More news stories CENTCOM would like you to see:
Iraqi Army captures four terrorists.
MultiNational Division, Baghdad captures four more.
The latter four were dressed up as Iraqi policemen. Good catch by MND-B.
Stories from CENTCOM
CENTCOM Still Cares:
B-M-Spirit
Body-Mind-Spirit:
The body has several natural defense mechanisms to pain and blows. There are endorphins, adrenaline, reduction of blood in certain areas likely to be affected, and so forth. These mechanisms have developed over millions of years, to make your body able to take a pretty stiff blow without stopping you from doing what you need to do.
However, they do have operational limits. Sometimes, a particularly powerful blow can overcome them -- which is what Mr. Ross is selling. He wants to teach you to hit harder. Good on him, if he can.
But you can also overpower these defenses by hitting more than once. If your best isn't good enough, your best twice or three times could be.
You can test this yourself. Take a hairbrush with a hard back. Hit yourself on the leg with it, hard as you can. Now do it again, same spot. Now a third time.
As you can see, your body's ability to shrug off the pain diminishes quickly. You can take the first blow, and it's a shock. By blow number three, you're not resisting the pain any more -- you get it all. The same principle applies to defensive blows.
(An aside: The Chinese say that life force -- qi -- flows through the body in channels, which flow can be disrupted by strikes along those channels, or at particular points on the channel. Leaving aside the question of whether or not qi really exists or functions as claimed, qi theory also agrees with the multiple-blow thesis. By the third blow, my teacher told me, all the defense is gone, and the body is receiving full damage from the strike. Since it's possible to verify the basic idea empirically (e.g. with the hairbrush), I pass along the information.)
The same idea is at work with firearms. Some people -- like me -- prefer a heavy caliber that hits harder, a .44 Special or .45 Colt. Other people, though, achieve roughly the same result with a light caliber that allows them to deliver multiple shots on target. The body may be able to (temporarily) overcome the shock of a .38 Special wound, but it is not likely to overcome the shock of four of them.
The point here is this: if your enemy doesn't fall to your best shot, that doesn't mean you can't beat him. You can. Hit him again, just as hard, in the same spot if you're able.
This brings me to what I really wanted to write about today.
In every fight between men, there are really three contests going on at the same time: a contest of bodies, a contest of minds, and a contest of spirits. Of the three, the spiritual contest is the one that matters most. The mental contest is second. The physical contest, though not unimportant, is really the least of the three.
The Jake Ross method seems to be focused on the physical. He scorns the importance of the mental contest -- see how his letter is satisfied with citing "a famous 18th century soldier." The source of that quote, readers of Grim's Hall know well, was Clausewitz, whose On War remains one of the most important texts of military science ever written.
If you're serious about teaching people how to fight, you have to teach them how to think about fighting. You have to take that aspect of it seriously. The paraphrase of Clausewitz refers to his doctrine of friction, which is one of the most important ideas ever recognized by military science.
The spiritual aspects are even more important. Mr. Ross is selling by suggesting that you should be afraid -- 'what if he doesn't fall'? That's the wrong attitude to take to a fight. The right attitude is, "Whatever it takes, he's going down."
Mr. Ross wants to teach you to hit harder. Well and good, but it's not the real answer. The real answer is to learn to keep hitting. It's the area of the spirit in which contests are won, whether fights between men in the street, or wars between nations.
Consider the conflict in Iraq, if you doubt it: there is no way that the enemy can defeat the United States physically or mentally, yet it could still win if it exhausts the spirit of the nation to see through to victory. It has always been the case, from the beginning, that the only place where we could be defeated was in our own national will.
By the same token, the United States can clear the field of its foes every time they raise their heads. Yet the real arena of victory has always been the hearts of the populace.
Another of Clausewitz's theories was the culminating point of victory, that point at which a fighting force is excused by the populace for whatever it does, because the populace identifies with it. In Iraq, in spite of the continuing difficulties, we are approaching that point. The population wearies of the militias, of the kidnappings, of the constant danger hanging over their heads. Sunni and Shi'ite alike weary of these things. The Iraqi Security Forces have just promised to handle security nationwide by the end of the year. The people are increasingly placing their faith in those forces, and turning against the militias. When we cross the tipping point on this one, we will at last have stability in Iraq.
The opposite is happening in Lebanon. Israel began with attacks on civilian transportation infrastructure, from naval blockades to attacks on the airport. This, combined with the deaths of Lebanese innocents caused by Hezbollah's dishonorable tactics of hiding among civilians, has led to a resurgence of support for Hezbollah. For the moment, at least, Lebanon identifies with Hezbollah. Israel may be able to achieve strategic goals in the area, as for example reducing the number of rocket launchers and perhaps creating a buffer zone. It will not be able to win an existential fight with Hezbollah at this time, however: for now, Hezbollah is safely across the point at which many of the people of Lebanon will protect and shelter them, and even aid them out of a sense of identity.
(Another aside: this idea of a buffer zone is a doubtful strategum, it seems to me; if the UN sends a force to secure such a zone, as it says it may, why wouldn't Hezbollah simply carry on attacking from that zone? Does anyone think the UN will really be able, to say nothing of being willing, to stop them? If Israel needs to respond, it won't be attacking merely the sovereign territory of Lebanon -- it will be attacking territory guarded by the armed forces of several nations, each of whom will then be interested in reprisals. Hezbollah will be given a safer haven than it has now.)
It is the realm of the spirit that really matters. This echoes through the writings of the greatest martial artists and military scientists alike. Napoleon said that "Morale is to the physical as three is to one." The Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote that "seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful." How to do this? Either you have out-thought him, so that there is no point to his trying to fight you from the inferior position into which you have put him; or you have convinced him that he cannot win, and thus defeated his spirit without having to fight his body.
Then there is Clausewitz again. In his writings on what he called the 'trinity,' he said that there were three elements that governed success in war: National will, political strategy, and the sum of the ways that the various skirmishes and other conflicts worked out on the ground according to the wager of battle. The first was the most important, he wrote.
And what is that trinity, but a restatement of the same idea? National will is the realm of the spirit; politics and strategies the realm of the mind; and the conflict itself is the physical realm. The first and most important is the will -- it is the spirit. If we find ourselves flagging, that is what we must turn ourselves to reinforcing.
So, if you are approached by a man you think you may have to strike in self defense, do not fear that you can't knock him down even if you hit your hardest. Resolve, rather, that you will.
Jake Ross, one of Matt Furey's disciples, has a similar business built on the idea of teaching you hand-to-hand combat. I've mentioned that I like the Furey exercise program, which works and works well. Somehow I've gotten on Jake Ross' mailing lists, and I have to say, I have my doubts about his program.
He sent an email out yesterday, one of many he's sent, but a particularly bothersome one:
War is very simple, but the simple things in war are very difficult.I'll start by answering the question he proposes: What happens if you hit a guy as hard as you can, and he doesn't fall? Answer -- hit him again.
To quote a famous 18th century soldier.
And what is a street fight but a war, one guy at a time? So, it's
important that we focus on what makes the biggest difference in street
combat.
Let's think about hunting. The whole point of shooting the prey is to
kill it cleanly. The smaller the weapon, the lesser the energy, the
more difficult the kill. While this may add a certain panache to the
hunt, it's not the intelligent, high percentage way to hunt. So, we see
hunters using weapons powerful enough to kill the prey, with a decent
shot, without taking the chance of a wounding, but not a non-killing,
hit.
So, when you're discussing street defense, the question is always
there, in the back of your mind, like the scent of an old cellar. "What
happens if I give him my best shot and he doesn't fall?"
What, indeed.
So, you need to learn to strike with real power. Enough power to
really damage the person you hit.
Let's talk more about this later,
Jake Ross
The body has several natural defense mechanisms to pain and blows. There are endorphins, adrenaline, reduction of blood in certain areas likely to be affected, and so forth. These mechanisms have developed over millions of years, to make your body able to take a pretty stiff blow without stopping you from doing what you need to do.
However, they do have operational limits. Sometimes, a particularly powerful blow can overcome them -- which is what Mr. Ross is selling. He wants to teach you to hit harder. Good on him, if he can.
But you can also overpower these defenses by hitting more than once. If your best isn't good enough, your best twice or three times could be.
You can test this yourself. Take a hairbrush with a hard back. Hit yourself on the leg with it, hard as you can. Now do it again, same spot. Now a third time.
As you can see, your body's ability to shrug off the pain diminishes quickly. You can take the first blow, and it's a shock. By blow number three, you're not resisting the pain any more -- you get it all. The same principle applies to defensive blows.
(An aside: The Chinese say that life force -- qi -- flows through the body in channels, which flow can be disrupted by strikes along those channels, or at particular points on the channel. Leaving aside the question of whether or not qi really exists or functions as claimed, qi theory also agrees with the multiple-blow thesis. By the third blow, my teacher told me, all the defense is gone, and the body is receiving full damage from the strike. Since it's possible to verify the basic idea empirically (e.g. with the hairbrush), I pass along the information.)
The same idea is at work with firearms. Some people -- like me -- prefer a heavy caliber that hits harder, a .44 Special or .45 Colt. Other people, though, achieve roughly the same result with a light caliber that allows them to deliver multiple shots on target. The body may be able to (temporarily) overcome the shock of a .38 Special wound, but it is not likely to overcome the shock of four of them.
The point here is this: if your enemy doesn't fall to your best shot, that doesn't mean you can't beat him. You can. Hit him again, just as hard, in the same spot if you're able.
This brings me to what I really wanted to write about today.
In every fight between men, there are really three contests going on at the same time: a contest of bodies, a contest of minds, and a contest of spirits. Of the three, the spiritual contest is the one that matters most. The mental contest is second. The physical contest, though not unimportant, is really the least of the three.
The Jake Ross method seems to be focused on the physical. He scorns the importance of the mental contest -- see how his letter is satisfied with citing "a famous 18th century soldier." The source of that quote, readers of Grim's Hall know well, was Clausewitz, whose On War remains one of the most important texts of military science ever written.
If you're serious about teaching people how to fight, you have to teach them how to think about fighting. You have to take that aspect of it seriously. The paraphrase of Clausewitz refers to his doctrine of friction, which is one of the most important ideas ever recognized by military science.
The spiritual aspects are even more important. Mr. Ross is selling by suggesting that you should be afraid -- 'what if he doesn't fall'? That's the wrong attitude to take to a fight. The right attitude is, "Whatever it takes, he's going down."
Mr. Ross wants to teach you to hit harder. Well and good, but it's not the real answer. The real answer is to learn to keep hitting. It's the area of the spirit in which contests are won, whether fights between men in the street, or wars between nations.
Consider the conflict in Iraq, if you doubt it: there is no way that the enemy can defeat the United States physically or mentally, yet it could still win if it exhausts the spirit of the nation to see through to victory. It has always been the case, from the beginning, that the only place where we could be defeated was in our own national will.
By the same token, the United States can clear the field of its foes every time they raise their heads. Yet the real arena of victory has always been the hearts of the populace.
Another of Clausewitz's theories was the culminating point of victory, that point at which a fighting force is excused by the populace for whatever it does, because the populace identifies with it. In Iraq, in spite of the continuing difficulties, we are approaching that point. The population wearies of the militias, of the kidnappings, of the constant danger hanging over their heads. Sunni and Shi'ite alike weary of these things. The Iraqi Security Forces have just promised to handle security nationwide by the end of the year. The people are increasingly placing their faith in those forces, and turning against the militias. When we cross the tipping point on this one, we will at last have stability in Iraq.
The opposite is happening in Lebanon. Israel began with attacks on civilian transportation infrastructure, from naval blockades to attacks on the airport. This, combined with the deaths of Lebanese innocents caused by Hezbollah's dishonorable tactics of hiding among civilians, has led to a resurgence of support for Hezbollah. For the moment, at least, Lebanon identifies with Hezbollah. Israel may be able to achieve strategic goals in the area, as for example reducing the number of rocket launchers and perhaps creating a buffer zone. It will not be able to win an existential fight with Hezbollah at this time, however: for now, Hezbollah is safely across the point at which many of the people of Lebanon will protect and shelter them, and even aid them out of a sense of identity.
(Another aside: this idea of a buffer zone is a doubtful strategum, it seems to me; if the UN sends a force to secure such a zone, as it says it may, why wouldn't Hezbollah simply carry on attacking from that zone? Does anyone think the UN will really be able, to say nothing of being willing, to stop them? If Israel needs to respond, it won't be attacking merely the sovereign territory of Lebanon -- it will be attacking territory guarded by the armed forces of several nations, each of whom will then be interested in reprisals. Hezbollah will be given a safer haven than it has now.)
It is the realm of the spirit that really matters. This echoes through the writings of the greatest martial artists and military scientists alike. Napoleon said that "Morale is to the physical as three is to one." The Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote that "seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful." How to do this? Either you have out-thought him, so that there is no point to his trying to fight you from the inferior position into which you have put him; or you have convinced him that he cannot win, and thus defeated his spirit without having to fight his body.
Then there is Clausewitz again. In his writings on what he called the 'trinity,' he said that there were three elements that governed success in war: National will, political strategy, and the sum of the ways that the various skirmishes and other conflicts worked out on the ground according to the wager of battle. The first was the most important, he wrote.
And what is that trinity, but a restatement of the same idea? National will is the realm of the spirit; politics and strategies the realm of the mind; and the conflict itself is the physical realm. The first and most important is the will -- it is the spirit. If we find ourselves flagging, that is what we must turn ourselves to reinforcing.
So, if you are approached by a man you think you may have to strike in self defense, do not fear that you can't knock him down even if you hit your hardest. Resolve, rather, that you will.
Proportionality
Proportionality:
The idea was that every group of people had a unique take on life, and needed its own space so that it could have laws that accorded with that take. Scots needed to be Scots, not ruled by English laws; the same for the Irish. The same for the Slavs. The same, some argued, for the Jews.
When such nations came to exist, they were seen as having a real sovereignity: this is, indeed, why we today view the nation-state as the righteous seat of sovereignty. These nations were viewed as arising from natural law, and a hedge against the horrors of war. Should such a state fall and come to be dominated by others, advocates of nationalism believed, war could be the only result: a righteous war for independence.
Insofar as Israel today can demonstrate that it is facing the destruction of its state, it can therefore justify almost any conduct as "proportionate." It's not just a question of whether you get to go to war; it's a question of what you can do in war. If you're fighting to preserve a nation, you can do most anything -- because the international system views the survival of your nation-state as almost the highest good of the system, the best way of ensuring peace.
What we're seeing in Israel today is just what we've seen ever since these ideas were instituted. Nationalism proves to be a better engine for war than for peace. If every group with a definable ethnic or cultural identity deserves its own nation, what if two of them claim the same piece of land (as in Northern Ireland, where Protestant majorities exist with Irish Catholic minorities who consider the others not Irish but "New English")?
What if there's a disagreement about whether a given group is properly independent, or should properly be subject to a central authority? Consider the case of Taiwan -- definitely ethnic Han Chinese, but wishing to be independent of the People's Republic, which in turn claims to be the rightful government of all Chinese eveywhere.
What if existing borders of states encase several ethnic groups, some of whom later decide they'd prefer their own nation? For example, consider the case of Indonesia, which won its independence from the Dutch and established its borders based on their colonial borders. Now comes the East Timorese, wanting to separate from this new nation -- and now the Papuans.
The system recognizes, in theory, all of these claims -- and justifies almost anything in the name of establishing a free, or protecting the independence of an existing, nation-state for each such group.
This is partially why we find the terrorists getting treated with kid gloves by so-called "international law" types: they are viewed, usually, as valid liberation movements or resistance to colonial oppression. As such, whatever they do is justified.
If you've been wondering what the root of this cancer is, now you know. It's the shattered bones of the last great attempt to find peace on earth.
The Economist has a good overview of what the Just War tradition has to say on the subject, and how it applies to Israel today. They finish:
In the end, some philosophers think, debate about the ethics of war will have to reintegrate two ancient questions— about the right to go to war, and the methods that may be used— which have become artificially separated in modern times. To put it more simply, nobody will be impressed with a line that goes: “We didn't start this war, so our cause is just—but now that it's begun, we'll fight as dirty as we like.” Augustine saw the questions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello as intertwined—and so, probably, should modern man.The Just War reading of proportionality, which began with Augustine, does have a jus in bello aspect which is not mentioned in the article. It is based on the idea of nationalism, which was once an ideal for whom men held great hopes. Like some advocates of democracy promotion today, advocates of nationalism believed that it could bring an end to war -- or at least lessen it notably.
The idea was that every group of people had a unique take on life, and needed its own space so that it could have laws that accorded with that take. Scots needed to be Scots, not ruled by English laws; the same for the Irish. The same for the Slavs. The same, some argued, for the Jews.
When such nations came to exist, they were seen as having a real sovereignity: this is, indeed, why we today view the nation-state as the righteous seat of sovereignty. These nations were viewed as arising from natural law, and a hedge against the horrors of war. Should such a state fall and come to be dominated by others, advocates of nationalism believed, war could be the only result: a righteous war for independence.
Insofar as Israel today can demonstrate that it is facing the destruction of its state, it can therefore justify almost any conduct as "proportionate." It's not just a question of whether you get to go to war; it's a question of what you can do in war. If you're fighting to preserve a nation, you can do most anything -- because the international system views the survival of your nation-state as almost the highest good of the system, the best way of ensuring peace.
What we're seeing in Israel today is just what we've seen ever since these ideas were instituted. Nationalism proves to be a better engine for war than for peace. If every group with a definable ethnic or cultural identity deserves its own nation, what if two of them claim the same piece of land (as in Northern Ireland, where Protestant majorities exist with Irish Catholic minorities who consider the others not Irish but "New English")?
What if there's a disagreement about whether a given group is properly independent, or should properly be subject to a central authority? Consider the case of Taiwan -- definitely ethnic Han Chinese, but wishing to be independent of the People's Republic, which in turn claims to be the rightful government of all Chinese eveywhere.
What if existing borders of states encase several ethnic groups, some of whom later decide they'd prefer their own nation? For example, consider the case of Indonesia, which won its independence from the Dutch and established its borders based on their colonial borders. Now comes the East Timorese, wanting to separate from this new nation -- and now the Papuans.
The system recognizes, in theory, all of these claims -- and justifies almost anything in the name of establishing a free, or protecting the independence of an existing, nation-state for each such group.
This is partially why we find the terrorists getting treated with kid gloves by so-called "international law" types: they are viewed, usually, as valid liberation movements or resistance to colonial oppression. As such, whatever they do is justified.
If you've been wondering what the root of this cancer is, now you know. It's the shattered bones of the last great attempt to find peace on earth.
More Muslim Mayhem
Israel's War Comes To Seattle:
He says: "I’m a Muslim-American. I’m angry at Isreal."
So he shoots six unarmed women.
What courage! What devotion!
Oh, and what skill -- he kills only one of them, even though there was no appreciable resistance and he had the only gun in the room.
I don't want to hear that Muslim-Americans are angry at Israel, so they kill Jewish-Americans. Jewish-Americans are probably angry too. What is supposed to matter, though, is that these are fellow Americans.
It's natural to have a sentiment for the old country, and it's only human to feel more strongly for those whom you regard as brothers (as Muslims do among themselves) than for those whom you don't. Still, America is an idea as much as it is a country: a place where we leave the old tribes behind, and become a new people. E pluribus unum.
In other words, if you're a Muslim who wants to shoot Jewish-Americans in response to Israel's policies, you're not a "Muslim-American." I don't care what your citizenship is. I don't care if you were born in Fargo. You haven't got the idea. You are not one of us.
If you can't leave the old tribe behind -- just enough to avoid killing other Americans who aren't tribesmen, that's all we ask -- you should rethink whether or not you want to be here. It won't be hard for the rest of us to rethink whether or not we want you in the community. We don't strip people of their citizenship in America, but neither are we bound to accept people that make war on our women, or exercise their tribal ideas of religion by shooting up social clubs. We can put you in prison, or we can kill you. We have the death penalty here, and many of us are not unarmed victims.
On which point, I should like my Jewish female readers to note that they are targets. You know who you are. There are people who want to kill you. This guy is said to have been a lone maniac. Perhaps he was. You know there are organized groups that want the same thing. You know this is true.
There is only one way to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen to your families. You need to get over whatever aversions you have, pick out a handgun that suits your frame, and learn to use it, more accurately than these people.
Fortunately, that's not a high bar to cross.
You're the only ones who can stop this. The police will not be there. If this isn't to happen where you are, you have to stop it.
The NRA will help you find a teacher here. Wherever you are, they can help you.
Drop me a line if you want to talk about it.
I won't stand by and let people break America, not for Israel and not for Islam. Frankly, neither are worth it in my opinion. She is our common charge. We are the Sons of Liberty. This flame will not die. That is a promise and a warning.
Military Blue States
OP-FOR on NRO:
Can he prove he's not? It's not like proving that you don't have an ulcer. With a real medical condition, they can look and see. You can't "see" a psychological condition. How does this kid clear his name?
The best he can do is find another civilian expert, pay out another grand, and then -- if it goes well, and he doesn't get another anti-military jerk (or some psychologist who feels that young men with such feelings of aggression that they want to join the military need to be medicated and feminized) -- he'll have a "he said / she said" defense. 'Only one of them thinks I'm crazy! And they can't really prove anything one way or the other, so... um, why are you looking at me like that?'
Psychology should simply be banned from federal hiring decisions, and also from court proceedings. It is not a science, it's fortune-telling. We wouldn't let a tarot card reader ruin a kid's life and put something this damaging in his permanent record. We shouldn't let a "scientist" like this do it, either.
John at OP-FOR has a piece at National Review (a good piece, Eric?). He's chastizing, properly, so-called "elite" schools for their treatment of military recruiters, and their discouragement of their students from military service.
Which brings us to the comments at BlackFive, when Jimbo posted about the piece:
True story: I tried joining the Army a year ago and had to get one of those fancy $1,300 psych evaluations that only a professional civilian consultant can do in order to get a waiver at MEPS ["Military Entrance Processing Station" -- the place where you go to get the paperwork done and your medical exams]. Within the first 5 minutes of the interview with the psychologist I convinced him I didn't have any problems. Then instead of ending the interview there, he went on and on for the next 15 minutes about how someone like me shouldn't be joining the military. Apparently I had a 95 on the ASVAB and was doing well in college (3.6 GPA) and he was telling me, to summarize: "You're just going to be cannon fodder in the miltary. You have too much potential. Read some anti-military books to see how much of a mistake joining the military is. Your MMPI-2 results show you can take criticism, but they're going to yell at you in boot camp!"So, basically the psych doctor didn't feel even a little bit bad about getting this poor guy damned as a psycho who couldn't be trusted to serve as a private, in order to keep him out of the military. For the rest of his life, if he applies for gov't service jobs, the kid is going to be asked, "Were you ever refused entry to the military?" and he'll have to say, "Yes, I was found psychologically unsuitable."
At MEPS he faxed over his 1 paragraph evaluation that said because of my goal orientation, and ironically, my ability to handle stress, I wouldn't be fit for the military because I potentially could be insubordinate at Boot Camp. The opposite of everything he said to my face about me. Basically, the guy was your typical smug blue state anti-war liberal who wants to rescue those who don't need rescuing. He rescued two other kids that day with the same evaluation -- he just changed the names at the top of the page.
It's a year later and my recruiter gave me a call saying I can now take another psych evaluation. I'm not really sure what to think. Maybe I'll act dumb and desperate and try failing the evaluation this time?
I get called a chickenhawk by the same kind of people who keep me from enlisting.
Can he prove he's not? It's not like proving that you don't have an ulcer. With a real medical condition, they can look and see. You can't "see" a psychological condition. How does this kid clear his name?
The best he can do is find another civilian expert, pay out another grand, and then -- if it goes well, and he doesn't get another anti-military jerk (or some psychologist who feels that young men with such feelings of aggression that they want to join the military need to be medicated and feminized) -- he'll have a "he said / she said" defense. 'Only one of them thinks I'm crazy! And they can't really prove anything one way or the other, so... um, why are you looking at me like that?'
Psychology should simply be banned from federal hiring decisions, and also from court proceedings. It is not a science, it's fortune-telling. We wouldn't let a tarot card reader ruin a kid's life and put something this damaging in his permanent record. We shouldn't let a "scientist" like this do it, either.
Arganti
Arganti:Praise a day at evening, a wife when dead,
a sword when tried... and beer when it's drunk.
Today I can praise a very good cat, who went by the name of Arganti. She came to me as a kitten out of a hurricane the size of Texas, which left the areas near Savannah filled with wrack. The moment she saw me, her tail shot up, and she started running. Fool that I am, I took her in when she literally followed me home -- and then sent her off to live with Sovay, which she has done in queenly comfort these several years.
Sadly today I hear that she died suddenly, though not without such help as science can offer. She was always good for the things that make cats good: she was temperate toward people, not so to vermin, and she would sit on your shoulder like a pirate's parrot while you walked around.
Farewell, then, to a very good cat. I am glad to have known her. Men and dogs have an ancient alliance both pure and noble, but the cat remains a surprise.
a sword when tried... and beer when it's drunk.
-The Havamal
Today I can praise a very good cat, who went by the name of Arganti. She came to me as a kitten out of a hurricane the size of Texas, which left the areas near Savannah filled with wrack. The moment she saw me, her tail shot up, and she started running. Fool that I am, I took her in when she literally followed me home -- and then sent her off to live with Sovay, which she has done in queenly comfort these several years.
Sadly today I hear that she died suddenly, though not without such help as science can offer. She was always good for the things that make cats good: she was temperate toward people, not so to vermin, and she would sit on your shoulder like a pirate's parrot while you walked around.
Farewell, then, to a very good cat. I am glad to have known her. Men and dogs have an ancient alliance both pure and noble, but the cat remains a surprise.
Web of Trust
"The Web of Trust"
Yet I find that I think he has misread something fairly fundamental to his argument, something he says is coastline rather than map. The idea that "human beings are interchangable" is simply not quite right. The truth is that human beings are not interchangable at all -- each one is individual. This isn't just because of upbringing, as Whittle suggests, and why it isn't is a truth of the same material as the rest of his argument.
Let me explain. Whittle writes:
Yet it is very unlikely that Baby Kopenawa would have grown up to crank out essays of the type and quality of Whittle's own, to say nothing of having his fascination with airplanes. It is not impossible, but it is not likely.
Civilization not only entails the web of trust that Whittle discusses, but it also requires a far greater degree of specialization. Whittle-the-Amazonian would have learned to hunt monkeys because everyone has to hunt monkeys. Kopenawa, by contrast, would have found himself facing a whole array of choices, to which his native intelligence and individual aspects would have inclined him to some and away from others. To succeed, which means to survive, Whittle of the Amazon would have had to do more or less exactly what everyone else did. To succeed, which means to prosper, Kopenawa would have to do what he did best.
What would that have been? There is a fair amount of research, and a great deal of practical experience, that suggests that there really are genetic inheritances that pertain to kinds of intelligence as well as physical attributes. Individual variation is more important than group membership, but if one were to exchange not one baby but thousands of babies, there would be trends that we could identify. One of the consequences of civilization and its specializations is coming to terms with that. As whole nations and peoples become civilized and specialized, the market begins stratifying them according to which intelligences are most marketable. As we understand more about the mechanism, we may wish to think more about whether to try to modify the market's results -- and if so, how we could do so.
As we become more capable of editing genetic traits, new questions arise. These questions will become more rather than less important, and more rather than less numerous, with each scientific success.
Let us say, for example, that one could modify a set of genetics so that you could replace a prediliction for one kind of intelligence (say, the kind that lets you perform a given task without growing bored for hours on end) with another (say, the ability to do higher mathematics with ease and comfort). Now let's say we have a genetic group that tends toward the first kind, and which has therefore (because the market prefers mathematicians and engineers to janitors and clerks) become identifibly poorer than other groups. What do you do about that? Anything? Nothing? Does it matter? Once it becomes in our power to change, ethical issues arise that don't exist when it is beyond us.
We cannot, therefore, adopt Bill Whittle's idea as ideology -- not that he would wish you to do so. He says to look at the coastline, not the map, and that is what we must do. His point that culture is more important than genetics is certainly true. However, as part of the business of civilization, we have to look at the genetics as well.
We should think about these things, because they are the next challenge -- the mental bridge Whittle mentions, to be considered before the first rivet is driven. There is the chasm before us. We had better give it some thought.
Bill Whittle's latest is, as always, a remarkable explanation of the things that underlie our lives. Whittle has mastered the art of seeing what Chesterton saw when writing of the stoplight, called in his day a "signal box":
A great many people talk as if this claim of ours, that all things are poetical, were a mere literary ingenuity, a play on words. Precisely the contrary is true. It is the idea that some things are not poetical which is literary, which is a mere product of words. The word "signal-box" is unpoetical. But the thing signal-box is not unpoetical; it is a place where men, in an agony of vigilance, light blood-red and sea-green fires to keep other men from death. That is the plain, genuine description of what it is; the prose only comes in with what it is called.Whittle sees the poetry in things that few pause to consider, and from that can envision the whole grandeur of civilization. He can see the men laying fiber cables and other men molding plastics, and still more men training for years in the use of inventions like radar -- itself a wonder. And he can put it all together for us, and show us how all that work underlies the business of bringing a plane down to the earth.
Yet I find that I think he has misread something fairly fundamental to his argument, something he says is coastline rather than map. The idea that "human beings are interchangable" is simply not quite right. The truth is that human beings are not interchangable at all -- each one is individual. This isn't just because of upbringing, as Whittle suggests, and why it isn't is a truth of the same material as the rest of his argument.
Let me explain. Whittle writes:
I mean that had Baby Billy been dropped off in the heart of the Amazon rainforest and raised by Yanomami tribesmen (and according to my mother there were times when I was in real danger of this happening), I would have spent my youth learning to hunt monkeys with my bow and 6ft. long arrows, and generally hanging around the shabono sleeping in till almost 6am. Likewise, if Baby Kopenawa had my parents, he’d probably be cranking out online essays at irregular intervals and shooting instrument approaches in experimental canard airplanes.I think we can all agree that it's entirely plausible that Billy Baby could have been given over to Yanomami tribesmen, and grown up to hunt monkeys. There would be nothing strange in that.
Yet it is very unlikely that Baby Kopenawa would have grown up to crank out essays of the type and quality of Whittle's own, to say nothing of having his fascination with airplanes. It is not impossible, but it is not likely.
Civilization not only entails the web of trust that Whittle discusses, but it also requires a far greater degree of specialization. Whittle-the-Amazonian would have learned to hunt monkeys because everyone has to hunt monkeys. Kopenawa, by contrast, would have found himself facing a whole array of choices, to which his native intelligence and individual aspects would have inclined him to some and away from others. To succeed, which means to survive, Whittle of the Amazon would have had to do more or less exactly what everyone else did. To succeed, which means to prosper, Kopenawa would have to do what he did best.
What would that have been? There is a fair amount of research, and a great deal of practical experience, that suggests that there really are genetic inheritances that pertain to kinds of intelligence as well as physical attributes. Individual variation is more important than group membership, but if one were to exchange not one baby but thousands of babies, there would be trends that we could identify. One of the consequences of civilization and its specializations is coming to terms with that. As whole nations and peoples become civilized and specialized, the market begins stratifying them according to which intelligences are most marketable. As we understand more about the mechanism, we may wish to think more about whether to try to modify the market's results -- and if so, how we could do so.
As we become more capable of editing genetic traits, new questions arise. These questions will become more rather than less important, and more rather than less numerous, with each scientific success.
Let us say, for example, that one could modify a set of genetics so that you could replace a prediliction for one kind of intelligence (say, the kind that lets you perform a given task without growing bored for hours on end) with another (say, the ability to do higher mathematics with ease and comfort). Now let's say we have a genetic group that tends toward the first kind, and which has therefore (because the market prefers mathematicians and engineers to janitors and clerks) become identifibly poorer than other groups. What do you do about that? Anything? Nothing? Does it matter? Once it becomes in our power to change, ethical issues arise that don't exist when it is beyond us.
We cannot, therefore, adopt Bill Whittle's idea as ideology -- not that he would wish you to do so. He says to look at the coastline, not the map, and that is what we must do. His point that culture is more important than genetics is certainly true. However, as part of the business of civilization, we have to look at the genetics as well.
We should think about these things, because they are the next challenge -- the mental bridge Whittle mentions, to be considered before the first rivet is driven. There is the chasm before us. We had better give it some thought.
Posts
Things To Read Today:
The discussion, as soon as I have time to sit down and discuss, will be on Bill Whittle's newest piece. Give it a read today, and we'll talk it over tomorrow.
Also, CENTCOM has a new release on a raid north of Balad.
A case of verification. Or sock puppets. Or both.
In this post, Karrde muses on basically "How do we know what we know and how do we know who to trust?" (Or something like that).
An interesting example of trust and credibility has occurred, dissected at great length by Eric Scheie of the blog Classical Values.
Starting here, (actually that may not be the start, its just where I picked it up), and continuing here, and here and here and finally (as of my posting), here Mr Scheie starts digging into the people supposedly working at (and others quoted by) a site called Capital Hill Blues, which is supposedly a sort of newsletter site covering Capitol Hill. Or something like that.
It appears that the whole site may be the work of one guy, constantly inventing new people and quoting non-existant scholars, doctors and so forth, none of them real. Or not real in so much as Google can reveal.
This has affinities with a phenomenon called 'sock puppets' --usually referring to the antic of defending or supporting oneself with a different screen name or email address---for a classic example of sock puppetry, see Ace of Spades HQ and this post on Glenn Greenwald. Actually, there's plenty more there on that affair, and it makes for curious reading.
So, reader beware. If such things are happening, they are happening everywhere.
In this post, Karrde muses on basically "How do we know what we know and how do we know who to trust?" (Or something like that).
An interesting example of trust and credibility has occurred, dissected at great length by Eric Scheie of the blog Classical Values.
Starting here, (actually that may not be the start, its just where I picked it up), and continuing here, and here and here and finally (as of my posting), here Mr Scheie starts digging into the people supposedly working at (and others quoted by) a site called Capital Hill Blues, which is supposedly a sort of newsletter site covering Capitol Hill. Or something like that.
It appears that the whole site may be the work of one guy, constantly inventing new people and quoting non-existant scholars, doctors and so forth, none of them real. Or not real in so much as Google can reveal.
This has affinities with a phenomenon called 'sock puppets' --usually referring to the antic of defending or supporting oneself with a different screen name or email address---for a classic example of sock puppetry, see Ace of Spades HQ and this post on Glenn Greenwald. Actually, there's plenty more there on that affair, and it makes for curious reading.
So, reader beware. If such things are happening, they are happening everywhere.
PJM release
PJM Sends:
The folks at Pajamas Media are proud of their coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, and have put out a press release to get the word out. As regular readers know, I have very little interest in the conflict, but given the possibilities for spillover into the Iraq conflict, I have been reading up on this particular engagement. PJM's coverage really has been good, and they deserve the pat on the back (even if it is self-inflicted).
Dollard
JHD Sends:
JarHeadDad wants you to know about Pat Dollard's interviews. "Just WOW!" he writes, which is a pretty good endorsement -- I've noticed you can measure how well he likes something by looking at how few words he uses to describe it. Two words? Pretty great. Five thousand words? He hates it, has written all his congressmen, and is still mad about it.
So anyway, this is a two-word site. Go see the thing.
CENTCOM PR
CENTCOM Sends:
Continuing the regular series of things CENTCOM wants you to know, a press release they sent this morning on Iraqi Security capturing three primary targets during raids. No friendly casualties in the process.
Well done.
There is none
"From the scissors of Delilah, and the tenpenny nail of Jael, to the scimitar of
Goliath..."
Goliath..."
In which the Geek w/a .45 and company give yours truly a hard time in the comments section, due to my inability to resist a severe temptation.
Links
Reader-Sent Links:
A few links that turned up in my email box this morning.
Reader JW sends a link to an editorial that explains US behavior according to computer science models.
CC sends a WizBang piece called "Tell it to the Marines."
MilBlogging.com writes in their weekly newsletter, "I used to think Chuck Norris was a pretty cool guy, but that was before I featured Jack Army." Jack's deploying. Go see why he's cooler than Chuck Norris.
Politics Central:
I am somewhat remiss in not having mentioned the PJM "Politics Central" site, about which Pajamas Media tells me they are most excited.
They would today like you to hear this interview from an Israeli bunker.
Somme
The Somme:
This year is the 90th anniversary of the Somme. Our faithful friend Arts & Letters Daily points us to an article, from The Scotsman, on a new book revising the history.
I link mostly for Eric Blair's benefit, but others may also enjoy it.
Trust but verify
Trust but Verify:
In my continued thinking about history and historical sources (and following up on Grim's excellent comments below about Mexico and colonial history), I am continually returning to the issue of trust. My thoughts about trust involve both history and current events.
Historians trust certain sources. Other sources are considered cum grano salis, as the Romans would say.
Most of this trust can be defended on analytical grounds. Along the lines of what Grim said about colonial Spain and plague in Mexico, a careful review of the data can show which sources are trustworthy.
The same was true about earlier claims that surfaced: claims about who or what was most responsible for American success during the first World War. It is quite likely that the NRA-guided training program for members of the American Expeditionary Force was influential on the battles fought by the AEF in Europe. But there is also evidence that many members the AEF was trained in the field by Sergeants and Lieutenants who saw the need for accuracy in rifle use on the field. Not to mention that America's military hadn't spent 5 years sending wave after wave of soldiers against barbed wire and machine-gun-nests.
If there is a lesson about militaries to be found here, it is that an army that is able to learn from its experience and adapt while in the field is more likely to be a winner than an army that learns from its experiences and adapts after the war is over.
If there is a lesson about reading history, it is that if the source makes some claims that can be verified, it is often wise to check up on a few of those claims. Sometimes the facts are right, but the claimed results aren't fully supported.
One thought that hovers in my mind as I write this is that similar questions are raised every day when I read news stories, browse blogs, or watch the entertainment extravaganza known as TV News. Do I trust the source to report the facts accurately? Do I trust them to report the background accurately? Do I trust them not to insert unwarranted assumptions into the story? Do I trust them to do research about what they are reporting on?
Lastly, is there any way that I can verify what the are telling me?
It is questions like these that use to filter through claims of bias. It may also help identify poor reporting, sloppy research, or dependence on a single, biased source.
In my continued thinking about history and historical sources (and following up on Grim's excellent comments below about Mexico and colonial history), I am continually returning to the issue of trust. My thoughts about trust involve both history and current events.
Historians trust certain sources. Other sources are considered cum grano salis, as the Romans would say.
Most of this trust can be defended on analytical grounds. Along the lines of what Grim said about colonial Spain and plague in Mexico, a careful review of the data can show which sources are trustworthy.
The same was true about earlier claims that surfaced: claims about who or what was most responsible for American success during the first World War. It is quite likely that the NRA-guided training program for members of the American Expeditionary Force was influential on the battles fought by the AEF in Europe. But there is also evidence that many members the AEF was trained in the field by Sergeants and Lieutenants who saw the need for accuracy in rifle use on the field. Not to mention that America's military hadn't spent 5 years sending wave after wave of soldiers against barbed wire and machine-gun-nests.
If there is a lesson about militaries to be found here, it is that an army that is able to learn from its experience and adapt while in the field is more likely to be a winner than an army that learns from its experiences and adapts after the war is over.
If there is a lesson about reading history, it is that if the source makes some claims that can be verified, it is often wise to check up on a few of those claims. Sometimes the facts are right, but the claimed results aren't fully supported.
One thought that hovers in my mind as I write this is that similar questions are raised every day when I read news stories, browse blogs, or watch the entertainment extravaganza known as TV News. Do I trust the source to report the facts accurately? Do I trust them to report the background accurately? Do I trust them not to insert unwarranted assumptions into the story? Do I trust them to do research about what they are reporting on?
Lastly, is there any way that I can verify what the are telling me?
It is questions like these that use to filter through claims of bias. It may also help identify poor reporting, sloppy research, or dependence on a single, biased source.
Megadeth Mexico
"Megadeath in Mexico"
That's the truth, at least, it seems to be truth in the scientific sense: the best-supported interpretation of the facts given the present evidence.
Yet Mexican histories need Spain to be evil. It's part of the founding myth. Indeed, it is a critical part. The evil exploitations of Spain, heroically thrown off by the Mexicans, set the stage for the evil manipulations of the Hapsburgs and especially the Yanquis, the brave Mexican resistance to which define the post-European period of Mexican history. The national myth is entirely founded on the idea of foreign exploiters, European and American, striving to oppress the Mexican raza.
Destabilizing that founding myth wasn't the intent of the research. It isn't, indeed, very interesting to the scientists themselves, who toss off a brief paragraph about it in a long article on the more fascinating questions of evidence. I wonder if they really know what they are unleashing here.
No matter. It is done. Historians, not only Mexican ones, must now contend with the data. History is unique in being both art and science: the story-telling and myth-making contend with the scientific development of the facts. Here is an earthquake, the aftershocks of which will trouble many a thinker and writer for a long time to come.
UPDATE: Another such earthquake comes in a new book just reviewed by Mark Steyn.
A fascinating article by that title appears in Discovery's online site this issue (h/t Arts & Letters Daily). It's a good piece on how modern scientific research combines several disciplines (in this case, epidemology, botany, and history) to overturn the received wisdom of the ages. A combination of new documentary evidence, the clinical eye of an expert, and supporting evidence from other scientists can produce the need for serious revisions in the historic record, as well as advances in our understanding of medical history.
It's a very good read for those reasons, but that's not why I brought it up.
I bring it up as an ally to Karrde's recent piece on history and story-telling. It's tossed off almost as an aside in the Discovery piece, but the greatest threat to humanity coming to understand the truth is exactly what Karrde recognized it to be: humanity's unwillingness to hear it.
This raised two questions. First, were people prepared to absolve the Spanish of responsibility for one of the great evils of the colonial era? The destruction of ancient Mexico's culture by the Spanish invaders is an integral part of every Mexican's understanding of the country's history. The miseries of the plague years are taken as object lessons in the evils of colonialism. "My grandmother wrote histories, and the terrible things that the Spanish did were always a part of them," says Acuña-Soto.In fact, as the new evidence shows, the Spanish didn't bring the disease, which was instead native; the Spanish didn't try to spread it as a means of destroying the native culture. In fact the King of Spain sent his personal physician to learn what they could teach him of native medicines, and while there this Spanish doctor invested a great deal of his effort (the written notes ran to fifty volumes) in trying to understand the causes of the disease and how it might be treated.
That's the truth, at least, it seems to be truth in the scientific sense: the best-supported interpretation of the facts given the present evidence.
Yet Mexican histories need Spain to be evil. It's part of the founding myth. Indeed, it is a critical part. The evil exploitations of Spain, heroically thrown off by the Mexicans, set the stage for the evil manipulations of the Hapsburgs and especially the Yanquis, the brave Mexican resistance to which define the post-European period of Mexican history. The national myth is entirely founded on the idea of foreign exploiters, European and American, striving to oppress the Mexican raza.
Destabilizing that founding myth wasn't the intent of the research. It isn't, indeed, very interesting to the scientists themselves, who toss off a brief paragraph about it in a long article on the more fascinating questions of evidence. I wonder if they really know what they are unleashing here.
No matter. It is done. Historians, not only Mexican ones, must now contend with the data. History is unique in being both art and science: the story-telling and myth-making contend with the scientific development of the facts. Here is an earthquake, the aftershocks of which will trouble many a thinker and writer for a long time to come.
UPDATE: Another such earthquake comes in a new book just reviewed by Mark Steyn.
Knights
Knights of St. George:
An odd coincidence, that this story should appear at BlackFive the same day as Noel directed us to the story below. That is St. George's cross on the shield.
Congratulations, Sir Craig -- that is, sergeant.
A Dragonslayer
A Dragonslayer:
Noel was right. This is just the sort of piece that I think should be more widely read.
My reader will recall there were dragons in those days, and the lair of one was in a marsh near Selena in Lydia. It required human sacrifices. Cleodolinda, daughter of the king, drew the lot and was escorted to the marsh in bridal garments. St George, a tribune in the Roman army, happened to ride by. Making the sign of the Cross, he confronted the dragon. Pinning it to earth with his lance, he slew it with his sword. Having converted the Lydian king, and all witnesses, he then rode on to Palestine, where he died a martyr under the same Roman persecution that claimed St Alban.We should always honor the dragonslayers. As Greyhawk said in his letter to his children, "Some must go to fight the Dragons. And if you think such things don't exist then it must be I read you the wrong sorts of stories when you were young." And then he went -- a man, like St. George was a man, who felt that he was called to it by something above his duty as a soldier.
This fanciful story from out of the Golden Legend (13th century) only adds to his mystique. But it was not part of the legend of St George, when he appeared before the Crusaders as a herald of victory. Or became an honoured and holy figure in Muslim legend, too, under the name Jirgis Baqiya....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)