Allergies bedevil us here at Grim's Hall. I turn to an ancient remedy, backed with Bombay Sapphire. I trust you'll understand. Blogging should resume soon; it usually doesn't take long for the body to adjust to the Spring's majestic flowering.
Southern Appeal
Immigration = Invasion?
There is a real dispute at Southern Appeal right now, running across several posts, as to whether or not the current levels of illegal immigration constitutes an invasion by Mexicans of American soil. SA is a law blog, and so they have a point to their investigation: if it is an invasion, there are legal obligations which fall upon the US government.
I won't attempt to reprise the discussion here. There are dozens of comments across several posts. But you should all be aware of the discussion. It strikes me as a tectonic sort of debate on the Right.
Apple - Trailers - Serenity - index
Serenity:
The trailer for Serenity is now available. In addition, there will apparently be a months-early sneak preview in these cities:
SeattleIf anybody in or near one of those cities wants to get out and see it, let me know and I'll point you in the right direction. I myself am sorry to see that there's nothing out Virginia way on the list. Might have to fly to Atlanta "to see my family" on the occasion.
Austin
Sacramento
Boston
Altanta
Chicago
San Francisco
Las Vegas
Denver
"The Portland of Oregon"
BLACKFIVE
More Georgia News:
BlackFive reports on the Best Ranger competition. This is held down near Columbus, Georgia. I've never been myself, but I have a number of friends who go to watch every year. It's an impressive series of events, "feats of strength" and endurance to impress even a Highlander.
JustOneMinute: Missing Stories
The Democratic Party's Plan:
That said, it is a decidedly mixed bag. I'm outright in favor of some of these notions -- 2 and 9 (although I'm not really sure what they mean by this last one: it's possible they could come up with some tortured notion of #9 that I wouldn't agree to support).
I'm persuadable on other points, depending on the details of the plan -- 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 (although, in general, my notions on tax reform have less to do with taxing corporations, and more to do with an across the board revision of the tax code: a flat tax, perhaps, or a sales tax replacing all other national taxation). All of these either could be good or bad, depending on how they're handled. For example, I have no idea what the plan to "make college affordable for all students" would entail. Southern Appeal had a link to an interesting article the other day, which pointed out ways in which reducing government mucking-about would lower tuition costs in a real fashion. You could win or lose me on most of these, depending on whether you are trying to increase efficiency (e.g. by reducing wasteful mandates, or through tort reform), or whether you're trying to increase the number of government mandates and spending.
The more socialist the plan, the more likely you are to lose me; but there are a lot of good ideas for addressing these from a libertarian/centrist position. Since that is the very demographic that Republicans seem to be having trouble with over certain religious-oriented policies, it would be a smart play for the Democrats to remold their party's agenda to win that ground. We'll see if they have the institutional will for such an endeavour.
I'm opposed to points 4 (because it was tried in the 1970s, and didn't work; so why waste the oil?) and 6 (opposed to the minimum wage, and in general to Federal meddling with peoples' ability to negotiate contracts on their own terms).
That's really not bad: I'm only decidedly against as many of these as I'm decidedly in favor of. The Democrats have something here, if they've got the guts to play for the center instead of structuring these things as statist, socialist mandates. You'll forgive me if I have my doubts that they do, but I am eager to be surprised. We'll see.
I'm a little bemused by the notion that putting forth an platform agenda should be a threat, rather than a duty for a political party, but that does appear to be the tone of this memo.
If Republicans proceed to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America.Shouldn't ya'll be doing that anyway? Ah, well. Here's the agenda (hat tip Just One Minute):
1. Women’s Health Care. “The Prevention First Act of 2005” will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women.As one of the commenters at JOM says, "Of course #3 is amusing as well ... 'Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement.' since #1, 2, 5 and presuably 9 talk about spending increases."
2. Veterans’ Benefits. “The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005” will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation.
3. Fiscal Responsibility. Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement.
4. Relief at the Pump. Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump.
5. Education. Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students .
6. Jobs. Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage.
7. Energy Markets. Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity.
8. Corporate Taxation. Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas.
9. Standing with our troops. Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families.
That said, it is a decidedly mixed bag. I'm outright in favor of some of these notions -- 2 and 9 (although I'm not really sure what they mean by this last one: it's possible they could come up with some tortured notion of #9 that I wouldn't agree to support).
I'm persuadable on other points, depending on the details of the plan -- 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 (although, in general, my notions on tax reform have less to do with taxing corporations, and more to do with an across the board revision of the tax code: a flat tax, perhaps, or a sales tax replacing all other national taxation). All of these either could be good or bad, depending on how they're handled. For example, I have no idea what the plan to "make college affordable for all students" would entail. Southern Appeal had a link to an interesting article the other day, which pointed out ways in which reducing government mucking-about would lower tuition costs in a real fashion. You could win or lose me on most of these, depending on whether you are trying to increase efficiency (e.g. by reducing wasteful mandates, or through tort reform), or whether you're trying to increase the number of government mandates and spending.
The more socialist the plan, the more likely you are to lose me; but there are a lot of good ideas for addressing these from a libertarian/centrist position. Since that is the very demographic that Republicans seem to be having trouble with over certain religious-oriented policies, it would be a smart play for the Democrats to remold their party's agenda to win that ground. We'll see if they have the institutional will for such an endeavour.
I'm opposed to points 4 (because it was tried in the 1970s, and didn't work; so why waste the oil?) and 6 (opposed to the minimum wage, and in general to Federal meddling with peoples' ability to negotiate contracts on their own terms).
That's really not bad: I'm only decidedly against as many of these as I'm decidedly in favor of. The Democrats have something here, if they've got the guts to play for the center instead of structuring these things as statist, socialist mandates. You'll forgive me if I have my doubts that they do, but I am eager to be surprised. We'll see.
The new National Security Council - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - April 26, 2005
The NSC:
What has remained unclear is who will be running the show on US Strategic Communication. The military's combatant commands have a clear role, but one would expect State to be in charge of what is essentially diplomacy; on the other hand, certain functions can only be run by the CIA, as State is not authorized to do disinformation. As the DSB report demonstrated, that confusion of authority and budgets has resulted in a mess, and no coordinated message.
The NSC reorg shows that the administration is paying attention to this fact, and restructuring to meet the need. One could wish they had gotten to it sooner, but it is good to see that they are in fact getting to it. Hopefully the Deputy Adviser in charge of Strategic Communications will be effective. It's something to keep your eye on, though. As the DSB report says, this is one of the most important -- and to date, least effective -- parts of the GWOT.
An associate sent me a copy of a Washington Times article called "The new National Security Council." Its opening gives the flavor:
The Bush administration's decision to reorganize the National Security Council (NSC) has attracted little interest in official Washington but is potentially significant in suggesting how national security policy in the Bush second term will diverge from its predecessor.There is a great deal of interesting analysis. The thing that grabs my attention is this:
A new high-level policy-coordinating role has been set up for the NSC staff. The new reorganization includes the creation of five new positions for deputy national security advisers — for Combating Terrorism; Iraq and Afghanistan; Global Democracy Strategy; International Economics; and Strategic Communications and Global Outreach. Each represents an announced administration policy priority.I disagree with the notion that Strategic Communications is 'an announced administration policy priority,' but it has had some high level attention. The Defense Science Board issued this report on it last year, a very insightful piece that shows attention to the lessons of the blogosphere. The blogosphere, in return, critiqued the report openly and offered more lessons.
What has remained unclear is who will be running the show on US Strategic Communication. The military's combatant commands have a clear role, but one would expect State to be in charge of what is essentially diplomacy; on the other hand, certain functions can only be run by the CIA, as State is not authorized to do disinformation. As the DSB report demonstrated, that confusion of authority and budgets has resulted in a mess, and no coordinated message.
The NSC reorg shows that the administration is paying attention to this fact, and restructuring to meet the need. One could wish they had gotten to it sooner, but it is good to see that they are in fact getting to it. Hopefully the Deputy Adviser in charge of Strategic Communications will be effective. It's something to keep your eye on, though. As the DSB report says, this is one of the most important -- and to date, least effective -- parts of the GWOT.
An Unofficial Dictionary for Marines containing words, phrases and acronyms used by United States Marines through the ages
The Dictionary:
I've been greatly enjoying this dictionary that BlackFive posted. (He had a heck of a blogging day today, by the way -- if you haven't been by, stop in.) The dictionary is amazing. It's got almost everything I can think of off the top of my head, plus a few things I'd never heard of (esp. from the WWII era).
I was interested to see that WM is no longer current. It still was in my day -- indeed, it was printed in the introductory material handed out to recruits, so we'd all know what was meant by it, along with terms like "rack" and "cover." Given the performance of the Corps in Iraq, though, I can't see anything to criticize. Integration's proven out, at least as far as it's gone -- which is pretty far.
There are several entries that shouldn't be missed. My favorite is "group tightener," but you should also take care to read over "Joe," "Close Air Support," and "Sea Dip."
COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us
The Countercolumn:
There is probably some truth to that assessment, and I don't think it's an Army/Marine thing. It is the other side of an advantage: the fact that we can rotate forces out to a safe area for rest and retraining, lessons learned and replenishment. The breakdown of these personal relationships, which comprise the functional intel networks, is a side effect.
Is there a way around it? Yes: intelligence officers could deploy earlier and remain longer, so that they have time to be worked into the existing networks, and could remain to work in their replacements. That creates an additional burden on these officers, however, who are already engaged in a challenging and mentally exhausing occupation. Alternatively, if the Pentagon can find in its heart enough assets, we could increase the number of military intelligence officers per unit, so that they could divide some of this extra time.
The intelligence challenge is a bigger part of the game in this kind of fighting. We ought to be learning lessons like this. Thanks to Van Steenwyk for thinking it through.
Jason Van Steenwyk reports again on a topic that interests him much: why the 2/4 Marines who replaced his Army unit (1-124th Infantry) took far heavier casualties. His current thinking is that the intelligence capability collapsed with the change of units:
Our Bn S-2 [ground intelligence officer -- Grim] was very proactive at working with and through the Iraqi police and some of the other tribal heads. Our company commanders were also building sources at the grass roots level, and we even had informants coming to the gates asking for platoon leaders and NCOs. They didn't want to tell information to anyone else, other than the officers and NCOs these informants had relationships with and had built up a level of trust.The 2/4 Marines, he says, were not only unfamiliar to the Iraqis -- they didn't trust them. Just as the Iraqis didn't trust these strangers, the Marines didn't have the personal experience with and ties to the Iraqis either. With the lack of mutual trust gone, the intel network collapsed. The insurgents, who had remained on the ground the whole time, were able to fill in the gap.
There is probably some truth to that assessment, and I don't think it's an Army/Marine thing. It is the other side of an advantage: the fact that we can rotate forces out to a safe area for rest and retraining, lessons learned and replenishment. The breakdown of these personal relationships, which comprise the functional intel networks, is a side effect.
Is there a way around it? Yes: intelligence officers could deploy earlier and remain longer, so that they have time to be worked into the existing networks, and could remain to work in their replacements. That creates an additional burden on these officers, however, who are already engaged in a challenging and mentally exhausing occupation. Alternatively, if the Pentagon can find in its heart enough assets, we could increase the number of military intelligence officers per unit, so that they could divide some of this extra time.
The intelligence challenge is a bigger part of the game in this kind of fighting. We ought to be learning lessons like this. Thanks to Van Steenwyk for thinking it through.
The New York Times > National > Many Say End of Firearm Ban Changed Little
That Times Story:
Senator Feinstein is, in other words, a radical. There is not a single less reasonable figure in government on the issue of gun rights. Yet, the Times quotes her without analysis or context -- and it does so repeatedly.
That last one is hard to give voice to, because it seems like a radical thought. It isn't radical at all. Jefferson held the view that human liberty might someday have to be protected even from fellow Americans, as did Lincoln (see his comments on the power of any European army to drink from the Ohio). It is the Times and their ilk who are radical, by banning from the conversation a perspective as old as the Republic, and one which has been held by most of her greatest citizens.
Yet even in the Times article, santized of principled advocacy for firearms ownership, there is almost a refutation of Senator Feinstein. It comes here:
It is exactly right and proper that they should have such things if they desire them. They are the militia -- as are we all, who take up that charge and stand on that wall. Our continued freedom as a nation is safer in their hands than in the hands of Senators like Ms. Feinstein. We should trust their judgment, not hers.
I've noticed that several bloggers have picked up on the story in the New York Times entitled "Many Say End of Firearm Ban Changed Little." Everyone seems to have noticed the opening:
Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.What many have not mentioned is that the rest of the story is a call, in spite of that evidence, for a much more comprehensive ban on firearms.
Indeed, a replica of the ban is again before the Senate.But it did need some changes, she said:
"In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a chief sponsor of the new bill.
Senator Feinstein said she wished she could outlaw the "flood of big clips" from abroad, calling that the "one big loophole" in the ban.Well, that may be what she says now. At the time, however, what she considered the biggest loophole was that it allowed anyone to possess firearms at all:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."Everyone who has argued recently that "fifty-one percent is not a mandate," please take note. Here is a bill that would have, had it come into law, resulted in the seizure of billions of dollars worth of property, from fully one-third of American households, in spite of the vocal opposition of 49% of the Senate.
Senator Feinstein is, in other words, a radical. There is not a single less reasonable figure in government on the issue of gun rights. Yet, the Times quotes her without analysis or context -- and it does so repeatedly.
Gun-control advocates say military-style semiautomatics do not belong in civilian hands. "They are weapons of war," Senator Feinstein said, "and you don't need these assault weapons to hunt."No one is allowed to rebut, of course, that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with providing the tools that citizens need to perform their duties to enforce the common peace. This is not even about "self defense," in that frequently-encountered formula. It is about their duty to uphold the common peace, whether they are defending themselves, or their neighbors, their communities, or their nation. It is about their right and duty to do exactly that, whether the breakers of the peace are violent felons, domestic terrorists, foreign terrorists, enemy armies, or -- should the occasion arise in some future time -- a domestic tyranny that sets aside the Constitution.
That last one is hard to give voice to, because it seems like a radical thought. It isn't radical at all. Jefferson held the view that human liberty might someday have to be protected even from fellow Americans, as did Lincoln (see his comments on the power of any European army to drink from the Ohio). It is the Times and their ilk who are radical, by banning from the conversation a perspective as old as the Republic, and one which has been held by most of her greatest citizens.
Yet even in the Times article, santized of principled advocacy for firearms ownership, there is almost a refutation of Senator Feinstein. It comes here:
Mr. Luth of DPMS, however, said that his sales had been increasing for years, to the law enforcement community, the civilian market and an unexpected new clientele. "We've picked up new customers with the troops returning from Iraq," he said, "who had never shot an AR-15 before and now want one."Naturally, returning American soldiers might prefer the AR-15 to defend their homes, families and communities -- not for big game hunting, as it is a .22 rifle, but for these other things. It is precisely because it is similar to a military weapon -- the weapon with which they have trained, and which they have carried and lived with during their deployments. They understand its workings, are comfortable with it, and have practiced enough to be accurate.
It is exactly right and proper that they should have such things if they desire them. They are the militia -- as are we all, who take up that charge and stand on that wall. Our continued freedom as a nation is safer in their hands than in the hands of Senators like Ms. Feinstein. We should trust their judgment, not hers.
Dragonslayers
Oh, And By The Way:
Happy St. George's Day.
Grim's Hall honors all dragonslayers. This is one reason I named my son Beowulf. The name contains both his roots, and my hopes for him.
365 and a Wakeup: A True Warrior
The Scotsman - Top Stories - 13 years for shoebomb plotter who didn't board jet
Terror Trial:
As we all watch the Moussaoui trial in Alexandria, take a moment to glance over the pond. There, an accomplice of the famous "shoebomber" has just been sentenced to 13 years.
BIONIC HAND: Revolutionizing Prosthetics
Cyborgs:
Military.com has an article called "BIONIC HAND", which looks at the latest DARPA projects on the topic.
Cyberpunk 2020 looks closer every day, doesn't it?
WorldNetDaily: No charges for soldier who held aliens
Citizens' Arrest:
Daniel has it right: this is too good not to share:
Arizona law conveys the legal right to make a citizen's arrest if a felony is being committed in the citizen's presence or a felony has been committed and the citizen has reasonable grounds to be believe the subject has committed it.It isn't just Arizona. That is a standard piece of American, and Anglo-Saxon, law. This is one thing that needs repeating from time to time, so here we go:
Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so. (See Inbau and Thompson, Criminal Procedure, The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY 1974.Read this, too.
A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.
In the most crime ridden spot in the country, our nation's capitol, District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:
(b) A private person may arrest another -
(1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -
(A) a felony, or
(B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or
(2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.
(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, ss. 210(a); 1973 Ed., ss. 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, ss. 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)
In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).
Contrast this to Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981))
Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. [The Official Code of Georgia, Annotated, says the same thing: this is "both the right and the duty" of the citizen--Grim] (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code ss. 37; S 43, §44.) [Aside: Georgia's law permits citizens to use the same degree of force as peace officers in making arrests. Neither are permitted, however, to shoot fleeing suspects in the back.--Grim]
Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.)
Making citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It would obviously be a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score.
Civil lawsuits against department stores, police departments, and even cult deprogrammers for false imprisonment are legend. Anybody who makes a citizens arrest should not use more force than is necessary, should not delay in turning the suspect over to the proper authorities, and should never mete out any punishment ... unless willing to face the consequences.
As the ability of the powers that be to hold society together and preserve law and order diminishes, citizen's arrests will undoubtedly be more common as a way to help communities cope with the wrongdoers in out midst.
Southern Gentleman, Marine, Germanic Tribalist -- A Different Point of View
Remember Goliad!
Daniel has a post celebrating the battle of San Jacinto, which happened today in 1836. Among the details he mentions is something I didn't know, about a fellow of the Great State of Georgia:
Brevit Colonel (he was formally a Private)Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar formerly of Georgia, formed the extreme right with his cavalry. Incidentally, this warrior-poet was later a President of The Texas Republic. He's one of my favorite Texan personalities.Outstanding.
Newsday.com: Thailand to Host World Toilet Summit
News from Thailand:
But hey, I'm not the only one having fun with this story. Another AP article on the upgrading of Thai toilets begins, "Thailand is watching its bottom line."
The Aussies, who are calling it the "Loo Summit," have another version of the joke:
And then there's this article, called "Thailand ripe for building," but I think it's on another topic.
You'll be glad to know that Thailand's tourist economy, devastated for a time by the tsunami, is recovering. The Danish Prime Minister was down in Thailand this week, urging tourists to come back. And, in addition, there's the upcoming World Toilet Summit:
Thailand plans to upgrade hygiene in its public toilets to meet international standards as it prepares to host the World Toilet Summit next year, a health official said Wednesday.Yeah, good idea. I hope they're better than Chinese "toilets," also known as holes.
"Toilets are very important for the country's image in the eyes of visitors," said Somyos Chareonsak, a senior official of the Public Health Ministry.But not in the eyes of citizens?
The first summit, organized by the World Toilet Organization, was held in 2001 in Singapore. China, where toilet facilities are often in need of upgrades, hosted one last year."Often in need of upgrades." Having used quite a few Chinese "toilets," I can honestly say that "this place needs an upgrade" is not a phrase that ever entered my mind.
But hey, I'm not the only one having fun with this story. Another AP article on the upgrading of Thai toilets begins, "Thailand is watching its bottom line."
The Aussies, who are calling it the "Loo Summit," have another version of the joke:
Showing scant regard for the bottom line, Thailand says it will improve public toilet hygiene standards as it prepares to host next year’s world toilet summit....Apparently my opinion of Chinese toilets is fairly widespread.
In an effort to sniff out those that are not up to scratch, health officials plan to inspect public toilets at schools, restaurants and tourist venues....
Topics to be flushed out include toilet design and technology, toilet management and hygiene and energy-saving measures.
China, notorious for its odorous and unhygienic public toilets, hosted the same event last year.
And then there's this article, called "Thailand ripe for building," but I think it's on another topic.
Soldiers' Angels
Soldiers' Angels
The Soldiers' Angels are having what they describe, in embarrassed tones, as their "once a year please we need money request." It seems to me that they have nothing to be embarrassed about. If everyone who asked me for money did so well with what I send them (*ahem*IRS*ahem*), it would be a happier world.
UPDATE: Via The Geek, a piece from someone else suffering IRS buyer's remorse.
Relativism
Desire and the "Dictatorship of Relativism"
The first complication is this: you cannot, in fact, be "just like" the warriors of old by preserving their traditions. This is because the nature of war has no respect for tradition. War is about innovation. The warrior is first and foremost a man who is engaged with things as they are: he fights to win, which means fighting in the way that allows winning to be possible.
The ancient samurai were not at all concerned with preserving techniques. They were entirely focused on improving techniques, to find some new advantage that would lead them to victory. An art form that seeks to preserve their spirit, first and foremost, must throw out their techniques first of all. The very things that the ryu preserves in order to permit you to approach your ancestors turn out to be the greatest obstacles to really learning to think and live like those ancestors.
What must be preserved is not the mode of dress, nor the secrets of the katana, but the habits of mind. And those are just the opposite of the habits formed in the dojo. It is for this reason that I always refused to engage in martial arts competitions: the true thing is not about learning to win within the rules of a sport. It is not about learning the forms of the sport. It is about developing a fighting spirit, which means casting away old boundaries and forms, and finding the way to victory. The way to victory is ever new.
That is the first hurdle.
The second is harder. It is this: the rational mind cannot avail you in the struggle against relativism.
I am not and never have been a Catholic, but I do share a strong root with the Catholic Church. Catholic ethics follow, in form, on the structures set up by Aristotle. I am also an Aristotelian in my ethical thinking. The word is from Aristotle + telos, an ancient Greek word meaning "the ultimate goal of a process."
Aristotelian thinking is famously rational. Indeed, the American Heritage dictionary provides the definition as: "A person whose thinking and methods tend to be empirical, scientific, or commonsensical." And that is true -- as far as the methods go. The process is rational. The telos -- the goal of the process -- cannot be.
If the goal of ethics is virtue, rationality can help you figure out how to be virtuous. It can tell when you are seeing a particular virtue, but not what makes it a virtue. Reason can recognize bravery, but cannot prove beyond all doubt that bravery is better than cowardice. It certainly cannot make you want to be brave. The proof of the virtue of bravery arises from within your heart. It must come from inside yourself, from your upbringing, from what you are taught by your family and what you experience in the world.
To make this clear, return to the samurai. His methods are rational: he refines his swordsmanship through daily practice, trains with others he trusts, seeks and thinks and considers what he encounters. He applies his knowledge. He trains harder. He looks for holes in common techniques, and ways to exploit them.
That is all rational. But why does he do it? What is his goal? These things are means, but to what end?
"Victory!" is a ready answer, but it is not the real answer. Victory is itself only a means to another, deeper end. He wants to win the fight, but why is he fighting at all?
The same is true of any fight you undertake. There may be several rational reasons lying atop your thinking: "I need to capture this gasoline storage facility in order to make certain I have enough fuel for my tanks." But why are you fighting with tanks? Because they are useful at this moment in history, for winning the war we are fighting. And why are you fighting the war? For oil reserves; or for some political advantage. And why do you care about that?
If you go down far enough, you will hit base. The reason will be: because I love my country; or my fellow soldiers; or I am fighting out of love for my religion, or the kind of society it generates. The final reason is love, or it is hate, or it is fear; or it is some instinctive drive arising from biological impulses that are prior to, rather than subject to, thought; or it is something else, but it is never rational.
That is not to say it is wrong! Irrational doesn't mean, as people seem to believe, bad. I am definitely not saying that your reasons should be rational. I am saying that your final reason cannot be rational.
How could it be? What does reason have to tell you about what you should want? Once it knows what you do want, it can help you set a path to get there. Once it knows that you are hungry, it can tell you that you should find food; and based on previous experience, where you are likely to find it; and that you should go there, and gather whatever tools you might need to collect the food when you arrive. But being hungry is not rational. It comes from the biology. Loving your fellow man is not rational. It comes from the human spirit, not the Reason.
This is the problem for those who have set up to fight against relativism. They already know what they want. From here on out, Reason is their ally in getting what they want. So the first problem to which they apply their Reason is: how do I convince other people to want the same thing? And they find that Reason has no traction on that ground. It was not what brought them to their conviction, and it cannot bring others there.
Consider Professor Bainbridge:
In trying to persuade the rest of us to adopt one position or the other, arguments from Reason are effectively wasted. You know this is true because you have witnessed them. How many arguments from statistics and evidence have you read on the subject of gay marriage? And how much has any of them persuaded you? They are castles built on sand: however solid the reasoning, however strong the evidence, Reason can provide no foundation to support them. If you reject the foundation the whole structure collapses.
The side whose foundation you embrace, however, seems always to have ironclad arguments: because the Reason is solid, and for you the foundation is solid, the structure is immovable.
Relativism cannot, therefore, be defeated through argument. While it is possible to persuade people to want different things than they do, it must be done by addressing the underlying issues, not through argument. You must make them feel differently. If you want to change Andrew Sullivan, it is not enough to explain why gay sex is unhealthy or ugly or improper or maladaptive or whatever other rational argument against homosexuality you might have. You have change his heart so that he does not want it, or wants something else much more.
The Church, and our samurai, has a second fundamental difficulty arising from this problem. A Sullivan need convince no descendant of the rightness of his desires. An institution, however, has to do so constantly. It is not only at risk from the "relatively" different desires of those outside of the institution, but from the "relatively" different desires of those it is trying to inculcate. This is why the practitioner of the ryu insists on precision in replicating the old forms, and why the Church insists on doctrine.
But as noted at the beginning, that very insistence takes you away from being the kind of man you wanted to be. The ancient samurai cared nothing about dogma, and everything about adapting. We forget this because their writings speak a great deal about "correct" form for training students, but do not mention the underlying reality that they would discard this "correct" form the instant it was no longer useful. It was "correct" only today, not for all time. That mindest is like the ocean to the fish: so obvious and present that it is not noticed nor commented upon.
Similarly, there is a great deal in the early Christian writings about what the correct doctrines are or might be. What is not noticed is how radical were the changes the early Church would embrace, in order to convert. Consider St. Paul. How much of what the Church believes arises, not from what Jesus said, but from what St. Paul said? Thinking of Paul, people think of the man who enforced the rules; what is forgotten is that he was creating and interpreting the rules. He was not, as he appears to us, the agent of dogma; he was the agent of change. He was the one who found Christianity as a Jewish sect, and restructured it so that it could become a religion of mankind.
This is the problem against which Benedict XVI has set himself. The Church would be a refuge against the silent artillery of time, a place where what the Church sees as the true teachings of Christ are kept safe within the walls. This is a means to an end; and the end is the belief in a soul that needs saving, combined with love of those teachings and the kind of society they produce. The foundations of the Church's society will be its reading of the Bible; the structures built on that, which guide the society, will be built according to Aristotelian ethical thinking. With an ancient and well-understood foundation and superstructure, the society should in theory be well ordered -- though perhaps rather smaller than the Church of today.
That society, if in fact it can be produced and maintained, is the answer to the riddle. It is the same reason that people continue to seek out the martial arts: because they admire what they see in the masters, and come to want those traits for themselves. If the Church recreates the "city on a hill," and if it is as bright as it is meant to be, people may choose to flock to it.
But this is not an escape from "the dictatorship of Relativism." People are still making their basic choices because of their relative desires, beliefs, or drives. The dictatorship of Relativism cannot be escaped, but perhaps there can be a regime change.
In his book Autumn Lightning, Dave Lowry describes his education in the arts of Japanese swordplay. It is mostly a book about philosophy, and history.
There was a rumble, very faint, that could have been thunder when Sensei spoke again. "The swordsmanship that we do, that is nothing. What is cutting with a sword? If I have an atomic bomb now, it will melt your katana and you...The old samurai fears losing touch with his ancestry; he fears that the "silent artillery of time" will wash away their memory, leaving him without a guide and his people without the values he loves. It is this same problem that the new Pope has set as the central challenge facing the Church today. It is a deeper problem than it appears to be. The solution is not easy, either to conceive or to bring about."We keep the Yagyu Shinkage tradition alive for another reason than fighting. Because it is like -- " he paused, reaching for the right word, "it is like an antique that is living. Because we have the ryu [i.e., a school of though in one of the Japanese disciplines], we have something of the past. We can depend on it. All the bugeisha [warriors] in the old days, they are just like us. Same problems, they loved and hated, just like we do. Since they went before, they are an example for us. We must never forget that we are a part of them."
The first complication is this: you cannot, in fact, be "just like" the warriors of old by preserving their traditions. This is because the nature of war has no respect for tradition. War is about innovation. The warrior is first and foremost a man who is engaged with things as they are: he fights to win, which means fighting in the way that allows winning to be possible.
The ancient samurai were not at all concerned with preserving techniques. They were entirely focused on improving techniques, to find some new advantage that would lead them to victory. An art form that seeks to preserve their spirit, first and foremost, must throw out their techniques first of all. The very things that the ryu preserves in order to permit you to approach your ancestors turn out to be the greatest obstacles to really learning to think and live like those ancestors.
What must be preserved is not the mode of dress, nor the secrets of the katana, but the habits of mind. And those are just the opposite of the habits formed in the dojo. It is for this reason that I always refused to engage in martial arts competitions: the true thing is not about learning to win within the rules of a sport. It is not about learning the forms of the sport. It is about developing a fighting spirit, which means casting away old boundaries and forms, and finding the way to victory. The way to victory is ever new.
That is the first hurdle.
The second is harder. It is this: the rational mind cannot avail you in the struggle against relativism.
I am not and never have been a Catholic, but I do share a strong root with the Catholic Church. Catholic ethics follow, in form, on the structures set up by Aristotle. I am also an Aristotelian in my ethical thinking. The word is from Aristotle + telos, an ancient Greek word meaning "the ultimate goal of a process."
Aristotelian thinking is famously rational. Indeed, the American Heritage dictionary provides the definition as: "A person whose thinking and methods tend to be empirical, scientific, or commonsensical." And that is true -- as far as the methods go. The process is rational. The telos -- the goal of the process -- cannot be.
If the goal of ethics is virtue, rationality can help you figure out how to be virtuous. It can tell when you are seeing a particular virtue, but not what makes it a virtue. Reason can recognize bravery, but cannot prove beyond all doubt that bravery is better than cowardice. It certainly cannot make you want to be brave. The proof of the virtue of bravery arises from within your heart. It must come from inside yourself, from your upbringing, from what you are taught by your family and what you experience in the world.
To make this clear, return to the samurai. His methods are rational: he refines his swordsmanship through daily practice, trains with others he trusts, seeks and thinks and considers what he encounters. He applies his knowledge. He trains harder. He looks for holes in common techniques, and ways to exploit them.
That is all rational. But why does he do it? What is his goal? These things are means, but to what end?
"Victory!" is a ready answer, but it is not the real answer. Victory is itself only a means to another, deeper end. He wants to win the fight, but why is he fighting at all?
The same is true of any fight you undertake. There may be several rational reasons lying atop your thinking: "I need to capture this gasoline storage facility in order to make certain I have enough fuel for my tanks." But why are you fighting with tanks? Because they are useful at this moment in history, for winning the war we are fighting. And why are you fighting the war? For oil reserves; or for some political advantage. And why do you care about that?
If you go down far enough, you will hit base. The reason will be: because I love my country; or my fellow soldiers; or I am fighting out of love for my religion, or the kind of society it generates. The final reason is love, or it is hate, or it is fear; or it is some instinctive drive arising from biological impulses that are prior to, rather than subject to, thought; or it is something else, but it is never rational.
That is not to say it is wrong! Irrational doesn't mean, as people seem to believe, bad. I am definitely not saying that your reasons should be rational. I am saying that your final reason cannot be rational.
How could it be? What does reason have to tell you about what you should want? Once it knows what you do want, it can help you set a path to get there. Once it knows that you are hungry, it can tell you that you should find food; and based on previous experience, where you are likely to find it; and that you should go there, and gather whatever tools you might need to collect the food when you arrive. But being hungry is not rational. It comes from the biology. Loving your fellow man is not rational. It comes from the human spirit, not the Reason.
This is the problem for those who have set up to fight against relativism. They already know what they want. From here on out, Reason is their ally in getting what they want. So the first problem to which they apply their Reason is: how do I convince other people to want the same thing? And they find that Reason has no traction on that ground. It was not what brought them to their conviction, and it cannot bring others there.
Consider Professor Bainbridge:
So why is Sullivan so worked up? Here's his real gripe in his own words:It does appear to be the case that Sullivan's Reason is totally in service to his desire for a certain kind of sex. But one cannot reason him out of it. The devout Catholic and Sullivan are on equal footing in this way: neither one is acting from Reason in holding the particular belief, Sullivan that gay sex should be celebrated, nor the Church that it should be banned.…the impermissibility of any sexual act that does not involve the depositing of semen in a fertile uterus ....It's always about sex with Andrew, isn't it?
In trying to persuade the rest of us to adopt one position or the other, arguments from Reason are effectively wasted. You know this is true because you have witnessed them. How many arguments from statistics and evidence have you read on the subject of gay marriage? And how much has any of them persuaded you? They are castles built on sand: however solid the reasoning, however strong the evidence, Reason can provide no foundation to support them. If you reject the foundation the whole structure collapses.
The side whose foundation you embrace, however, seems always to have ironclad arguments: because the Reason is solid, and for you the foundation is solid, the structure is immovable.
Relativism cannot, therefore, be defeated through argument. While it is possible to persuade people to want different things than they do, it must be done by addressing the underlying issues, not through argument. You must make them feel differently. If you want to change Andrew Sullivan, it is not enough to explain why gay sex is unhealthy or ugly or improper or maladaptive or whatever other rational argument against homosexuality you might have. You have change his heart so that he does not want it, or wants something else much more.
The Church, and our samurai, has a second fundamental difficulty arising from this problem. A Sullivan need convince no descendant of the rightness of his desires. An institution, however, has to do so constantly. It is not only at risk from the "relatively" different desires of those outside of the institution, but from the "relatively" different desires of those it is trying to inculcate. This is why the practitioner of the ryu insists on precision in replicating the old forms, and why the Church insists on doctrine.
But as noted at the beginning, that very insistence takes you away from being the kind of man you wanted to be. The ancient samurai cared nothing about dogma, and everything about adapting. We forget this because their writings speak a great deal about "correct" form for training students, but do not mention the underlying reality that they would discard this "correct" form the instant it was no longer useful. It was "correct" only today, not for all time. That mindest is like the ocean to the fish: so obvious and present that it is not noticed nor commented upon.
Similarly, there is a great deal in the early Christian writings about what the correct doctrines are or might be. What is not noticed is how radical were the changes the early Church would embrace, in order to convert. Consider St. Paul. How much of what the Church believes arises, not from what Jesus said, but from what St. Paul said? Thinking of Paul, people think of the man who enforced the rules; what is forgotten is that he was creating and interpreting the rules. He was not, as he appears to us, the agent of dogma; he was the agent of change. He was the one who found Christianity as a Jewish sect, and restructured it so that it could become a religion of mankind.
This is the problem against which Benedict XVI has set himself. The Church would be a refuge against the silent artillery of time, a place where what the Church sees as the true teachings of Christ are kept safe within the walls. This is a means to an end; and the end is the belief in a soul that needs saving, combined with love of those teachings and the kind of society they produce. The foundations of the Church's society will be its reading of the Bible; the structures built on that, which guide the society, will be built according to Aristotelian ethical thinking. With an ancient and well-understood foundation and superstructure, the society should in theory be well ordered -- though perhaps rather smaller than the Church of today.
That society, if in fact it can be produced and maintained, is the answer to the riddle. It is the same reason that people continue to seek out the martial arts: because they admire what they see in the masters, and come to want those traits for themselves. If the Church recreates the "city on a hill," and if it is as bright as it is meant to be, people may choose to flock to it.
But this is not an escape from "the dictatorship of Relativism." People are still making their basic choices because of their relative desires, beliefs, or drives. The dictatorship of Relativism cannot be escaped, but perhaps there can be a regime change.
Hitler's shadow looms over meet- The Times of India
Pope Benedict XVI:
Not very long ago, I wrote this piece on Catholicism, which was somewhat critical. Part of it seems relevant today.
Both things are fundamentally healthy at this point. It is natural, I think, to feel slightly disturbed at the idea of embracing either of these things -- even I feel discomfort at the idea of a former soldier in the Nazi army leading the Church. But why should my comfort, or anyone's, be the chief concern of the Catholic Church? Its concern is saving souls that are, according to its doctrine, in tremendous peril. It must make its decisions on that basis, not on the comfort or discomfort the decisions will inspire.
Surely it is time for these old wounds to heal, and perhaps this is the best chance. A man with that history in almost any other post would be too controversial to allow for new reflection and healing. The Church, because it is militant only in the spiritual sense, offers that opportunity.
There is no other way to heal wounds of the spirit but to confront the wounds directly. In making this choice, the Church has done so, and for that reason at least its flock can surely be proud of their leaders.
As for me, and you who read and agreed with what I wrote: if we thought not long ago that it was time for the Catholics to pick up the "sundering sword," it would be foolish now to complain when they do so. If I chided them for laying down the charge of being the "Fishers of Men" that their faith requires them to be, it is only proper that I should praise them for choosing a man who believes that his is the only true faith. Believing that mens' souls are at risk, he ought to do his best for their salvation.
Good fortune, Benedict XVI. I will be glad, both for the Church and for Germany, if the potential you represent is fulfilled.
UPDATE: According to the Jerusalem Post, the Times (both of India and London) is badly wrong on the details. The evidence the Post brings to bear is formidable. I must express my irritation at having been misled in this way. Naturally, I expect to be misled by the media, and so tried to research the matter in Google News before making the original post. For whatever reason, the search I used did not turn up the Post article, which leaves me indebted to the National Review for pointing it out.
The newly elected pope has an interesting background, notes the Times of India:
Unknown to many members of the church, however, Ratzinger's past includes brief membership of the Hitler Youth movement and wartime service with a German army anti-aircraft unit.The Cardinal's previous position was the head of the successor to the Inquisition:
Ratzinger's stern leadership of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the modern successor to the Inquisition, delighted conservative Catholics but upset moderates and other Christians whose churches he described as deficient.I only found out myself about the Nazi ties yesterday.
Not very long ago, I wrote this piece on Catholicism, which was somewhat critical. Part of it seems relevant today.
The problem Rome faces is this: it has decided to embrace the Culture of Life without reservation. As Hitchens points out, the Vatican is a government. It has the right of pit and gallows. It has decided not to use them, out of the horror it feels for its own history. The Inquisition has writ terror on their souls. They have cast away the sword entirely, that it may never again be used for evil. That means, also, that it may never strike a blow for good.In embracing a leader of the modern version of the Inquisition, the Church may be undertaking just that healing. In embracing a man who served in the Nazi army, it may help Germans to heal the wounds that remain in their own hearts.
The Vatican, in other words, is struck with the same sickness of the soul that afflicts Germany. The pacifism that has arisen in both places is a reaction to the horrors that came before. It is a wound in their hearts. Until it heals, they will not be whole: and as the Church teaches in other matters, in such holes in the soul grows a gnawing and terrible evil.
Both things are fundamentally healthy at this point. It is natural, I think, to feel slightly disturbed at the idea of embracing either of these things -- even I feel discomfort at the idea of a former soldier in the Nazi army leading the Church. But why should my comfort, or anyone's, be the chief concern of the Catholic Church? Its concern is saving souls that are, according to its doctrine, in tremendous peril. It must make its decisions on that basis, not on the comfort or discomfort the decisions will inspire.
Surely it is time for these old wounds to heal, and perhaps this is the best chance. A man with that history in almost any other post would be too controversial to allow for new reflection and healing. The Church, because it is militant only in the spiritual sense, offers that opportunity.
There is no other way to heal wounds of the spirit but to confront the wounds directly. In making this choice, the Church has done so, and for that reason at least its flock can surely be proud of their leaders.
As for me, and you who read and agreed with what I wrote: if we thought not long ago that it was time for the Catholics to pick up the "sundering sword," it would be foolish now to complain when they do so. If I chided them for laying down the charge of being the "Fishers of Men" that their faith requires them to be, it is only proper that I should praise them for choosing a man who believes that his is the only true faith. Believing that mens' souls are at risk, he ought to do his best for their salvation.
Good fortune, Benedict XVI. I will be glad, both for the Church and for Germany, if the potential you represent is fulfilled.
UPDATE: According to the Jerusalem Post, the Times (both of India and London) is badly wrong on the details. The evidence the Post brings to bear is formidable. I must express my irritation at having been misled in this way. Naturally, I expect to be misled by the media, and so tried to research the matter in Google News before making the original post. For whatever reason, the search I used did not turn up the Post article, which leaves me indebted to the National Review for pointing it out.
American Soldier
Soldier's Life:
American Soldier approaches the 150,000 mark. He's been writing around for links to try and get over the hump. You might want to drop by, if you haven't been there before. The guy's got some good stories.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)