Kim du Toit points to another major media outlet falling to the Joos.
Meanwhile, a confession is made.
Zion Consp.
Zionist Conspiracy Theories #4,342,671-2:
Happy Valentines
Happy Valentines Day:
JarHeadDad suggests the following touching card for those of you still looking for a date tonight:
Those of you who are married will, of course, already have your cards picked out, ready for a quick exchange before a romantic evening of doing the dishes and folding laundry. What a wonderful holiday, with something for everyone. :)
UPDATE: Another option for married men: your wife calls to thank you for the kind gift she picked out for her. Poor Doc.
Valentine's Day
So far, the day has been good. I was given the obligatory Reese's peanut butter heart as well as an unexpected surprise, a new hat.
I'm not, ordinarily, a hat wearer. Yes, I wore cowboy hats as a young boy, and as a young man I had a nice felt Stetson that I would occasionally wear... but as a man my hat wearing has predominantly been limited to military service.
Now I own a very nice fedora in the "Indiana Jones" style (and my wife was dead-on with my hat size!).
Thanks to Grim, and reader comments, I know much more about the care and choosing of a good hat. I'm also becoming convinced that the daily wearing of a hat style, beyond baseball cap, is not a goofy thing. So, can anyone offer up some good etiquette tips?
Thanks.
I'm not, ordinarily, a hat wearer. Yes, I wore cowboy hats as a young boy, and as a young man I had a nice felt Stetson that I would occasionally wear... but as a man my hat wearing has predominantly been limited to military service.
Now I own a very nice fedora in the "Indiana Jones" style (and my wife was dead-on with my hat size!).
Thanks to Grim, and reader comments, I know much more about the care and choosing of a good hat. I'm also becoming convinced that the daily wearing of a hat style, beyond baseball cap, is not a goofy thing. So, can anyone offer up some good etiquette tips?
Thanks.
Singing
Some Songs, Boys:
JHD apparently went to the trouble of watching the Grammies last night, which shows more dedication than I have. He sent this link to the best performance of the night, a very good rendition of "San Antonio Rose" including the original fiddler.
Good stuff. I'm glad to see the old Western Swing getting a respectful hearing. Nothing like a fiddle and a steel guitar.
I'm also going to recommend The Pine Box Boys to those of you around here with hand-to-hand/CQB training. They're not for everyone, but if you're a rockabilly/bluegrass fellow who would enjoy "the sound of a loud, angry acoustic band bent on killing," this may be for you. Click on the "Play All Songs" link, and sit through a couple of them.
DPRK Deal
DPRK Nuclear Deal: Good, Bad, or Ugly?
Now, a more important matter: plutonium. As China E-Lobby points out, we've seen no public mention of the highly enriched uranium project -- the one that the DPRK hid from Clinton-administration officials. Insofar as this was the form of cheating they used before, it's odd that it's not prominently addressed. One might almost think that we were intentionally leaving them a loophole.
That's the main thing to watch going forward. These "nuclear inspectors" -- are they going to have access to the HEU sites, or just Yongbyon? That site depends on unenriched uranium, which can be reprocessed into plutonium. But the HEU can be used for nukes too.
If we don't see an answer to that question in the press ASAP, we'll want to start pressing our representatives to get an answer.
I'll take a moment to address John Bolton's objection.
Next: how does this compare with the Clinton-era deal? The answer is that it compares favorably, for one reason. Unlike the Clinton-era deal, this one is brokered by China. You are not required to believe in Chinese good-faith to see the value in this. The Chinese want to be taken seriously as a world power. They have considerable "face" invested in this deal. For the DPRK, cheating against the US is one thing, a thing that in fact has no real downside. Cheating against the US and China both is another.
That is not to say they won't do it. The DPRK is right up against the wall, and desperate people do desperate things. What I am saying is, when they break faith with the deal, we will be in a position to manage their downfall more effectively. Because China will be embarrassed by their bad faith, they will offer less support to the regime when the time for confrontation arises.
Where does all this leave us? The DPRK is off the "Axis of Evil" list for a few years. They will be salvaged from the collapse they so richly deserve; in return, we don't have to devote resources to managing that collapse until we've had time to deal with Iraq and Iran, and China will be forced into a more supportive position when the time comes that we do have to manage the collapse. Iran has to deal with our undivided attention for the next period.
I'd call it a deal that borders on good and ugly, if the HEU issue is considered in a form not yet in the press. If that issue is not considered, it's just ugly -- although there are a few good points to be had from it, it's mostly about pushing the problems down the road to let us deal with other problems now.
We notice today that the six-party talks, ongoing lo these several years, have produced a deal with North Korea to stand down somewhat from its nuclear ambitions. I'd like to examine the deal, look at where it is deficient, how it contrasts with the Clinton-era deal.
First, the details. I've highlighted the parts I think are important:
U.S. officials on Tuesday defended the Bush administration's policy shift on North Korea, which coincided with an agreement by Pyongyang to begin to close down its nuclear program.OK, let's dispense with the easiest of these first: North Korean state media's analysis is of no interest at all. Insofar as they differ from everyone else, it's just because they're lying to their own people. That's the usual system for the DPRK, so it's no surprise; it has no relevance to the actual deal.
North Korea now has 60 days to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear complex and readmit nuclear inspectors. In return, it will get 50,000 tons of fuel oil or financial aid of an equal amount.
Once Pyongyang takes additional steps to disable its nuclear program, including taking inventory of its plutonium stockpile, it will qualify for another 950,000 tons of fuel oil or equivalent aid, according to the terms of the deal. The aid package is worth $300 million.
North Korean state media reported that the agreement called only for a "temporary suspension" of Pyongyang's nuclear program, according to wire reports.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice drew a distinction between the first 60-day period, when she said nuclear activities will be suspended, and the later "disablement phase."
"The disabling of these facilities is a sign that the North Koreans may, in fact, be ready to make a strategic choice," she said at a briefing in Washington. "I will not take it as a complete sign until we've seen that disablement, but obviously disablement is an important step forward."
Now, a more important matter: plutonium. As China E-Lobby points out, we've seen no public mention of the highly enriched uranium project -- the one that the DPRK hid from Clinton-administration officials. Insofar as this was the form of cheating they used before, it's odd that it's not prominently addressed. One might almost think that we were intentionally leaving them a loophole.
That's the main thing to watch going forward. These "nuclear inspectors" -- are they going to have access to the HEU sites, or just Yongbyon? That site depends on unenriched uranium, which can be reprocessed into plutonium. But the HEU can be used for nukes too.
If we don't see an answer to that question in the press ASAP, we'll want to start pressing our representatives to get an answer.
I'll take a moment to address John Bolton's objection.
"It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: If you hold out long enough and wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded," said Bolton, who was also involved with North Korea earlier as the State Department's undersecretary for arms control.I see his point, which isn't without merit. On the other hand, it also sends a signal to Iran that we're not going to have our attention divided. The DPRK matter will be set aside for the moment: that means we are free to focus our attention on Iraq and Iran. That ought to be somewhat intimidating.
"It makes the [Bush] administration look very weak at a time in Iraq and dealing with Iran it needs to look strong," he said.
Next: how does this compare with the Clinton-era deal? The answer is that it compares favorably, for one reason. Unlike the Clinton-era deal, this one is brokered by China. You are not required to believe in Chinese good-faith to see the value in this. The Chinese want to be taken seriously as a world power. They have considerable "face" invested in this deal. For the DPRK, cheating against the US is one thing, a thing that in fact has no real downside. Cheating against the US and China both is another.
That is not to say they won't do it. The DPRK is right up against the wall, and desperate people do desperate things. What I am saying is, when they break faith with the deal, we will be in a position to manage their downfall more effectively. Because China will be embarrassed by their bad faith, they will offer less support to the regime when the time for confrontation arises.
Where does all this leave us? The DPRK is off the "Axis of Evil" list for a few years. They will be salvaged from the collapse they so richly deserve; in return, we don't have to devote resources to managing that collapse until we've had time to deal with Iraq and Iran, and China will be forced into a more supportive position when the time comes that we do have to manage the collapse. Iran has to deal with our undivided attention for the next period.
I'd call it a deal that borders on good and ugly, if the HEU issue is considered in a form not yet in the press. If that issue is not considered, it's just ugly -- although there are a few good points to be had from it, it's mostly about pushing the problems down the road to let us deal with other problems now.
Kids OK
The Kids are All Right:
Fuzzybear Lioness has a story from a waiting room filled with military children.
Four 5-and-6-year-old boys were playing with the giant, interlocking plastic tiles. They had created very-impressive plane-like structures, which some boys were obviously riding. Others were carefully placing large numbers of dinosaur figures into enclosed portions of the structures. I asked what they were doing, and received the following community reply as several boys pitched in to flesh out the story for me...Those kids are going to turn out all right.
Video Blogging:
The rich media tools are not something I'll claim to understand. But all the same, here are two links you won't want to miss.
I'm still not going to vote for him, but this is the funniest thing I've seen in ages.
And this is the best thing to come from France since... Napoleon? Depends on your point of view, I guess. Dumas? Well, it's cool. Roman style, eh? Try it with six.
Horsemen!
The French Bluff:
Ahem. An article on a new French bestseller:
A distinguished French literary professor has become a surprise bestselling author by writing a book explaining how to wax intellectual about tomes that you have never actually read.And write he does, very well. I love the comment on Ulysses.
Pierre Baynard, 52, specialises in the link between literature and psychoanalysis, and says it is perfectly possible to bluff your way through a book that you have never read — especially if that conversation happens to be taking place with someone else who also hasn’t read it. All of which just goes to confirm what I’ve always thought about French academics, which is that mostly they are oversubsidised frauds.
Obviously I haven’t read Mr Baynard’s book; but it is in the spirit of his oeuvre that I shall proceed to write about it anyway.
Open Letter Ladybug
An Open Letter on Border Security:
A Texas border schoolteacher who blogs under the name "Miss Ladybug" has composed an open letter to George Bush. She is alarmed by the lack of effort to secure the border, and mystified as well. You may wish to read her thoughts.
Bam!
Roughnecks v. Terrorists:
Michael Yon's piece on the Roughnecks is too good to summarize. But it's also too good to resist summarizing. 2-7 Cav payback for five soldiers killed in a Hummer earlier this week; night gunfighting; Kiowas and .50 cals. It's the kind of reporting that made him famous.
Interrogator's Nightmare
"An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare"
But this part of the line is important:
The other two parts of the statement are statements of guilty feeling, without any formal standing in the law or in the military's code of honor. A contractor is not the one who is asked to decide whether or not an order is meritless, except for himself, with the remedy of leaving. Nor is he the one who decides whether or not the policy upholds the standards of human decency. That is done by the military, with the oversight of Congress to ensure that the People's common interests are upheld.
The man is saying he personally feels guilty about what he did. I am sorry that he is tormented. I have a genuine sympathy for any man who suffers as he says he does. But it is not at all unusual to find that you feel guilty about what you did in the war, any war; nor is it a reliable sign that anything is wrong. Sadly, it is entirely to be expected. He is far from the only man to suffer nightmares.
The middle part of his confession, though, is formally correct. It is therefore serious. A man who has custody of a prisoner does have a duty to protect him. If he fails in that duty, an answer must be given.
The 82nd will have to show that the conduct he claims he was ordered to perform either did not occur; or that it was not inconsistent with his duty to protect his prisoner. That is a point of honor, and the military cannot neglect those. I will await their word on the subject with interest.
This is an important piece to read. I'm not sure what to say about it yet, however; except one thing. This line, above all of it, strikes me:
I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency.It is not the first or the last part that concern me. A soldier has no right to consider whether an order is "meritless," but only whether it is illegal. However, this man was -- his biography says -- a contractor, who can of course refuse an order. He is free to go.
But this part of the line is important:
I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody.That is a formulation that uses the language of honor. A failure of honor is serious.
The other two parts of the statement are statements of guilty feeling, without any formal standing in the law or in the military's code of honor. A contractor is not the one who is asked to decide whether or not an order is meritless, except for himself, with the remedy of leaving. Nor is he the one who decides whether or not the policy upholds the standards of human decency. That is done by the military, with the oversight of Congress to ensure that the People's common interests are upheld.
The man is saying he personally feels guilty about what he did. I am sorry that he is tormented. I have a genuine sympathy for any man who suffers as he says he does. But it is not at all unusual to find that you feel guilty about what you did in the war, any war; nor is it a reliable sign that anything is wrong. Sadly, it is entirely to be expected. He is far from the only man to suffer nightmares.
The middle part of his confession, though, is formally correct. It is therefore serious. A man who has custody of a prisoner does have a duty to protect him. If he fails in that duty, an answer must be given.
The 82nd will have to show that the conduct he claims he was ordered to perform either did not occur; or that it was not inconsistent with his duty to protect his prisoner. That is a point of honor, and the military cannot neglect those. I will await their word on the subject with interest.
Galt on Marcotte
Galt on Marcotte:
Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: A Methodist will share his beer with you.
Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian from either?
A: The Presbyterian will stop the church bus off at the liquor store if you ask him.
(That last one is really true, at least sometimes -- my father's church softball team would do so.)
Here's an audio recording from the Late Great Lewis Grizzard: Mama Wanted Me to Be A Preacher. You can enjoy not just the preacher jokes, but the pure Southern accent.
My favorite preacher joke:
Joatmoaf had a good one the other day, about a preacher and a cowboy:
She's not required to, of course, but that's where her trouble arises. It's not the humor. It's the hatred.
Jane Galt worries that the furor over the recent Marcotte business indicates an attempt to shut down religious criticism. She indicates that this isn't really a shifting of the national dialogue, but perhaps just an assertion of new power by the backcountry:
Speaking as a proud member of the non-coastal non-elite, a backcountry North Georgia wearer of Stetson hats, I'd like to answer Ms. Galt's charge. Let's hear a few good religion jokes.What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window” is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.I think this captures the essence of the argument, although I'm not sure that Amp is right about this being an attempt to shift it; my admittedly limited knowlege of Non-Coastal-Elite-America indicates that in most of the country, slagging off the Pope, or indeed making fun of religion qua religion, is mostly verboten.
Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?
Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: A Methodist will share his beer with you.
Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian from either?
A: The Presbyterian will stop the church bus off at the liquor store if you ask him.
(That last one is really true, at least sometimes -- my father's church softball team would do so.)
Here's an audio recording from the Late Great Lewis Grizzard: Mama Wanted Me to Be A Preacher. You can enjoy not just the preacher jokes, but the pure Southern accent.
My favorite preacher joke:
One day a preacher was walking to church, when a local family passed him in their wagon. "Howdy, preacher!" the father called. "Want a ride?"That may have been a Grizzard joke too -- or one of my father's. :)
The preacher did, so they took him on in. The father asked, "What's the sermon going to be about today?"
"Fire and brimstone," the preacher answered. "I'm going to read 'em the Ten Commandments, first to last. I'm all fired up -- why, for the very reason you saw me walking today. Do you know that, in this very community, somebody stole my bicycle?"
"You don't say!" the father replied, and on in they went.
Sure enough, the preacher got up and started on his sermon. Suddenly in the middle of the Ten Commandments, though, he stopped right there, thanked everyone for coming, and sent them on home to dinner.
The farmer saw the preacher again later in the week, and he went over to ask him about it. "I thought you were going to do the fire and brimstone, all the way through?" he asked.
"Well, I was," the preacher said. "But then I got as far as 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and durn if I didn't I remember where my bicycle was."
Joatmoaf had a good one the other day, about a preacher and a cowboy:
A Baptist Preacher was seated next to a cowboy on a flight to Texas.Then there was Jerry Clower's famous story (which I quote from memory):
After the plane took off, the cowboy asked for a whiskey and soda, which was brought and placed before him. The flight attendant then asked the preacher if he would like a drink.
Appalled, the preacher replied, "I'd rather be tied up and taken advantage of by women of ill-repute, than let liquor touch my lips."
The cowboy then handed his drink back to the attendant and said, "Me too. I didn't know we had a choice."
Local Baptist boy married a Methodist girl. His daddy insisted she be baptized properly, not just sprinkled on top of the head like the Methodists do.And then there's the old folk song, "The Preacher and the Bear," my favorite version of which was done by Jerry Reed. The lyrics speak to a preacher's dilemma when faced with a grizzly bear who has also been given certain gifts. Atop the branches of a tree, the preacher shouts:
His son tried to convince the girl, but it was no good. So he came back to his daddy with a compromise. "What if she walked out into the water up to her knees?" he asked.
"That won't do, boy."
"And what if she went out with the preacher up to her neck, would that be good enough?"
"I won't stand for it," his father said. "It's got to be a real baptism if she's gonna marry into my house."
"Well," the boy said, "What if they went out in the water until just the top of her head stuck out?"
"No sir," his father replied.
The young man shook his head. "See, I knowed all the time it was just that spot on top of the head that counted."
Hey Lord you delivered DanielThe point here is Chesterton's point about the pessimist. Marcotte doesn't get into trouble for criticizing religion; she gets in trouble because she doesn't love the thing she criticizes.
from the bottom of the lion's den;
You delivered Jonah
from the belly of the whale and then
The Hebrew children from the fiery furnace,
so the good books do declare:
Hey Lord if you can't help me,
For goodness sake don't help that bear!
She's not required to, of course, but that's where her trouble arises. It's not the humor. It's the hatred.
Good Reads
Good Reading Today:
Bill Roggio has had two excellent and informative pieces this week: On "the snake eater," an intelligence system that BlackFive refers to as "like S.C.M.O.D.S." Bill was one of the people who got it off the ground -- a clear example of a citizen making something happen, along with our old friends at Spirit of America and others. The Belmont Club has further thoughts.
Bill's second good piece is on Al Qaeda's anti-air teams, who have managed to take down several US and Blackwater choppers.
Kim du Toit penned a good piece on the importance of fighting your own battles. The idea that the police are the ones charged with protecting you and enforcing the law is poison to the individual and to society at large. Those are common duties of all citizens, for which we should be prepared.
Finally, Claudia Rosett has a piece on how the Voice of America speaks for Iran. Apparently we've had this trouble with some of our other propaganda efforts, too.
Middle Ground
Middle Ground on the Fetus/Child Question:
I gather that the man here has been convicted of a single count of capital murder. As I understand it, capital murder requires that you commit murder while also committing a separate felony -- shooting a guy while robbing his store, for example. (This understanding arise from Georgia law, however; Texas readers, shout out of I've misread the situation re: Texas law.)
Thus, the reason the death penalty can apply here is because there are two separate crimes: killing the mother, and killing the child. That's one count of murder, and another, separate count of murder comitted while in the process of committing the first murder. That allows you to go to the death penalty, which is what is deserved.
Surely, whether you agree that a fetus is a child or not, we can all agree that this is the right result -- Quakers and other anti-death penalty theorists aside.
Of course, his defense attorney has a right to be heard too:
UPDATE: In the comments, Joe points out that I have confused "capital murder" with "felony murder." I regret the error, which I shall blame on insufficient coffee at the time of writing. :)
Today's story out of Texas strikes me as one of those things that is so sensible that it's shocking to see the government have anything to do with it. Surely it's the influence of the jury, plus the fact that we're talking about Texas.
A former youth pastor was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing a teenager and her fetus in what is believed to be the first such order in Texas, the nation's busiest death penalty state.The Texas law in question may be objectionable to many -- whether a fetus is a person is a metaphysical position, and therefore subjective, as Joseph and I have been discussing. Regardless of which, it allows them to address this particular crime:
Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father.
Sanchez, 17, was three months pregnant Dec. 12, 2005, when her body was found in her family's home. She had been choked and stabbed 13 times. During the trial, DNA evidence was presented to show Estrada was the father.It's hard to argue against the idea that a man who tries to get out of fatherhood by murdering his pregnant girlfriend ought to hang. Unless you're opposed to the death penalty itself -- personally, I think we ought to use it much more widely than we do -- this surely is a matter in which the penalty ought to apply.
Estrada, a former youth pastor for a church, admitted to the stabbing the day after the killings. Prosecutors also said he worked out at a gym and went shopping after the crime. He showed no emotion when his punishment was read.
I gather that the man here has been convicted of a single count of capital murder. As I understand it, capital murder requires that you commit murder while also committing a separate felony -- shooting a guy while robbing his store, for example. (This understanding arise from Georgia law, however; Texas readers, shout out of I've misread the situation re: Texas law.)
Thus, the reason the death penalty can apply here is because there are two separate crimes: killing the mother, and killing the child. That's one count of murder, and another, separate count of murder comitted while in the process of committing the first murder. That allows you to go to the death penalty, which is what is deserved.
Surely, whether you agree that a fetus is a child or not, we can all agree that this is the right result -- Quakers and other anti-death penalty theorists aside.
Of course, his defense attorney has a right to be heard too:
Estrada's attorney, Suzanne Kramer, had argued that her client made bad decisions.Yes, it is. Next case.
"It that enough to execute him? Is that enough to kill him?" she asked the jury.
UPDATE: In the comments, Joe points out that I have confused "capital murder" with "felony murder." I regret the error, which I shall blame on insufficient coffee at the time of writing. :)
Heresy: Environment, Holocaust, etc
Modern Heresies:
My sense has always been that we should let people hold to what they will, and let evidence and argument sort it out. It seems to me that there's no advantage to criminalizing Holocaust denial, for example, because it is readily disproven. Thus, someone who insists on cleaving to it discredits himself except with those who wish likewise to believe the claim.
There are problems arising from criminalizing the act of Holocaust denial, too, several of which the author considers at length. But here is one more: if they are free to speak their minds, Holocaust deniers will normally tell you who they are. Particularly for a Europe worried about resurgent fascist movements, this is a real advantage. It's easier to keep a head count if everyone you want to count is ready to stand up and wave.
Frank Furedi has a piece in Spiked Online defending free thought from what he calls "modern inquisitions." It began with the campaign to squash Holocaust denial, and perhaps if it had stopped there, everything would have been fine. It didn't:
At a time when moralists find it difficult clearly to differentiate between right and wrong, they are forced to find some other way to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. So they seize examples of unambiguous evil – paedophilia, the Holocaust, pollution – in order to define potential moral transgression. Today’s heresy hunters strive to construct new taboos....It's a good piece, one that explores each of these ideas in greater depth -- and gives special attention, at the end, to serious questions about the real problem of Holocaust denial. It is, as he said at the beginning, a clear example of bad behavior; but should we therefore shut down free speech?
The Holocaust has been transformed into an all-purpose moral metaphor adopted by a variety of special interest campaigns and crusades. This Holocaust brand has been co-opted for other experiences, too; we now hear debates about the African-American Holocaust, the Serbian Holocaust, the Bosnian Holocaust, the Rwandan Holocaust. Anti-abortionist crusaders protest about the ‘Holocaust of fetuses’ and animal rights activists denounce the ‘Holocaust of seals’ in Canada. Such manipulation of the Holocaust metaphor turns an historic tragedy into a caricature. Many US Jews were angered when an animal rights organisation launched a campaign that compared the slaughter of livestock to the murder of Jews in the Holocaust. A campaign exhibition, called ‘Holocaust on Your Plate’, juxtaposed images of people in concentration camps with pictures of animals in pens.
Many co-opt the Holocaust brand to win legitimacy and backing for their campaigns. And they insist that anyone who questions their version of events should be treated in a manner similar to those who deny the real Holocaust. ‘Do Armenian citizens of France not deserve the same protection as their Jewish compatriots?’, asked an advocate of criminalising the denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915 (5). In the past two decades, accusing someone of denial has become the twenty-first-century equivalent of labelling them a heretic. Those who deny the claims of fashionable campaigners and causes can expect to be censored and treated with intolerance. Following the precedent set by laws against Holocaust denial, the French National Assembly passed a law in October last year that could sentence to a year’s imprisonment anyone who denies the Armenian genocide.
The act of denial has been transformed into a generic evil. This is clear in the way that the stigmatisation of denial has leapt from the realm of historic controversies over genocides to other areas of debate. Denial has become a kind of free-floating blasphemy, which can attach itself to a variety of issues and problems. One environmentalist writer argues that the ‘language of “climate change”, “global warming”, “human impacts” and “adaptation” are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse’ (6). It seems that some people can no longer tell what a difference in opinion looks like – it’s all just ‘denial’.
The charge of denial has become a secular form of blasphemy. A book written by an author who is sceptical of today’s prevailing environmentalist wisdom was dismissed with the words: ‘The text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren’t dying of AIDS, that Jews weren’t singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.’ (7) This forced association of three highly charged issues – pollution, AIDS, the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews – shows how denial has become an all-purpose blasphemy.
My sense has always been that we should let people hold to what they will, and let evidence and argument sort it out. It seems to me that there's no advantage to criminalizing Holocaust denial, for example, because it is readily disproven. Thus, someone who insists on cleaving to it discredits himself except with those who wish likewise to believe the claim.
There are problems arising from criminalizing the act of Holocaust denial, too, several of which the author considers at length. But here is one more: if they are free to speak their minds, Holocaust deniers will normally tell you who they are. Particularly for a Europe worried about resurgent fascist movements, this is a real advantage. It's easier to keep a head count if everyone you want to count is ready to stand up and wave.
PJM Specials
Specials Today: Islamic Angels Have No Free Will
But an angel? This is a real oddity. In every other system I know that believes in beings higher than men, those beings that are closer to god/truth/etc are freer than lower beings. There is a hierarchy of free will and awareness, that runs through paramecia to dogs and cats and people and on to the higher beings, whether they are gods or angels or beings of light -- or demons.
Indeed, in Christian belief, it is the wrongful expression of that will that caused the greatest of angels to fall and become the worst of devils. I'm told that Islam likewise believes in an idea of Satan, or Shaitan, so I wondered what they made of him. Here it is:
That doesn't explain away the question of the angels, though. It's fascinating that Islam -- alone, as far as I know, among religions -- considers that it is possible to be a "higher" being but lack free will. What would it mean to be "higher," if it doesn't mean what it means for every other religion: to be more aware, and freer? It points to the Islamic ideal, I suppose: perfect submission to Allah.
The extinction of free will then would be a positive good. The death of knowledge would be good, if it meant that you would "no longer know how to sin."
I must admit that I don't feel better about the Koran after reading this piece. I do thank the author, however, for what was obviously intended as a kind and enlightening effort.
Salim Mansur writes at PJM a piece called "The Cool Water of the Koran." It is meant to respond to some critics of Islam who have suggested that the trouble lies in the Koran itself; Salim Mansur disagrees.
One thing I found fascinating in his piece was the Islamic version of the "free will" argument:
The Koran instructs individuals to choose the right path. Because human beings, in contrast to angels and all other members of God’s creation, are endowed with free will it instructs them to choose among alternatives. It is in our freedom to choose we become fully human, and freedom means responsibility and accountability for choices made and acts committed. The Koran reminds us over and over again that we are responsible for the consequences of our conduct.This is something new to me. I can see how someone could believe that "lower life forms" such as paramecia lacked free will; I'm not clear how anyone could believe a dog does -- or, as dogs are said to be unpopular among many devout Muslims, a cat. Indeed, it's especially hard to believe a cat has no free will.
But an angel? This is a real oddity. In every other system I know that believes in beings higher than men, those beings that are closer to god/truth/etc are freer than lower beings. There is a hierarchy of free will and awareness, that runs through paramecia to dogs and cats and people and on to the higher beings, whether they are gods or angels or beings of light -- or demons.
Indeed, in Christian belief, it is the wrongful expression of that will that caused the greatest of angels to fall and become the worst of devils. I'm told that Islam likewise believes in an idea of Satan, or Shaitan, so I wondered what they made of him. Here it is:
In Islam, Allah created everything in pairs. The pair for a human is a jinn, two beings of higher intelligence created with free will....So we have an intermediate class, so to speak, of creatures: "jinn," who are lower than angels but who have free will like men.
Iblis was of jinn race and was supposedly a devoted servant of Allah. He attained a very high status and was brought close with the Angels. But Allah knew Iblis well and the intentions of Iblis and therefore the Shayṭān was named Iblis (meaning "desperate"). The angels do not have free will and do not sin, because they do not know how to sin. When Allah created human, Allah commanded all the angels to prostrate (sujood) to Adam and his people. All angels did so, except Iblis, who refused Allah's direct command.
Iblis was proud and considered himself superior to Adam, since Adam was made from clay and Iblis was created from smokeless fire. For this act of disobedience, Allah cursed the Shayṭān to the Lake of Fire for eternity, but gave the Shayṭān the respite till the Day of Judgment at his request.
That doesn't explain away the question of the angels, though. It's fascinating that Islam -- alone, as far as I know, among religions -- considers that it is possible to be a "higher" being but lack free will. What would it mean to be "higher," if it doesn't mean what it means for every other religion: to be more aware, and freer? It points to the Islamic ideal, I suppose: perfect submission to Allah.
The extinction of free will then would be a positive good. The death of knowledge would be good, if it meant that you would "no longer know how to sin."
I must admit that I don't feel better about the Koran after reading this piece. I do thank the author, however, for what was obviously intended as a kind and enlightening effort.
Tech Note
Tech Notes:
I saw once when I loaded the blog today a warning that it wants to install some sort of "Microsoft Data Access" product. I assume this is a New Blogger thing, but I don't know anything about it. So, if your browser asks you if you "trust this website," don't let any trust you might have in me influence your decision. I've got no idea what it is they want you to have on your computer, or why they want it there.
Please note the PJM Straw Poll thing on the sidebar. You're (obviously) not obligated to take part, but if you want to, I put up a link.
Horses I Have Known III
Horses I Have Known, III:
This short series has gotten a good response, so I suppose I'll continue it occasionally. Cassandra (who is on vacation) wanted me to do one of these posts for the benefit of her readers, so it will be cross-posted both at Grim's Hall and Villainous Company.
Here we have another draft horse, a Belgian cross named for the paragon of ladies, Odysseus' wife Penelope:
Her namesake was capable of some deception, but our Penelope is without guile. She is a sweet horse, very happy to have affection but in no way pushy. You can tell how well behaved she is by looking at the bridle: she requires the least tack of any horse I know, except for Celtic, who was sold last month.
In spite of her size, Penelope can get up to a good speed at the canter. Her trot is rough to ride, but the canter is quite smooth. She is a little bit lazy compared to non-coldbloods, but for a draft horse she's not sluggish.
She's been clipped, so she has to wear a blanket in cold weather even though the breed is well-adapted to far colder climates than Georgia. You can see what her regular winter coat would look like, though, on her unclipped legs. The long hair down the leg is called 'feathering.' Note the well-sculpted, thick and powerful muscles in her neck.
Penelope can get up to a good speed, I said, for a draft horse. If you really want to cover ground, though, what you want is a gaited horse (scroll down to "ambling"). This little fellow is a Tennesee Walking Horse, in a pinto pattern called Tobiano. His name is Doc.
Doc's only fault as a horse is that he doesn't like to stand still (though he is quite relaxed here, as evident by his cocked leg and easy ears). What he does like to do is run. Tennessee Walkers are famous for their very smooth "running walk," and Doc has a nice one, but what he wants to do is running run. Even that, though, is tremendously smooth compared to, say, Penelope's nice canter.
Doc's a fully-trained horse, and needs nothing from me except a companion to take him out. His owner, a nice older lady, enjoys him for the smoothness of his gait. She doesn't want to run, and he does. So, she has me exercise him late in the week, so he can get the running he wants to do out of his system. Then, when she has time to ride him on the weekend, he is not quite so tempted to take off with her.
I'm happy to do it. He's a pleasure.
Brain Trust
Brain Trust:
The Washington Post has a good article on 'officers with PhDs' forming around Petraeus. It includes David Kilcullen, the author of the concept of "disaggregation."
Good to see.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)