured out how to produce them at a price that ordinary homeowners might afford.I note that tailors rioted and destroyed some of the first machines.
The journey was brutal in ways that the romanticized version of westward expansion tends to skip over. Illness and accidents were more serious threats than any attack, about 20,000 people died on the California Trail alone between 1841 and 1859, an average of ten graves for every mile....
For each grown person to make the journey from the Missouri River to California or Oregon (provisioned for 110 days) the following was deemed requisite: 150 lbs of flour or its equivalent in hard bread, 25 lbs of bacon or pork plus enough fresh beef driven on the hoof, 15 lbs of coffee, and 25 lbs of sugar, along with saleratus or yeast powders for making bread, salt and pepper. That is the entire daily provision list for a working adult walking fifteen miles a day in all weather for nearly four months....
The coffee, made by roasting green beans in the dry skillet, grinding them, and boiling them directly in water, was excellent. The coffee was always the highlight....
This is where the day completely turned around. The beans had been soaking overnight and simmering all day in their pot, and by evening they were soft, creamy, and had absorbed everything the salt pork had to give over eight hours of low cooking. Then the cast iron skillet came back out: more bacon, fried until the fat had rendered and the edges were starting to crisp, and then the beans went in with a generous splash of molasses and a hit of salt. The molasses caramelizes slightly against the hot metal and coats the beans in something that is sweet and smoky and deeply savoury all at the same time. Biscuits baked alongside in the same pan, golden on the bottom from the bacon fat still in the skillet, used to scoop and soak up the bean broth.
This reminds me of a story I can't remember if I related before. I was talking to a Jewish friend who lives in Texas. He was telling me about a stockman he knows whose business is buying large lots of cattle and selling them once they're 'finished.'
My friend relayed the surprising claim, from this Texas stockman, that in his opinion the best cowboys in history were the Jews. This was as surprising to my friend as it might be to you.
It turns out that during his short period of ownership the stockman has people pick out the ones who are fit for the kosher factory. This is because kosher beef fetches much better prices, partly because the process is so selective: all kosher beef has to come from cattle that are unblemished outside and, after slaughter and examination, found also to be unblemished inside.
The stockman, who is a Bible-reading Christian, took note of the fantastic numbers of animals that are supposed to have been sacrificed during the Temple of Solomon era. Each of the cattle sacrificed in this way had to be unblemished, inside and out. To make that happen on that scale would have required marvelous cowboys.
So too sitting a colt for his first ride, now that I think about it. Of course that was long after the era of sacrificing from the great herds.
Speaking of modern English dialects of Old Provence, we've been enjoying the BBC detective series "Shetland," but having the devil of a time understanding the dialogue.Scottish dialects don't normally trip me up too badly. I've been listening this afternoon, for instance, to an 1969 BBC radio production called "The Dark Island," a fine old cold-war mystery set in the Hebrides. Half the dialogue is in RP, which is no problem, and half in Hebridean, also pretty easy to follow, either because I'm more used to it or because the late-60s BBC tended to regularize accents somewhat for a broad audience.
In contrast, try this Shetland accent, especially the second guy working on his Jaguar:
I found the BBC radio show because I was reading a WSJ article this morning about a guy who uses AI to generate completely forgettable pop tunes that sometimes are hits for some reason, which made me nostalgic for a time when people composed melodies. I thought of the tune "The Dark Island" that I sometimes run across on folk albums. The tune is so pretty and fitting that I assumed it was a traditional Scottish or Irish melody, but it turns out it was composed specially for the BBC radio show. So here's the radio show, and after it a nice tin-whistle version of the tune with the Irish Rovers. I do love me a tin whistle."The Dark Island" show also made me nostalgic for stories with competent plot exposition, deftly handled suspense, and characters who effortlessly identify like-mind sorts who can be trusted in a situation that calls for courage, patriotism, and loyalty.
The tune:
If anyone can inspire Texas to boot John Cornyn and embrace Ken Paxton, it's got to be the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senator, James Talarico. He didn't do himself any favors with his interesting take on the real evangelical Christianity, but he's surely torn it for Texans with a call to ditch meat to save the climate.
On Saturday's I enjoy PowerLine's "The Week in Pictures." This morning the meme roundup highlighted an essay by Bernard Cerquiglini claiming that English doesn't really exist, it's just badly pronounced French. This quip is recycled Clemenceau, who is also said to have quipped (or quoted Dumas's d'Artagnan as quipping) that England is only a French colony that turned out badly. By the same token, the U.S. could be called an English colony that turned out badly, which I guess makes us a disappointing venture twice removed.The Cerquiglini argument is mostly a tongue-in-cheek rehash of John McWhorter's excellent book, "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue," which sorts through English's complicated roots in Germanic, Scandanavian, French, and Welsh roots. Cirquiglini adds some interesting information about old Provençal vowel shifts and spelling that still show traces in English.
I broke a couple of my grandfather’s tools this week.
I was trying to free a lug nut that was put on entirely too forcefully by someone or other. Now these were old steel, and at least one of them was showing bending when I inherited it. Still and all, I guess I thought they were strong like he was.
Nothing lasts forever, not even him. I raised a glass in his memory. I always like using his old tools. It makes me think of him. Today I got his air wrench out to finish the job.
He’d probably be proud of me more than mad, breaking steel in my hands. My uncle could do that when he was young, and that with new-forged steel rather than older and long-fatigued stuff.
I found this RedState article about Apache Helicopter launching ALTIUS-700 "medium-range launched effect (MR-LE)" interesting. The author mentioned that he was "not clear on what the difference is between a drone and a 'medium-range launched effect,'" so as usual I asked Grok:
All launched effects are a type of drone (or UAV), but not all drones are launched effects. The term "medium-range launched effect" specifically refers to a tactical, host-platform-deployed, often expendable unmanned system optimized for extending a crewed platform's reach in contested environments—frequently acting as a loitering munition when armed. It blurs the line between a reusable reconnaissance drone and a guided missile by adding loiter, decision-making, and standoff capability.
I like to run these stories by you guys, because I'm interested in the developments but have too little background knowledge to put them in context.
In Europe, the Right wins but is never allowed to take power. There's a certain degree of similarity here, where the Republican establishment exists mostly to defang the American Right by giving them someone to vote for, but arranging to lose key votes (see Obamacare, John McCain; or the SAVE Act, John Thune). The powerbrokers claim to be on the side of the people, but they're really on the side of the powerful: that's how they got where they are, and how they stay where they are.
In Europe, it's worse. At least we get some decent political appointees, until the next election at least.
Last Sunday was supposed to settle the question of whether Europe’s populist right can govern, and instead it sharpened a different one: Whether the establishment can keep winning without solving anything. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally dominated the first round of municipal elections — finishing first in at least 75 communes, roughly seven times its 2020 number — only to be beaten back in the second-round runoffs by the familiar mechanism of the front républicain, losing Marseille by fifteen points, squandering a thirteen-point lead in Toulon, and watching Paris stay comfortably in Socialist hands for a twenty-sixth consecutive year. The French firewall held, for now.
In Germany, no such firewall exists in the architecture of the ballot, only in the minds of party leaders. In Rhineland-Palatinate, the AfD more than doubled its vote share to 19.5 per cent — the party’s best result ever in a western German state — and among voters aged 18 to 24 it was the most popular party outright. Among manual workers, it reached 30 per cent; in some Westerwald constituencies it approached half of all votes cast. The SPD, which had governed the state for thirty-five unbroken years, lost nearly ten points and was displaced by the CDU. And yet, just as in France, the result will change nothing in the short term: All parties maintain the cordon sanitaire, a grand coalition will be formed, and the voters who chose the AfD will once again be governed by a coalition that exists primarily to exclude them.
Likewise in the UK.
The same fault line runs through Britain, where the post-Brexit immigration surge – non-EU net migration reaching record highs under the very government that promised to “take back control” – has made a mockery of democratic consent. It runs through Germany, through the Netherlands, through Austria.
At some point this delegitimizes the democratic process entirely; it can't be legitimate if it's just another method of control, instead of a method of self-governance.
Grim's "March or Die" post led to me reading up a bit on the French Foreign Legion. Here are the lyrics to their official march (translated, of course):
Le Boudin ("Blood Sausage," AKA "Marche de la Légion Étrangère")
What's up with the blood sausage and the Belgians? Apparently, blood sausage (le boudin) is the nickname for the bedroll that was tied on top the rucksack back in the 19th century, when this was written. One explanation for the role of the Belgians is that, back then, Frenchmen could not enlist in the Legion, but French criminals would pass themselves off as Belgians in order to enlist and escape the police. Being criminals, they weren't very good soldiers. There are other explanations, but I like that one.
4/1/26 Update: Really, I got too involved with searching for why the Belgians get picked on. There's no reason the chorus can't just be about breakfast, and maybe some Belgians were late one morning. Who knows?
Here's the Legion band:
The Legion is the only regular French army unit, apparently, that does not have "Honneur et Patrie" as it's motto sewn onto its flags but instead "Honneur et Fidélité." "Honor and Fatherland" doesn't make much sense for a unit of foreigners. It's second motto is "Legio Patria Nostra" -- "The Legion is Our Fatherland."
If you can't: Both the 82nd Airborne brigade being deployed and the Marine Expeditionary Units are Brigade sized elements, so they'd be commanded by a division command -- and it looks like the 82nd's is the one being deployed. If they are combined into a single Division-sized unit, then, the 82nd would have overall command of the Marines. This is frustrating for the Marines. That's the joke.
"OPCON" means "Operational Control," while "TACON" means "Tactical Control." So while the 82nd DIV HQ would have full control over the 1-82 BCT, it would still be able to tell the Marines what to do on the battlefield.
Robert Oprisko is a philosopher I know personally: he and I both write on the role of honor in moral philosophy, and share broadly compatible views about it. We've met for pizza in Asheville and exchanged ideas on several occasions.
Today he has published a paper that offers a surprising view: Operation Epic Fury has been damaging to Israel's interests. Most of the commentary against the war has suggested that the war is very obviously in Israel's interests, and that America has been suckered into it by wily (or overly-influential) Israelis. Just yesterday I wrote briefly on why I think the war is overdetermined in America's interests; I don't take seriously the view that America hasn't got a national interest here, but instead think it has so many and such powerful interests at stake that many of them would individually be worth the fight.
Yet here we see an argument that, in fact, while America may benefit from this war, Israel will lose even as it achieves its battlefield aims.
Anxiety over the existentially precarious position Israel occupies in the Middle East has persisted for thousands of years, though it has grown and intensified after World War II; genocide was no longer mere theory, it had been attempted. While existential anxiety can be alleviated, mitigated, and ultimately eliminated through dedication, discipline, and intentional action, Israel’s persists. Israeli and American politicians have personally found it politically useful... The fear of oblivion is so strong that support of Israel by citizens of allies (i.e., persons who don’t live in Israel and aren’t Jewish) represents a litmus test of the allies’ heads of government. For Israel, you are either with or against... Given the deep and pervasive concern of annihilation, Israeli spite to withstand and reject external pressure elicits asympathetic policy response from allies and reinforces the security protocols to reduce said anxiety.
...
Operation Epic Fury has shown anabsolute character for Iran, but not for either Israel or the United States: Iran has absolutely no capacity formeaningful response..... Israel is capable of self-defense against Iran as a source of anxiety. In fact, they are capable of offense. More to the point, Iran is clearly not at the same level of military capacity, capability, or sophistication as Israel.... The “war” is not a war at all – Iran can’t fight back, they lost before they knew a fight was taking place....
The clear and undeniable success of the joint US-Israeli strikes against Iran do not simply mitigate the existential anxiety of the Jewish people and state, it utterly destroys the public façade maintaining that anxiety and eliminates the ideology as an aegis for any aggressive action taken (Oprisko 2015). Operation Epic Fury has been so successful so quickly, and the rationale for the aggression so flimsy that the world isn’t responding jingoistically, it’s attending a funeral; the world hasn’t seen such a lopsided win in an “even fight” since Ali-Liston II (Albanesi 2021).By having one-shot the end boss, the US and Israel have lost a value greater than any they will gain through success: an excuse for any bad behavior (Kain 2024).Overwhelming military dominance should feel like success, but the end result is failure via strategic blunder: Israel has inadvertently killed the ‘golden goose’ of all defenses by exposing Iran as a hollow threat.
I think there's something to this. Israel has gone all-in* on the attempt to settle family business while it has a reliable presidential ally in the United States. It used its "grim beeper" ploy; it used its capacity to assassinate inside the most protected Iranian secure zone; it used its drone box to take out Iranian air defenses; it used up its whole targeting list on the first night or two of strikes; and now it is using its carefully-established networks inside Iran to identify and remove IRGC commanders leading the population suppression. Oprisko is probably right that they have also decided to use up the sense of vulnerability that they have long depended upon politically and diplomatically.
That will have consequences. The Israel that emerges from this war will be very different from the one we have known for so long, and seen as hemmed in on all sides and threatened with destruction. This will have psychological consequences for Israelis at home, and political ones worldwide.
I don't know that I agree that this will damage them in the long term, however. Someone used to say something about how good it is to be "the strong horse"; Osama somebody. It certainly works in the Arab world: just today the Wall Street Journal published a call from the UAE's current Ambassador to the United States -- and Minister of State -- to finish Iran once and for all, combined with his government's commitment to doing so.
* Oprisko and I are both using sports and gaming metaphors, I notice. I linked the Ali-Liston II fight video in case any of you hadn't seen that famous boxing match, or just wanted to see it again. "To one-shot a boss" is a metaphor from tabletop war gaming and/or role-playing games in which a single attack made on a target, in this case a 'boss' or final target, is able to kill it or destroy its ability to fight. In this case, the Ayatollah was 'one-shotted' in the sense of being killed; Iran itself might be said to have been as well; its continued but flagging resistance is trumpeted in the media, but the end-game is obvious to serious observers outside the news cycle. Finally, 'to go all-in' is a poker metaphor for pushing all of one's chips into the pot on the current hand.
The full article is here. The wag's remarks are on point; even when Popes had a lot more practical authority than currently, the crossbow thing didn't work out even in Italy. During the Battle of Poiters, the French Army was supported by 2,000 Genoese mercenary crossbowmen.
On the other hand, crossbow bans are back in the news (in the UK, of course, where they somehow continue to labor under the idea that they can ban everything that is potentially dangerous and then crime will go away).
Also on that other hand, the Pope's authority at least in America may be gaining. Commenting on a news story that Catholic converts now outnumber Evangelicals, Robert Kearney writes:
De Tocqueville foresaw a future time in America where Protestantism (existing as an intermediate form between pure reason and full authority) would struggle to endure long-term under our democratic conditions.
Due to this, people would increasingly gravitate either toward complete unbelief or toward Catholicism due to the Church's existence as a singular, authoritative structure that could give answers to people and help organize society in order for it to remain functioning.
Perhaps the 21st century may see his vision fulfilled.
I'm not sure we won't still be flying the A-10 and B-52 by the end of the century, but I guess we'll see. Well, our children or grandchildren, I suppose.
Dad29 has competing analyses of Iran. This one is negative, and focused as much of the negative commentary on the role of Israel. The US has at least three kinds of things it calls 'allies,' to include client states like Canada, which is one even though it deeply resents it (as until recently was the UK; the influence of Islamism and leftism on the UK elite is pulling us apart, but only a bit so far); true allies like Japan, whose interests are so closely aligned with ours that cooperation makes sense almost all the time; and states like France or Turkey that are allies for strategic reasons, but whose interests come apart from ours so significantly that we are often in serious opposition to one another. Israel occupies something between the second and third position. It has independent interests that differ from ours, and it sometimes pursues those; but most of its interests align with ours, and most of the time we act as genuine allies and partners.
This Childers analysis of the Iran war, by contrast, is highly positive. It is also broadly correct, though as D29 notes it omits risks -- of which there are several beyond anything to do with Israel, including supply chain disruptions not only of fuel but of downstream goods like aluminum. If aluminum plants run out of fuel and have to shut down, it takes months to restart them.
The strategic upsides, however, are unassailable. Childers only gets at some of them, partly because there are so many they're hard to list in one place. For decades Iran has been situated at the center of the Chinese-Russian efforts in the Middle East: Russia's naval base in Syria was guaranteed by Iran's puppet Assad; when Assad fell Russia was pushed out of the Middle East (though still very active in Africa).
China's oil supply is underwritten by Iran, which has provided cut-rate oil in return for China ignoring sanctions on Iran's oil. If the US military takes Karg and a friendly government is established that endorses that (as the US was allowed to occupy part of Okinawa by Japan after WWII), it puts the US in charge of that oil supply. That gives the US a powerful lever on Chinese actions anywhere. It isn't quite a veto -- Russia can still provide oil to China -- but it is a brake because Chinese actions against US interests are subject to new tradeoffs and pressures.
Also, China's Belt-and-Road project to Europe ran through Iran and Russia. The Russian arm is already cut off because of the war Putin started with Ukraine; the loss of the Iranian arm will cause China to have lost billions in investments and all of its expected returns in terms of regional influence in the Middle East and Europe.
The Iranian response also has upsides for the US, strategically. Childers gets to several of them; but another one is that the Ukraine anti-drone lessons-learned have become newly important to all the Gulf States. That means that Ukraine will receive investment buoying it up greater than it was hoping to receive in aid. This will further exhaust the Russian capacity for aggression, or for actions abroad in places like Africa.
The war isn't without costs, and the end-game will doubtless incur more. The strategic upside to pursuing it to victory is very clear, however.
The NRA proudly announced that it had defeated "California's illegal gun control law," but you have to read their article to figure out which one they meant. This one was illegal under the First Amendment, more than the Second Amendment. There are plenty of Second Amendment violations still extant there, and soon to be a bunch more in Virginia.
Despite my criticism of the Modern interpretation of “equality” in political philosophy, and consequent rejection of philosophies based on that interpretation, I maintain quite a few deep and friendly relationships with feminist philosophers I have encountered over the years. Very often, at least among philosophers, agreement is not necessary for friendship as long as there is mutually respectful consideration of each other’s ideas. (That, by the way, is a sort of ‘proportionate equality’ of the type we examined in the long series on Aristotle’s EN. It is a much healthier model than the Modern attempt to impose mathematical equality in ethics and politics.)
