Confederate Yankee interviews the Bloodhounds, the 615th Military Police Company, 89th MP Brigade. The MPs express support for the mission in Iraq, though there are notes of caution as well.
Interestingly, the blog interview was brought to my attention by CENTCOM -- they sent me an email, so I'd tell you about it. Good to see them engaging bloggers.
CENTCOM Blood
CENTCOM Sends (A Blogger!):
The Times on Snipers:
Perhaps from the fact that the New York Times published a diagram of our body armor, helpfully showing where it was vulnerable?
That's information that really should have been included in this story, if the point is to give people an honest reading of the problem of snipers. Or, for that matter, the problem of the insurgency: the fact that media coverage of insurgent attacks has been demonstrated to increase their frequency. It's a force multiplier. Anyone writing on the topic -- and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't ever write on it -- should not only keep that in mind, but make the point. The reader should always be reminded that the insurgent was thinking of them, as much as the Marine, when he pulled the trigger.
The omission -- especially of the mention of body-armor diagrams -- isn't the only complaint to make. Most of the complaints with the series focus on the pictures, because they drive raw emotions. What Cassandra said here about the earlier part of the series goes as well for this part. An editorial decision to publish pictures of bloodied US Marines is just that: a decision.
How to judge that decision? Allah points out that the Times front-paged the worst picture, not the best one. Both images are just as valid -- which one do you lead with? They led with the one that shows blood and pain, not the one that shows a fellow Marine putting his own body between the wounded man and the sniper, ready to reply to further shots with his grenade launcher.
The same decision was made in the text. The reporter made a decision to treat the problem in graphic, emotional terms. That is a valid way to treat it -- bullet wounds are nasty, and the emotions people feel are real. Having wounds described in these direct terms gives you a sense of the real sacrifice our Marines make, and the risks to which they volunteer time and again to expose themselves.
Like the Times, though, while his story has all the data, it leads with the wound. It could have led with other things. It ought to have admitted its own complicity in the problem of snipers.
A reflection of that sort -- on the degree to which their past coverage has literally helped the enemy hurt Marines -- would be wise. Perhaps it would cause them to consider more carefully what they print in the future.
You have probably seen the New York Times / International Herald Tribune story on the problem of snipers. I've been trying to figure out what to say about it.
The worst thing I can say about it is to point out an omission in it. C. J. Chivers, the author, writes:
Most of the time, the marines said, the snipers aim for the troops' heads, necks and armpits, displaying knowledge of gaps in their protective gear."Displaying knowledge of gaps in their protective gear." And where did that knowledge come from?
Perhaps from the fact that the New York Times published a diagram of our body armor, helpfully showing where it was vulnerable?
That's information that really should have been included in this story, if the point is to give people an honest reading of the problem of snipers. Or, for that matter, the problem of the insurgency: the fact that media coverage of insurgent attacks has been demonstrated to increase their frequency. It's a force multiplier. Anyone writing on the topic -- and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't ever write on it -- should not only keep that in mind, but make the point. The reader should always be reminded that the insurgent was thinking of them, as much as the Marine, when he pulled the trigger.
The omission -- especially of the mention of body-armor diagrams -- isn't the only complaint to make. Most of the complaints with the series focus on the pictures, because they drive raw emotions. What Cassandra said here about the earlier part of the series goes as well for this part. An editorial decision to publish pictures of bloodied US Marines is just that: a decision.
How to judge that decision? Allah points out that the Times front-paged the worst picture, not the best one. Both images are just as valid -- which one do you lead with? They led with the one that shows blood and pain, not the one that shows a fellow Marine putting his own body between the wounded man and the sniper, ready to reply to further shots with his grenade launcher.
The same decision was made in the text. The reporter made a decision to treat the problem in graphic, emotional terms. That is a valid way to treat it -- bullet wounds are nasty, and the emotions people feel are real. Having wounds described in these direct terms gives you a sense of the real sacrifice our Marines make, and the risks to which they volunteer time and again to expose themselves.
Like the Times, though, while his story has all the data, it leads with the wound. It could have led with other things. It ought to have admitted its own complicity in the problem of snipers.
A reflection of that sort -- on the degree to which their past coverage has literally helped the enemy hurt Marines -- would be wise. Perhaps it would cause them to consider more carefully what they print in the future.
Boomers
Boom Times:
For this NYT story to have the meaning they ascribe to it, the following things would have to be true:
1) Saddam had plans for nuclear weapons that were highly advanced;
2) So highly that -- as I read the timeline -- they were better than fifteen years' further along than Iran's plans;
3) ...even with the help Iran received from AQ Khan (which may explain why Saddam's government turned down Khan's offer to sell them technology).
Now that kind of puts the war in a different light, doesn't it?
Inkblot
"Like, it's an Inkblot? And it tells about your mind?"
There's a long writeup, of which I'll give you the intro. I expect that pretty much all the results prove that you're a natural leader, etc., since Tickle is selling the product and no one wants to hear that they're a psychopath. Still, it's amusing.
UPDATE: The wife looked it over, and said, "That's really accurate. You create peace and order around you. Whether people like it or not."
Yeah, OK. I'm a peacemaker. Just like Colonel Colt.
Tickle, a webservice that hosts what they are proud to call "Ph.D. certified tests," has their "inkblot" test free right now. If you like online tests (or if, like me, you enjoy mocking psychology), you might want to stop by and spend a quick few minutes at it.
I have a theory about the subconscious too -- to whit, that it's pretty obvious to everyone around you where your subconscious mind is these days. Everybody can tell, for example, when the two kids in accounting have the hots for each other but don't know it yet. It's something humanity is well hardwired to do.
That being the case, longtime readers doubtless have a pretty good idea what drives me. You won't be surprised, therefore, by my results:
Your unconscious mind is driven mostly by Peace!I'm sure that's just what we'd all have guessed.
There's a long writeup, of which I'll give you the intro. I expect that pretty much all the results prove that you're a natural leader, etc., since Tickle is selling the product and no one wants to hear that they're a psychopath. Still, it's amusing.
By having your unconscious mind driven most by Peace, it appears that you feel a level of comfort with yourself and with your surroundings that many people lack. By having respect for others and caring about the world around you, you may have gained a reputation for kindness and personal integrity. This can make you a role model for others who'd like to be as driven by the same high ideals as you seem to be. While you may want to be comfortable and have nice things, ambition and financial gain probably aren't the things that drive you most. You're more likely lead by a desire to live by your own high personal standards and moral code.See how you fare. I'll buy lunch for the first person who gets a result that doesn't prove that they're secretly admired by all humanity for their high ideals and excellent character.
People who have peace as their unconscious drive tend to be independent thinkers who appreciate taking the time to get to know themselves well. If this is true for you, you're probably not one to shy away from life's big questions. You may even seek out chances to learn new things about yourself. By being willing to examine who you are and staying open to your environment, you foster a kind of fearlessness that can continually enrich your life.
UPDATE: The wife looked it over, and said, "That's really accurate. You create peace and order around you. Whether people like it or not."
Yeah, OK. I'm a peacemaker. Just like Colonel Colt.
Foxtrot
Cartoonists on Electric Voting:
Armed Liberal at Winds of Change recently linked to this Foxtrot cartoon on electronic voting machines. Now, I see that DilbertBlog has a few things to say too:
there’s a 100% chance that the voting machines will get hacked and all future elections will be rigged. But that doesn’t mean we’ll get a worse government. It probably means that the choice of the next American president will be taken out of the hands of deep-pocket, autofellating, corporate shitbags and put it into the hands of some teenager in Finland. How is that not an improvement?Well, that makes me feel a lot better. I think InstaPundit is right -- paper ballots are the wave of the future! Except, of course, that the hackers will oppose it.
Statistically speaking, any hacker who is skilled enough to rig the elections will also be smart enough to select politicians that believe in . . . oh, let’s say for example, science.... The important thing with democracy – and this has always been the case – is that the citizens a) Believe the election result is based on the common sense and voting rights of the citizens, and b) Have enough handguns to wax any politicians who gets too seriously out of line (also known as a “check and balance”).
And here the definition of “seriously out of line” would not include humping interns and stealing from taxpayers. Those things should be allowed, even encouraged, so we can attract the most capable candidates from private industry.
Call me an optimist, but electronic voting machines make me feel good about my country.
Is it too late to start selling bumper stickers that say “I think I voted”?
Key Races
Key Race Concept:
As we come down to the end, it is clear enough that we're not fighting over a nationwide referrendum -- in spite of stories about "right track/wrong track" polls, the truth is it's several key races that are going to determine control of the government this year. Nowhere is that clearer than here in Georgia, where George Bush flew past Atlanta (passing over my head on the way -- Air Force One and escort soared above us about midmorning), and campaigned in nowheresville the little rural college town of Statesboro.
The appearance drew this bit of press:
Bush made Monday’s stop to boost the campaigns of Congressional hopeful Max Burns and the Georgia governor.Hey, that is cool.
“It makes me feel comfortable to be here in a state where your governor wears cowboy boots,” the president said.
The boots, complete with a state seal, even drew the envy of a Secret Service agent who admired them when Perdue arrived for the morning rally.
Valor IT Challenge
VALOUR-IT Challenge:
The Project VALOUR-IT military challenge has begun for this year. Cassandra is griping that BlackFive mislinked in his post, sending Marines to the wrong "leader" page. The real leader of the Marine team is Cassidy herself.
Well, I've got a gripe too -- she forgot to invite me to join the team. Or Doc, either, it appears.
In spite of the fact that we were not invited, I signed us up for the Marine team. If you're able, please help out.
I assume all readers here know what Project VALOUR-IT is about, as it's something we've talked about often since its inception. If you are new to MilBlogs, see here, through which you can also find links to make donations. Sadly, IEDs as a chief means of war have led to many servicemen who deserve, and need, their aid.
Oh, Dear
Oh, Dear:
Cassidy wants you to play a game with her.
All I can say is, I hope they write better laws than... who am I kidding? We already know they don't.
THW Gov't Fathers
Government is not a Father to Us:
But hey, it works, right? Sure it does. 48% drop in alcohol-related violence -- can't argue with that.
Except, I think, by looking at what these things do to us as citizens. It makes us accustomed to a level of control that is unfit for a free people. It makes us learn to accept the idea that it is perfectly right for the government, or its appointed agents, to examine us in whatever detail it may wish, at any time.
I want to be able to sit and have a beer in peace, without the government leaning in from Atlanta to demand my papers. I don't think it's wrong for people to have a pleasant smoke, so long as it's not in such an enclosed area that other people can't get away from it if they like.
Joel Leggett and I once had a good exchange on the topic, starting here and ending here. Joel reminded us of John Wayne, in The Alamo, who said that in a Republic people could "be drunk or sober, however they choose."
Kim du Toit once posted a fine essay asserting that, "I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: 'to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.'"
As we should. There are benefits, in some cases, to the nanny-state approach. Those benefits are undercut by the fact that they make it harder -- and make it seem, to some, shameful -- for a man to behave like a man.
To hell with that.
I realize it's been fully a week since I felt like I had anything to blog about at all. There's lots going on, but I just haven't felt like I had anything particular to add.
I still don't, but I am feeling irritated today, so I'm just going to resort to a rant. The subject of the rant will be bad behavior related to alcohol.
Whose bad behavior? Not the drunks, of whom there are noticably fewer these days. There's a great deal less drinking, smoking, and fighting in America, which most people regard as unmitigated improvements. I'm not sure we couldn't use a little more of all three.
I am entirely sure we have gone too far in trying to curb these activities. Last night I took my wife and family to dinner at a local restaurant. I ordered a pint of Guinness with my burger. The waitress carded me.
"I'm so sorry," she apologized as she did it. "I have to card absolutely everyone. My parents come in here, and I have to card them too."
She's right, of course. The law now requires it in Georgia. No one could possibly mistake me for a teenager trying to sneak a drink, but even were I 75 years old I should have to show my identification. There is no need for it to enforce the laws against underage drinking, as only borderline cases really require identification. There is no need for it to enforce the laws against serving people who are already intoxicated, as your age is immaterial if you're obviously drunken.
Rather, it is a pure form of harrassment. The intention is to make having a beer seem like a dirty activity, something of which society is rightly suspicious. I find that plainly offensive. Drunkenness is surely bad, but beer, as David Allen Coe used to say, is good for you.
This absurd treatment has surely had some positive effects. I understand that DUI-related deaths are down these last few years, as the anti-drinking movement has managed to push the acceptable blood-alcohol level down in most states. I'm not even sure what it is in Georgia now; it seems like it changes ever year, although always only in one direction.
Not that further gains aren't possible. Britain is enjoying a 48% decline in alcohol related violence in its rowdiest party town. The cost of such a decline?
Customers entering the town's six main late-night drinking and dancing joints were being asked to register their personal details, have their photograph taken and submit to a biometric finger scan.Fingerprints. And a mugshot. Just for walking in the place.
But hey, it works, right? Sure it does. 48% drop in alcohol-related violence -- can't argue with that.
Except, I think, by looking at what these things do to us as citizens. It makes us accustomed to a level of control that is unfit for a free people. It makes us learn to accept the idea that it is perfectly right for the government, or its appointed agents, to examine us in whatever detail it may wish, at any time.
I want to be able to sit and have a beer in peace, without the government leaning in from Atlanta to demand my papers. I don't think it's wrong for people to have a pleasant smoke, so long as it's not in such an enclosed area that other people can't get away from it if they like.
Joel Leggett and I once had a good exchange on the topic, starting here and ending here. Joel reminded us of John Wayne, in The Alamo, who said that in a Republic people could "be drunk or sober, however they choose."
Kim du Toit once posted a fine essay asserting that, "I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: 'to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.'"
As we should. There are benefits, in some cases, to the nanny-state approach. Those benefits are undercut by the fact that they make it harder -- and make it seem, to some, shameful -- for a man to behave like a man.
To hell with that.
October 25th
Today marks two notable occasions:
End of the Siege of Lisbon and recapture of the city from the Muslims, and the Battle of Agincourt where the English overcame the odds.
Along with Chesterton's 'The Last Hero', and the anonymous 'The Battle of Maldon', the below is another reading which I employ regularly.
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
End of the Siege of Lisbon and recapture of the city from the Muslims, and the Battle of Agincourt where the English overcame the odds.
Along with Chesterton's 'The Last Hero', and the anonymous 'The Battle of Maldon', the below is another reading which I employ regularly.
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Cowboy Talk
Cowboy Talk:
The Washington Post recently published a piece asking for a little Cowboy talk on North Korea. Here is some.
Iraqi Scouts
The Boy Scouts in Iraq:
Regular commenter Ron Fox added some information to the post on Spirit of America, below. I'd like to move it up to the front.
To make a donation to the Iraqi Scouting Initiative, featured in "Jihad Jamboree," by Patrick Graham, in Outside's October issue, send your check to:Thanks, Ron.
The World Friendship Fund
Boy Scouts of America
1325 West Walnut Hill Lane
PO Box 152079
Irving, Texas 75015-2079
Make your check out to the "World Friendship Fund." On the notation line at the bottom of your check, please write "for the Iraqi Scouting Initiative." One hundred percent of all donations go to the Iraqi Scouting programs.
Duty to Country
The Limits of Duty to Country:
Part I: Classics
Plato appears to have thought so, for he has Socrates relate the point as explanation for why he will not attempt to flee his own execution. Here is the excerpt from the Crito:
Sam, in asserting the same position, is on very solid philosophical ground. He will find this traditional conception asserted time and again through history. Once Europe becomes Christian, he will find defenders in the Church as well as in the halls of the state.
Part II: Enlightenment Thinking
He will find it difficult, however, to justify the United States of America.
Because of its history, the United States requires a different explanation of the authority of the state. It arose in rebellion to civic authority, by serious thinkers who believed that what they were doing was not only neither a crime nor a sin, but an expression of their rights under the natural law written by their Creator. Catholic theory has a different view of what natural law has to say on the subject; search on "canker-worm" in the previous link to find it.
It is possible that Jefferson and Washington were wrong -- both criminals and, if you like, sinners. In overturning civic authority, they therefore created a great crime -- but we might still be justified in newfound obedience to the state they created. For better or worse, it is now the civic authority, and we should show it the obedience that they wrongly denied to the authorities of their day.
However, it is also possible they were right. If so, there is a right to rebel -- a natural law that holds that men are created equal, even if 'one man is [not] as good as another,' as the Catholic article holds. The American nation is founded on the idea that rebellion is a human right: "...to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them[.]"
If that is so, though, how to get around the problems raised by Socrates, and Sam?
Part III: The Problem of Rebellion
Does it not do violence to the law and the communal good, as Socrates held, to believe that anyone is justified in putting aside the common law? The Alcibidaes quote suggests that "tyranny" might be an answer to the problem -- when the state is behaving tyrannically, it is proper to overthrow it. Not by accident nor by coincidence, "Tyranny" was a term frequent in the writings of the Founding Fathers.
Yet what is tyranny, finally? If the state is going to execute you, is that not the ultimate tyranny from your point of view? If it drafts you into its wars, when you do not agree, is that not tyranny? If not, why is it tyranny to impose a tax on tea or require the purchase of stamps?
We are treating with natural rights here: we need to be able to say that in the one case, to rebel is a wrong justly punishable by the state even unto death; but in the other case, to rebel is the exercise of a natural right that the state has no proper authority to resist. Yet there is no clear line: America holds that the Boston Tea Party was an exercise of natural rights, but that the secession of the Southern states -- by acts of assembly not different in form from those that created the United States -- were unjustified rebellion.
Part IV: Wagering Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor
Some of this can be excused by pointing out that the facts on the ground were decided by the wager of battle, not by philosophers. It should be no surprise that the wages of battle are chaotic. They always are.
If we look at likely future scenarios, too, there is a certainty that claims will be tested by the wager of battle. This may not be so full-throated as all out war: the Civil Rights movement entailed real fighting and military force, with marches in defiance of legal orders; regular deployments of the National Guard; attacks on police by rioters in Boston and elsewhere; and even lynchings by insurgent mobs.
That is to restate that rebellion is a natural right -- but it is also to add that it is a right with costs. You do not exercise the right to rebellion like you do the right to religious liberty.
The right to rebel has to be said to be a natural right, but one that must be justified in the midst of the field.
That is to say: We are free men, not slaves. If we obey, we choose to obey. If we do not, we are as right as we can make ourselves. We wager our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor -- and, if we are truly justified, we do so in bonds with other men who freely choose to stand with us and stake their own.
Oddly enough, this proves to be the resolution to the problem raised by the Catholics:
All of which reminds me of the climactic lines in the movie Shane. There, too, there were competitors for who was the proper authority -- the bold cowboys who had fared hard against the Cheyenne in settling the land, or the new farmers who wished to move in and build fences across the range. There, too, the existing authority had brought in force of arms, in the form of a gunfighter named Wilson, to enforce the existing order. In deciding to stake his life, fortune and honor on the challenge to that order, Shane faces the 'state's' righteous demand:
In the comments to an earlier post on stoning (as to which, by the way, at least one of the women mentioned has had a brief stay granted), commenter Sam asked to hear my thoughts on his argument. His basic argument on adultery I shall leave, since I've already made my position on the matter clear in the earlier comments. He did, though, raise a very interesting point about the power of the state:
And: we've all submitted to a level of "ownership" by the state. This country does a better job of minimizing that than most, but society exists to restrict the freedom to do "bad" things in the hope that "good" freedoms will be expanded. When we disagree about what good and bad are is where we bump up against that ownership issue. We have to do as we're told or end up dead/imprisoned. That's ownership, isn't it?Is it proper to think of Americans as "owned" by the state? Is that the right relationship, more broadly, for a person to have with the state?
Part I: Classics
Plato appears to have thought so, for he has Socrates relate the point as explanation for why he will not attempt to flee his own execution. Here is the excerpt from the Crito:
Soc. "Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?" None, I should reply. "Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?" Right, I should reply. "Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to a father or to your master, if you had one, when you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other evil at his hands?- you would not say this? And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far as in you lies? And will you, O professor of true virtue, say that you are justified in this? Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor, and more to be regarded in the eyes of the gods and of men of understanding? also to be soothed, and gently and reverently entreated when angry, even more than a father, and if not persuaded, obeyed? And when we are punished by her, whether with imprisonment or stripes, the punishment is to be endured in silence; and if she leads us to wounds or death in battle, thither we follow as is right; neither may anyone yield or retreat or leave his rank, but whether in battle or in a court of law, or in any other place, he must do what his city and his country order him; or he must change their view of what is just: and if he may do no violence to his father or mother, much less may he do violence to his country." What answer shall we make to this, Crito? Do the laws speak truly, or do they not?Plato's position might be said to be further amplified by the following exchange on being a free man versus being a slave, from the Alcibidaes:
Cr. I think that they do.
SOCRATES:This is the classical view, then: that the state does indeed own a man, as even a "free man" is like a slave morally; and the state's ownership is to be directed at improving the greater virtue of the community. To truly become free requires the help of God. In the meanwhile, the state's ownership of men is right and proper.
Or again, in a ship, if a man having the power to do what he likes, has no intelligence or skill in navigation, do you see what will happen to him and to his fellow-sailors?
ALCIBIADES:
Yes; I see that they will all perish.
SOCRATES:
And in like manner, in a state, and where there is any power and authority which is wanting in virtue, will not misfortune, in like manner, ensue?
ALCIBIADES:
Certainly.
SOCRATES:
Not tyrannical power, then, my good Alcibiades, should be the aim either of individuals or states, if they would be happy, but virtue.
ALCIBIADES:
That is true.
SOCRATES:
And before they have virtue, to be commanded by a superior is better for men as well as for children? (Compare Arist. Pol.)
ALCIBIADES:
That is evident.
SOCRATES:
And that which is better is also nobler?
ALCIBIADES:
True.
SOCRATES:
And what is nobler is more becoming?
ALCIBIADES:
Certainly.
SOCRATES:
Then to the bad man slavery is more becoming, because better?
ALCIBIADES:
True.
SOCRATES:
Then vice is only suited to a slave?
ALCIBIADES:
Yes.
SOCRATES:
And virtue to a freeman?
ALCIBIADES:
Yes.
SOCRATES:
And, O my friend, is not the condition of a slave to be avoided?
ALCIBIADES:
Certainly, Socrates.
SOCRATES:
And are you now conscious of your own state? And do you know whether you are a freeman or not?
ALCIBIADES:
I think that I am very conscious indeed of my own state.
SOCRATES:
And do you know how to escape out of a state which I do not even like to name to my beauty?
ALCIBIADES:
Yes, I do.
SOCRATES:
How?
ALCIBIADES:
By your help, Socrates.
SOCRATES:
That is not well said, Alcibiades.
ALCIBIADES:
What ought I to have said?
SOCRATES:
By the help of God.
Sam, in asserting the same position, is on very solid philosophical ground. He will find this traditional conception asserted time and again through history. Once Europe becomes Christian, he will find defenders in the Church as well as in the halls of the state.
Part II: Enlightenment Thinking
He will find it difficult, however, to justify the United States of America.
Because of its history, the United States requires a different explanation of the authority of the state. It arose in rebellion to civic authority, by serious thinkers who believed that what they were doing was not only neither a crime nor a sin, but an expression of their rights under the natural law written by their Creator. Catholic theory has a different view of what natural law has to say on the subject; search on "canker-worm" in the previous link to find it.
It is possible that Jefferson and Washington were wrong -- both criminals and, if you like, sinners. In overturning civic authority, they therefore created a great crime -- but we might still be justified in newfound obedience to the state they created. For better or worse, it is now the civic authority, and we should show it the obedience that they wrongly denied to the authorities of their day.
However, it is also possible they were right. If so, there is a right to rebel -- a natural law that holds that men are created equal, even if 'one man is [not] as good as another,' as the Catholic article holds. The American nation is founded on the idea that rebellion is a human right: "...to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them[.]"
If that is so, though, how to get around the problems raised by Socrates, and Sam?
Part III: The Problem of Rebellion
Does it not do violence to the law and the communal good, as Socrates held, to believe that anyone is justified in putting aside the common law? The Alcibidaes quote suggests that "tyranny" might be an answer to the problem -- when the state is behaving tyrannically, it is proper to overthrow it. Not by accident nor by coincidence, "Tyranny" was a term frequent in the writings of the Founding Fathers.
Yet what is tyranny, finally? If the state is going to execute you, is that not the ultimate tyranny from your point of view? If it drafts you into its wars, when you do not agree, is that not tyranny? If not, why is it tyranny to impose a tax on tea or require the purchase of stamps?
We are treating with natural rights here: we need to be able to say that in the one case, to rebel is a wrong justly punishable by the state even unto death; but in the other case, to rebel is the exercise of a natural right that the state has no proper authority to resist. Yet there is no clear line: America holds that the Boston Tea Party was an exercise of natural rights, but that the secession of the Southern states -- by acts of assembly not different in form from those that created the United States -- were unjustified rebellion.
Part IV: Wagering Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor
Some of this can be excused by pointing out that the facts on the ground were decided by the wager of battle, not by philosophers. It should be no surprise that the wages of battle are chaotic. They always are.
If we look at likely future scenarios, too, there is a certainty that claims will be tested by the wager of battle. This may not be so full-throated as all out war: the Civil Rights movement entailed real fighting and military force, with marches in defiance of legal orders; regular deployments of the National Guard; attacks on police by rioters in Boston and elsewhere; and even lynchings by insurgent mobs.
That is to restate that rebellion is a natural right -- but it is also to add that it is a right with costs. You do not exercise the right to rebellion like you do the right to religious liberty.
The right to rebel has to be said to be a natural right, but one that must be justified in the midst of the field.
That is to say: We are free men, not slaves. If we obey, we choose to obey. If we do not, we are as right as we can make ourselves. We wager our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor -- and, if we are truly justified, we do so in bonds with other men who freely choose to stand with us and stake their own.
Oddly enough, this proves to be the resolution to the problem raised by the Catholics:
All [ultra-democratic doctrines] originate in a manifestly false supposition, that one man is as good as another.Not so this one. It holds that this fundamental human right has to be justified according to the wager of battle. That implies a matching of tactics and strategies, the making of alliances and the forging of powerful arguments. Not just any man will be the equal of that task. Here is an ultra-democratic doctrine: it holds that any man may overthrow the state, and be right to do it. But it does not believe that any man is good enough to do it.
All of which reminds me of the climactic lines in the movie Shane. There, too, there were competitors for who was the proper authority -- the bold cowboys who had fared hard against the Cheyenne in settling the land, or the new farmers who wished to move in and build fences across the range. There, too, the existing authority had brought in force of arms, in the form of a gunfighter named Wilson, to enforce the existing order. In deciding to stake his life, fortune and honor on the challenge to that order, Shane faces the 'state's' righteous demand:
Shane: So you're Jack Wilson.John Hancock did. He proved that we are free men, not slaves. That shall I defend, with my life and fortune, and sacred honor.
Jack Wilson: What's that mean to you, Shane?
Shane: I've heard about you.
Jack Wilson: What have you heard, Shane?
Shane: I've heard that you're a low-down Yankee liar.
Jack Wilson: Prove it.
SoA Mattis
Spirit of America Meets Gen. Mattis:
It's been a while since I mentioned the charity Spirit of America, which takes civilian donations and then buys things like school supplies or soccer balls for Marines to distribute among Iraqis. Jim Hake, a nice guy I once met in D.C., has had a chance to meet with General Mattis.
Sadly, he appears not to have asked the General to run for President, as I believe he needs to do. However, he did ask some other things. General Mattis had high praise for SoA's sewing centers, where donated sewing machines have allowed many Iraqi women to start small businesses of their own. Unfortunately, one such center in Ramadi was destroyed by insurgents who would prefer to keep women under more traditional conditions.
Read the rest. There's also an entry about Boy and Girl Scouts in Iraq, and many other things besides.
Insult Poetry
An Insult!
Honor societies both praise and damn, and the poetry follows the consciousness. You can write a poem praising a great king -- but you can also, as the bards of Ireland were said to do, write a satire so stinging that it can cause a bad king's downfall.
Viking poetry probably occupies the height (or depth, depending on your outlook) of this particular tradition. "Political whore" is rather tame by comparison to what the Vikings would say about a man in an insult poem -- so much so that there were laws specifically designed to deal with such poems, and these laws often permitted you to kill the insulter with impunity. Callimachus wrote on the subject a while ago, and Gunnora Hallakarva produced a classic piece that deals with the matter (scroll down to "insults alleging homosexuality").
Egil Skallagrimsson used poetry both to praise and curse. (You can hear some of his poetry read in the Old Norse here.) Even the gods were said to do so -- the famous Lokasena has the gods exchanging ribald insults around a feast hall.
Giovanni appears to be acting out of a similar African tradition, and we shouldn't be surprised to see one. Insult poetry is common in hip-hop, for example: people you feel have done right by you get praised to the sky, but people you feel have done wrong by you are described in terms that make them seem low sorts of animals.
Personally, I didn't think the poem she read was very good, but that is because I have little use for unstructured verse. The Viking insult poems were delivered in highly formal and artistic systems. Pretty much anyone can write poems like the one Giovanni delivered -- there is no skill. Egil Skallagrimsson would sneer, rightly, at someone who wrote so poor an insult verse.
Yet he very well might smile at some of the better hip-hop lyrics. I certainly do, on occasion.
Cassidy says that "Poetry isn't what it used to be." She is referring to this:
If Ken Blackwell becomes Ohio's governor, don't look for Nikki Giovanni to be appointed the state's poet laureate.The lines in the poem are as follows:
Giovanni shocked the crowd Saturday as she read her dedicatory poem on Fountain Square by referring to Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, as a "son of a bitch" and a "political whore."
Actually, this is a grand old tradition in poetry. Since we're talking about honor and poems around the battle of Hastings today, here's a good chance to expand the discussion. Honor societies have very often expressed themselves poetically, as poetry is often thought to be one of the warrior arts. This is true both in Western societies and Eastern ones, Islamic and Christian and pagan. Turkish traditional "singers of tales" were the focus of Albert Lord's extraordinary work, The Singer of Tales. He traced -- convincingly, I believe -- the tradition in Turkey to Homer. Japanese samurai and monks alike wrote death poems. Chinese kings and nobles expressed praise and threats through poetics.I am not a son of a bitch like Kenny Blackwell
...
I will not use the color of my skin to cover the hatred in my heart
I am not a political whore jumping from bed to bed to see who will stroke my knee...
Honor societies both praise and damn, and the poetry follows the consciousness. You can write a poem praising a great king -- but you can also, as the bards of Ireland were said to do, write a satire so stinging that it can cause a bad king's downfall.
Viking poetry probably occupies the height (or depth, depending on your outlook) of this particular tradition. "Political whore" is rather tame by comparison to what the Vikings would say about a man in an insult poem -- so much so that there were laws specifically designed to deal with such poems, and these laws often permitted you to kill the insulter with impunity. Callimachus wrote on the subject a while ago, and Gunnora Hallakarva produced a classic piece that deals with the matter (scroll down to "insults alleging homosexuality").
Egil Skallagrimsson used poetry both to praise and curse. (You can hear some of his poetry read in the Old Norse here.) Even the gods were said to do so -- the famous Lokasena has the gods exchanging ribald insults around a feast hall.
Giovanni appears to be acting out of a similar African tradition, and we shouldn't be surprised to see one. Insult poetry is common in hip-hop, for example: people you feel have done right by you get praised to the sky, but people you feel have done wrong by you are described in terms that make them seem low sorts of animals.
Personally, I didn't think the poem she read was very good, but that is because I have little use for unstructured verse. The Viking insult poems were delivered in highly formal and artistic systems. Pretty much anyone can write poems like the one Giovanni delivered -- there is no skill. Egil Skallagrimsson would sneer, rightly, at someone who wrote so poor an insult verse.
Yet he very well might smile at some of the better hip-hop lyrics. I certainly do, on occasion.
I see this last Saturday was the 940th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. (link with picture goodness). I note it because this is one those actually remembered battles (as opposed to all those we don't remember) that had deep, significant consequences that reach down even today.
Nice try, King Harold. You almost pulled it off.
Style points to Ivo Taillefer: A Norman knight (and perhaps minstrel) who begged Duke William to lead the first charge, and did it singing Songs of Roland:
He apparently was killed, but we'll remember him too. Which I suppose, is as it should be.
Nice try, King Harold. You almost pulled it off.
Style points to Ivo Taillefer: A Norman knight (and perhaps minstrel) who begged Duke William to lead the first charge, and did it singing Songs of Roland:
Taillefer, who sang right well,
Upon a swift horse
Sang before the Duke
Of Charlemagne and of Roland
And of Oliver and their vassals
That died at Roncesvalles.
He apparently was killed, but we'll remember him too. Which I suppose, is as it should be.
Endorsements
Two Endorsements:
I won't actually be voting in any closely-run race this year, having moved to what turns out to be a very safe district in Georgia. That said, there are two races in which I would like to take a moment to express my support for a given candidate.
I usually only issue endorsements to Democrats, as I am a Democrat -- President Bush in 2004 being the notable exception. However, I can only rarely endorse a Democrat these days, the national party being what it is.
I would like to urge voters in Virginia, where I lived most of the last several years, to vote for Jim Webb for Senate. I realize that Mr. Webb and I disagree on, well, most everything he cares to discuss at length. Mr. Allen and I are much more closely aligned in political opinions. Further, I do of course recognize that this is a very tight year for the Senate, and a party switch of even one seat could have far-reaching consequences.
Nevertheless, Mr. Webb is the better man. His life story is sufficient cause to prefer him as a Senator. He is a good man, a brave and honorable man, a Marine, and that is something the Senate needs. He has proven to be resistant to the lure of power, resigning his post as Secretary of the Navy rather than cut the force structure as Congress demanded. He believed they were wrong, and he put his shirt where his heart was.
That is the old way.
This is not the way things are meant to be in America -- our institutions were designed by the Founders with the recognition that we could only rarely expect politicians to be good men. The system should be indifferent to the quality of the Senators.
Given the sharp and structural flaws in the Senate, and the rest of the government, it cannot be said to be. For that cause, I think it is necessary to vote for men of proven character and honor. Though I disagree with Mr. Webb, I respect him for who he has been and what he has done. I would vote for him, and I urge you to do so if you can.
I'm also going to endorse Kinky Friedman for Governor of the great state of Texas. This is a much-less-strong endorsement. Nevertheless, he is a throwback to the age when Democrats elected great local characters -- Charlie Wilson, say. You Texas voters doubtless have your own ideas, and that's fine, but of the crop he's the one I think I'd most enjoy hearing from about the state's various problems for the next several years.
You must all vote your consciences on Election day, of course, and I won't hold that against anyone. In case you were wondering what I thought about things, though, there you are.
Heroes and Monsters
Heroes and Monsters:
After an encouragement posted here some time ago, I decided to find a copy of Beowulf for reading. The first copy I found was an audio-book at a local library, a recent edition translated and read by Seamus Heaney. More recently, I have been able to find a text version of the same translation, with the Anglo-Saxon text set out alongside the translation.
There's a lot that could be said; I'll simply say that I loved it.
The story-telling sometimes rushes, sometimes wanders, and sometimes takes unexpected side-turnings. But when it is read aloud by a competent poet and story-teller like Heaney, it comes alive in the listener's mind. As the story draws towards its ending, the listener is filled with awe at the life and death of Beowulf.
One of the interesting parts of the story is contained in who and what Beowulf fights. He is a powerful wrestler, very capable with spear and sword, and must have fought fellow-men many times in the wars between the Geats, Frisians, Danes, and Swedes. But the poem doesn't mention these fights. All of the important feats of Beowulf that are mentioned are struggles against monstrous evil.
This makes Beowulf's deeds stand out in sharp relief; he is a mighty warrior against the demonic evil of Grendel, the hideous strength of Grendel's mother, and the fiery danger of a dragon. These examples of courage allow Beowulf to become more than an example of a particularly good warrior for his tribe. They make him into an example for a much wider audience.
I suspect this is why the story survived in the form it did, and why it is still capable of enthralling readers and listeners.
A surprising aside along the way: I have learned that Beowulf was a curiousity for historians and scholars of the Anglo-Saxon language for several centuries after its re-discovery. In the 1930's, a watershed lecture by scholar J.R.R. Tolkien changed this radically, by insisting that Beowulf was important first as a work of art. Some say that the old Anglo-Saxon poem would not be read widely today if Tolkien had not delivered that lecture.
At minimum, I suspect that there are echoes of Beowulf in the works of Tolkien. Which should make re-reading Tolkien's works much more interesting.
After an encouragement posted here some time ago, I decided to find a copy of Beowulf for reading. The first copy I found was an audio-book at a local library, a recent edition translated and read by Seamus Heaney. More recently, I have been able to find a text version of the same translation, with the Anglo-Saxon text set out alongside the translation.
There's a lot that could be said; I'll simply say that I loved it.
The story-telling sometimes rushes, sometimes wanders, and sometimes takes unexpected side-turnings. But when it is read aloud by a competent poet and story-teller like Heaney, it comes alive in the listener's mind. As the story draws towards its ending, the listener is filled with awe at the life and death of Beowulf.
One of the interesting parts of the story is contained in who and what Beowulf fights. He is a powerful wrestler, very capable with spear and sword, and must have fought fellow-men many times in the wars between the Geats, Frisians, Danes, and Swedes. But the poem doesn't mention these fights. All of the important feats of Beowulf that are mentioned are struggles against monstrous evil.
This makes Beowulf's deeds stand out in sharp relief; he is a mighty warrior against the demonic evil of Grendel, the hideous strength of Grendel's mother, and the fiery danger of a dragon. These examples of courage allow Beowulf to become more than an example of a particularly good warrior for his tribe. They make him into an example for a much wider audience.
I suspect this is why the story survived in the form it did, and why it is still capable of enthralling readers and listeners.
A surprising aside along the way: I have learned that Beowulf was a curiousity for historians and scholars of the Anglo-Saxon language for several centuries after its re-discovery. In the 1930's, a watershed lecture by scholar J.R.R. Tolkien changed this radically, by insisting that Beowulf was important first as a work of art. Some say that the old Anglo-Saxon poem would not be read widely today if Tolkien had not delivered that lecture.
At minimum, I suspect that there are echoes of Beowulf in the works of Tolkien. Which should make re-reading Tolkien's works much more interesting.
"There is nothing on this Green Earth..."
Ok, gents, you got my attention with that one.
Army Strong (streaming video)
Better than the last slogan, that's for sure.
Ok, gents, you got my attention with that one.
Army Strong (streaming video)
Better than the last slogan, that's for sure.
Ya'at'eeh
Ya'at'eeh!
Good work, in any event. Even a clever coyote is still a coyote.
I love a clever man, even one on the other side:
Thirty illegal entrants were found in a vehicle that had been made up to look like a U.S. Border Patrol transport van, authorities said.They got caught on the Tohono O'odham reservation by Border Patrol Agents. No doubt it was because the Indians called to complain about an unauthorized incursion by the Feds.
Good work, in any event. Even a clever coyote is still a coyote.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)