My post on the call is now up.
"Tramp Stamp"
Heh.
Actually, my term for this is "fashion victim".
It seems that the Marine Corps agrees somewhat. (via Blackfive.)
You want a tip for an investment opportunity? Tatoo removal technology. I figure it ought to be big business a few years from now.
Heh.
Actually, my term for this is "fashion victim".
It seems that the Marine Corps agrees somewhat. (via Blackfive.)
You want a tip for an investment opportunity? Tatoo removal technology. I figure it ought to be big business a few years from now.
Ok, they're all there now:
WASHINGTON, May 30, 2007 – The fifth and final brigade of the troop surge has arrived in Baghdad and should be fully operational by mid-July, the deputy director for operations on the Joint Staff said here today.
So, operational by mid July, which means we ought to have a good idea whether this whole thing is yielding results by September.
WASHINGTON, May 30, 2007 – The fifth and final brigade of the troop surge has arrived in Baghdad and should be fully operational by mid-July, the deputy director for operations on the Joint Staff said here today.
So, operational by mid July, which means we ought to have a good idea whether this whole thing is yielding results by September.
PSA: This should be kind of obvious, but:
New Scam Targets Military Spouses
New Scam Targets Military Spouses
"The scam involves a person with an American accent calling a military spouse, identifying herself as a representative of the Red Cross, and telling the spouse that her husband was hurt in Iraq and was medically evacuated to Germany. The caller then says that doctors can't start treatment until paperwork is completed, and that to start the paperwork they need the spouse to verify her husband's social security number and date of birth."
I figure that most military spouses have more on the ball than to be taken in by this, but one never knows.
Price less:
Most capable Army, Navy & Air Force in the history of Civilization: Priceless.
- 1,200 additional Category I (CAT I) Mine Resistance Ambush Protected (MRAP) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) vehicles: $623 Million.
- Navy Multiband Terminal (NMT): $20 Million.
- Long lead items in support of the production of Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV): $13.6 Million.
- Repair of up to 250 AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) guidance and control sections: $8.6 Million.
- Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) for Phase II of the T-45 Hot Section Reliability Improvement Program: $7.2 Million.
- Supplies in support of the Navy's Ships Stores Program: $33 Million.
- Eight Universal Modular Mast (UMM) Systems: $6.5 Million.
- Maintenance, repair, and operations supplies: $107 Million.
- AH-64D Apache Longbow Fire Control Radar Programs: $28.8 Million.
- PATRIOT engineering services: $13.8 Million.
- Construction of Permanent Party Barracks: $13.5 Million.
- System technical support for the Abrams Tank Program: $11.5 Million.
- Contract to upgrade, fabricate, assemble, integrate, test, and deliver the Air and Missile Defense Planning Control Systems to the 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command: $8 Million.
- Chameleon Phase VI Program: $5.4 Million.
- C-17 Automated Test Equipment : $12.5 Million.
- Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Capability (ELC) contract: $9.5 Million.
- Global Broadcast Service (GBS) program: $7.5 Million.
- 74 embedded Global Positioning/Inertial Production Units (Installs) for the CH-47F (700 and MH-47 (4) platforms, 4 Mounts for the MH-47 platform, 3 Spares for the F/A-18 platform, and 167 Contractor Depot Repairs (CDRs) for the H-1W (67), CH-47F (25), HH-60J (5), and F-15/F-16 (70) platforms: $7.4 Million.
- Form-fit-function for obsolete subassemblies in the F-15 Avionics Intermediate Shop (AIS) Antenna Test Station (ATS) and Enhanced Aircraft Radar Test Station (EARTS): $5.5 Million.
- LHA 6 Amphibious Assault Ship: $2.4 Billion.
- Long-term contract for support of 44 weapons systems of the T/AV8B Harrier aircraft: $258 Million.
- P-3C sustainment, modification and installation program: $133 Million.
- Nine Extremely High Frequency (EHF) Satellite Communications Follow-On Terminal Communication Groups and 17 ship Antenna Groups: $27 Million.
- Supply and distribution of food and non-food products: $2.8 Billion.
- Sole source items on engine lines: $10.9 Million.
- Fuel: $6.5 Million.
- Wide area surveillance platform: $12.2 Million.
- Light Aircraft Missile Protection (CELAMP) system: $9.8 Million.
Most capable Army, Navy & Air Force in the history of Civilization: Priceless.
Gone
Gone Camping:
I am headed to Fort Mountain for the evening. I should be back tomorrow.
I was on the DOD's "Blogger Roundup" call again today, with generals discussing the handover of the Kurdish region to local control. It was a very interesting, and rather hot, call -- once the transcript is up and I can verify some details, I'll post my thoughts on it.
Blood & Folk
Blood & Folk:
Who will take care of the elderly, when these pensions, Social Security and Medicare die? We will, of our own, as well as we can. And we can look for no help, but what kin and friend provide.
Concerning whether a new tribalism is possible, this item:
Rules 'hiding' trillions in debtNone of those promises will be kept, once we pass a threshold level. Anyone who is expecting the American government to fund their retirement will be disappointed, unless they die young.
Liability $516,348 per U.S. household
By Dennis Cauchon
USA TODAY
The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.
"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations," says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.
Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.
The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.
Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.
Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities.
Who will take care of the elderly, when these pensions, Social Security and Medicare die? We will, of our own, as well as we can. And we can look for no help, but what kin and friend provide.
Kinship and fighting bonds
Kinship and Fighting Bonds:
1) What are Svein's three conflicting duties? Which is most important?
2) What are Palnatoki's? What justifies his killing of his kinsman?
3) The men who allowed Palnatoki to escape -- are they serving the king well, or badly? Are they praiseworthy or blameworthy for acting in this way? Is there a way in which they are protecting him, or are they putting their own friendship ahead of their sworn duty as members of the king's company?
Daniel and I have embarked, below, on a discussion that requires some background information. Many Americans today aren't really versed in the heroic tradition of Northern Europe, except for having read Tolkien -- an excellent introduction, but one that leaves out some of the harder concepts. One of these is the breaking point between the duty owed to kin, of whom one is really considered a part, and the duty owed to those who have befriended you.
Americans generally consider family to be disposable, and friendship important -- older relatives can be deposited in homes, cared for by the state (Medicare and Social Security); younger relatives who are a drain on the finances rather than self-supporting can be tossed out to sink or swim. This is very different from the old way, which hampered heroes in many respects: and yet, if you reflect carefully upon it, you see that you really are only an outgrowth of your kin. Indeed, the echoes of the family are so powerful that, at times, you may wonder if you aren't just your father or grandfather reborn -- or, as I have heard many a lady lament, if they haven't begun speaking with their mother's voice. The old view posed serious problems, but it was firmly rooted in the reality of the thing. Blood kinship is important, more important than we often think today: in a time before genetics, they knew that nature is the thing that sets the limits on what nurture can do.
I'd like to quote a passage from the Hollander translation of The Saga of the Jomsvikings, as an introduction to the difficulties of the old system.
Before the passage begins, King Harold has gotten a bastard son on a woman he pretends not to have known. That woman lives in the household of a man named Palnatoki, who trusts her word as to the father, and raises the son -- his name is Svein -- as he would have raised a son of King Harold who had been sent to foster with him, as was often done in those days. Harold is furious, but Svein grows to be a strong warrior, and with Palnatoki's help, raises fleets of vikings so strong that Harold has to deal with him. At first Harold tries to buy him off, but finally he leads a fleet of his own to destroy Svein. The King's fleet traps Svein's, blocking the mouth of a river where Svein's fleet is sheltering.
Palnatoki shows up at this point with a fleet of his own, to help Svein. Palnatoki goes ashore and finds where the King has camped, and shoots him dead with an arrow wrapped in gold wire. The next morning, Palnatoki and Svein join forces and, capturing the King's fleet between them, force it to submit and accept Svein as their new king.
Somewhat after, Svein holds the arvel to assume his inheretance. Palnatoki attends:
Palnatoki with all his followers entered the king's hall. The king [Svein] welcomed Palnatoki cordially and bade him and his men take the seats he had assigned them. And then the banquet began....Questions for discussion:
A man called Arnodd, one of the king's attendants, was standing near the table. Fiolnir handed him an arrow and bade him carry it to all the men until some one woiuld acknowledge it. Arnodd went first to the center of the hall where the king sat, then toward the door. Then he returned toward the center and stood before Palnatoki and asked him whether he perchance recognized the arrow.
Palnatoki said: "Why should I not know my own arrow? Let me have it, it is mine."
Deep silence reigned in the hall, to hear someone acknowledge the arrow as his own.
The king said, "You, Palnatoki, where did you part with this arrow, the last time you shot it?"
Palnatoki replied: "Often I have been indulgent to you, foster son, and so it shall be this time: I parted with it from my bowstring the time I shot your father through with it."
The king said, "Stand up, my men, at once, and lay hands on Palnatoki and his followers. They shall be killed, all of them. There is now an end to the good relations between us."
Thereupon all the men in the hall leaped to their feet. Palnatoki then drew his sword and cut his kinsman Fiolnir in two. He and his men gained the door, because every man there was so much his friend that no one wanted to harm him.
1) What are Svein's three conflicting duties? Which is most important?
2) What are Palnatoki's? What justifies his killing of his kinsman?
3) The men who allowed Palnatoki to escape -- are they serving the king well, or badly? Are they praiseworthy or blameworthy for acting in this way? Is there a way in which they are protecting him, or are they putting their own friendship ahead of their sworn duty as members of the king's company?
Ejectia
Ejectia!
Bill Whittle wants to build a new Athens (don't forget to read part two as well).
The idea is of an online city-state for those interested in the ancient virtues -- courage, justice, temperence, and their companions. That is obviously the sort of thing I would like to see also.
Pathetic
Flags replaced with swastikas in Washington State.
In the words of Hank Williams Jr, I'd like to catch those bastards with my .45.
I hope the Sheriff's office is able to catch some of them; although I think the local Vigilance Committee would be better suited to administer justice.
In the words of Hank Williams Jr, I'd like to catch those bastards with my .45.
I hope the Sheriff's office is able to catch some of them; although I think the local Vigilance Committee would be better suited to administer justice.
Goodbye, Lady
Goodbye, Lady:
UPDATE: The commenters at BlackFive point out that I misremembered Casey Sheehan's branch of service. He was a soldier, not a Marine; but the mother of a fallen soldier is due the same courtesy.
Once, a long time ago, I wrote the only thing I've ever written about Cindy Sheehan:
Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother. I sympathize entirely with the motivation. I cannot imagine what the loss of my son would do to me; I would be grateful to the world, I think, if it refused to judge any action I took for at least a year or two afterwards. And so, applying the Golden Rule, I shall refuse to judge her.Others felt otherwise, and took her for a ride now ending.
I hope she finds the peace she needs. I have no use for those who are using her to further their ends -- nor those who are so heartless as to speak ill of her, in the depth of her pain.
Yes, I know she was a radical before the war began. That means nothing. She is a Gold Star mother, and so she is due a full measure of kindness from us. May she find her peace. May those who are trying to use her get what they deserve. As for those who have sneered at her character -- no one asks you to approve of her, or what she thinks, or how she feels. All I ask is that you let her rage, and pass on, without judgment. That, at least, is only what we should want for ourselves if, under an evil star, we should find ourselves brought to her fate.
I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.... I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost.I don't have anything bad to say about Cindy Sheehan. Those of you who used her, though, as long as her grief was a useful weapon to you -- you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. She deserved, as does any mother of a fallen Marine, better than she has had.
UPDATE: The commenters at BlackFive point out that I misremembered Casey Sheehan's branch of service. He was a soldier, not a Marine; but the mother of a fallen soldier is due the same courtesy.
Memorial Day
Memorial Day:
Happy Memorial Day. I hesistate to link to any of the great posts around the internet today, for fear of accidentally missing others. For that cause, I will only send my greetings to your and your families, and my particular respects to those of you who are in the service or are veterans. Let us remember together.
UPDATE: John Donovan has decided to attempt the roundup post. Here's his majestic effort toward getting it all.
Pentecost
The Feast of Pentecost:
There was an older tradition, in which it was Sir Perceval who achieved the Grail, though at first he was judged unworthy. Before he could become worthy, he lost everything of which a man might rightly desire, lost his mother and his home, passed by the love of a fine lady and the good things of the world that she offered him. In Malory's version, Galahad was worthy from the beginning, and the adventures he undertook were only to show his excellence. Yet, having achieved the Grail and the presence of God, he finds he has only one desire: that he might choose to die.
I mention all of this in reference to the debate, below, on the subject of Chesterton and faith. The Grail tradition shows that the Medievals felt that faith was dangerous, past a point. The pursuit of perfection was destructive to a man, even a very good man. A man to whom it was given to be Lancelot du Lac would find no joy in the search for the Grail, but only hardship, misery, and the constant sense of failing to meet the standards of Heaven.
Chesterton speaks of religion as being like a monastery with walls; and because the walls are there, the faithful can play within them without fear. Yet pass beyond the walls, or knock down the walls, and you found a perilous world in which no joy was possible.
The American experience of faith is easy, like that monastery: in churches across the country, you are invited to confess your sins and donate to the offering plate, and then relax and enjoy the promise of Heaven. The Medieval church was likewise easy: confession and penance, or even the purchase of an indulgence, permitted you to carry on more or less as you like. A man could be merry in the garden, could drink and fight and still achieve a happy end.
There was no reason, then, to go on mortifying quests after perfection. No reason but that, having felt the presence of the divine, the knights wanted to bask in it -- but so unworthy are even the best of men Christianity holds, men who sin in every thought and deed, that "becoming worthy" is far beyond their strength. So they departed on a quest born in love of God, and therefore died alone and terribly. Few enough came again to Camelot, those few as failures.
La Nef produced a two-volume opera called Perceval: La Quete du Graal (volume II is here). It is a beautiful and haunting piece when heard all together, as befits its subject.
Today is Pentecost in the traditional calendar, a feast that celebrates the fiftieth day after Jesus' resurrection, when the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon the Apostles. I imagine most of you did not know that; I had to look it up myself. I will tell you, though, what I did know about the Feast of Pentecost:
WHEN Arthur held his Round Table most plenour, it fortuned that he commanded that the high feast of Pentecost should be holden at a city and a castle, the which in those days was called Kynke Kenadonne, upon the sands that marched nigh Wales. So ever the king had a custom that at the feast of Pentecost in especial, afore other feasts in the year, he would not go that day to meat until he had heard or seen of a great marvel. And for that custom all manner of strange adventures came before Arthur as at that feast before all other feasts. And so Sir Gawaine, a little tofore noon of the day of Pentecost, espied at a window three men upon horseback, and a dwarf on foot, and so the three men alighted, and the dwarf kept their horses, and one of the three men was higher than the other twain by a foot and an half. Then Sir Gawaine went unto the king and said, Sir, go to your meat, for here at the hand come strange adventures.It was also at the feast of Pentecost, according to Sir Thomas Malory, that the quest for the Grail began. Malory's version of this is the later version, in which Sir Galahad wins the Grail through spiritual perfection. The depiction of Galahad is almost blasphemy by Catholic standards, as he is shown as a man without sin. His purity is such that he can actually deserve to come into the presence of the Grail, whereas other worldly knights cannot.
There was an older tradition, in which it was Sir Perceval who achieved the Grail, though at first he was judged unworthy. Before he could become worthy, he lost everything of which a man might rightly desire, lost his mother and his home, passed by the love of a fine lady and the good things of the world that she offered him. In Malory's version, Galahad was worthy from the beginning, and the adventures he undertook were only to show his excellence. Yet, having achieved the Grail and the presence of God, he finds he has only one desire: that he might choose to die.
I mention all of this in reference to the debate, below, on the subject of Chesterton and faith. The Grail tradition shows that the Medievals felt that faith was dangerous, past a point. The pursuit of perfection was destructive to a man, even a very good man. A man to whom it was given to be Lancelot du Lac would find no joy in the search for the Grail, but only hardship, misery, and the constant sense of failing to meet the standards of Heaven.
Chesterton speaks of religion as being like a monastery with walls; and because the walls are there, the faithful can play within them without fear. Yet pass beyond the walls, or knock down the walls, and you found a perilous world in which no joy was possible.
The American experience of faith is easy, like that monastery: in churches across the country, you are invited to confess your sins and donate to the offering plate, and then relax and enjoy the promise of Heaven. The Medieval church was likewise easy: confession and penance, or even the purchase of an indulgence, permitted you to carry on more or less as you like. A man could be merry in the garden, could drink and fight and still achieve a happy end.
There was no reason, then, to go on mortifying quests after perfection. No reason but that, having felt the presence of the divine, the knights wanted to bask in it -- but so unworthy are even the best of men Christianity holds, men who sin in every thought and deed, that "becoming worthy" is far beyond their strength. So they departed on a quest born in love of God, and therefore died alone and terribly. Few enough came again to Camelot, those few as failures.
La Nef produced a two-volume opera called Perceval: La Quete du Graal (volume II is here). It is a beautiful and haunting piece when heard all together, as befits its subject.
Back
Home Once More:
I returned late last night, from the trip to Indiana.
This morning, I had a teleconference with David Kilcullen and others, on the subject of Iraq and the current counterinsurgency project. My full notes are available at the link.
I see a young man of eleven has had a memorable week down Alabama way. You have to wonder what goes on in Alabama.
An aside -- Stephen Dillard, formerly "Feddie" of the now-retired blog Southern Appeal, sends information on his current project. Some of you may be curious, as one of my co-bloggers is an SA alumnus, and several of us used to read the place regularly.
Hitchens, and the debate that could have been:
It was noted recently in the Hall that when Christopher Hitchens took part in a debate about religion, he and his opponent were mismatched.
That observation was brought to mind when I ran into a book review on Hitchens' book, provocatively entitled God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
The book review--actually, a criticism of a book review, coupled with a review of the book--was done by Robert Miller, one of the many scholars who write at the First Things blog.
Miller holds that Hitchens has gotten in over his head on the subject of religion. He also holds that the book reviewer--working for the prestigious New York Times--has done the reading world a disservice, by failing to note the many ways in which Hitchens has ignored learning the elementals of the philosophy of religion.
I will confess that I determined to ignore Christopher Hitchens when I learned the title of his book. A book which gives away both its central attitude and its concluding thought in the title is probably not a book which needs too much attention.
Hitchens' book (and the review, and the book-and-review review) do raise questions. Has the study of philosophy--or the philosophy of religion--become so unpopular among scholars that non-specialists are unaware of its existence? Is there a special animus against religious belief among scientists?
Is such an animus typical in certain branches of science, or is it an occasional thing?
One more (partly humorous) question arises: given Hitchens' statements in debates and writings in the book, what would G.K. Chesterton have said about this?
It was noted recently in the Hall that when Christopher Hitchens took part in a debate about religion, he and his opponent were mismatched.
That observation was brought to mind when I ran into a book review on Hitchens' book, provocatively entitled God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
The book review--actually, a criticism of a book review, coupled with a review of the book--was done by Robert Miller, one of the many scholars who write at the First Things blog.
Miller holds that Hitchens has gotten in over his head on the subject of religion. He also holds that the book reviewer--working for the prestigious New York Times--has done the reading world a disservice, by failing to note the many ways in which Hitchens has ignored learning the elementals of the philosophy of religion.
I will confess that I determined to ignore Christopher Hitchens when I learned the title of his book. A book which gives away both its central attitude and its concluding thought in the title is probably not a book which needs too much attention.
Hitchens' book (and the review, and the book-and-review review) do raise questions. Has the study of philosophy--or the philosophy of religion--become so unpopular among scholars that non-specialists are unaware of its existence? Is there a special animus against religious belief among scientists?
Is such an animus typical in certain branches of science, or is it an occasional thing?
One more (partly humorous) question arises: given Hitchens' statements in debates and writings in the book, what would G.K. Chesterton have said about this?
Off to Arvel
The Journey to the Arvel:
I will be away this week, attending to family matters. This is the first funeral I will have seen from my wife's family, so I know little of what to expect. My grandfather's funeral, though, was much in the old fashion:
Now it was the custom in those days that a high born man, before he could take possession of any inheritance left to him by his father, should hold an arvel, or inheritance feast. King Sweyn was at this time preparing to hold such a feast before taking possession of the Danish kingdom, so it was arranged that Sweyn and Sigvaldi should make one arvel serve for them both, and Sweyn sent word to Sigvaldi inviting him with all his captains and chosen warriors to join him in Zealand, and so arrange it that the greatest possible honour should be done to the dead.It was the first time I had seen many of my family in years, as well as others I had never met, and the last time I saw many of them in this life. In most respects, it was as fine a feast and gathering as I ever saw. So we honored him, who deserved the best from us.
Sigvaldi accordingly left Jomsburg with a large host of his vikings and two score of ships. Among his captains were Olaf Triggvison, Kolbiorn Stallare, Bui the Thick of Borgund holm, Thorkel the High, and Vagn Akison. It was winter time, and the seas were rough, but the fleet passed through the Danish islands without disaster, and came to an anchorage in a large bay near which now stands the city of Copenhagen. King Sweyn welcomed Earl Sigvaldi and all his men with great kindness.
The feast was held in a very large hall, specially built for the reception of guests, and ornamented with splendid wood carvings and hung about with peace shields and curtains of beautiful tapestry. King Sweyn was dressed in very fine clothes of purple, with gold rings on his arms and round his neck, and a band of burnished gold, set with gems, upon his head. His beard, which was as yet but short, was trimmed in a peculiar way -- divided into two prongs -- which won for him the nickname of Sweyn Forkbeard. The tables were loaded with cooked food and white bread; sufficient to serve all the great company for three days. The ale and mead flowed abundantly, and there was much good cheer in the hall. Many high born women were present, and the guests sat in pairs, each man and woman together. Olaf Triggvison had for his partner the Princess Thyra, sister of the king.
An old but excellent piece
An Older but still Excellent Piece:
Linked to today by InstaPundit was a piece on why government does not solve, and often makes worse, every problem delegated to it. The rules it posits for bureaucracies, and particularly government bureaucracies, are remarkable in their predictive power.
I missed this one the first time around. If you did too, you may find it enlightening.
Op KUDZU
Operation Kudzu:
Former Special Forces blogger BloodSpite has a suggestion for those concerned about immigration, as well as a parable. The parable will be immediately comprehensible to anyone who has lived in, or passed through, the Deep South.
A Death in the Family
A Death in the Family:
My wife's father is dead, having passed away in a peaceful sleep while sitting in his favorite chair. I have mentioned him here from time to time, but I would like to give him a proper eulogy.
He joined in the Army in 1946, as a young officer and navigator on bombers. He served in the Army Air Force and then the Air Force. He was stationed in Germany at the beginning of the postwar period, when the Werewolves were still active. He was charged with guarding the payroll for his unit, a perilous duty at the time.
Later he was stationed in Libya, where he and his unit fought bandits attempting to raid military supplies. He left the military in the 1950s, and became an aerospace engineer for General Motors' defense contracting sections. During that time he worked on numerous secret programs, and was one of the designers of the Stealth program.
He took the usual oaths to keep our country's secrets, and kept them faithfully. Even in his seventies, talking to me in our occasional chats on national defense and policy, he never revealed any of the secrets -- many long obsolete -- that he had promised to keep.
In his youth he had fierce red hair and an Irish temper, and sailed the Carribean as an officer of the United States' Power Squadrons; in his age, his hair had turned to white, and to me he was always a perfect gentleman. When I asked for his daughter's hand, he smiled and told me he had no objections, but that he had raised her to make her own decisions.
I liked him and I'll miss him. He was a fine man.
3G PIII
Three Good, Part III:
Those who supported him did so in large part because they agreed with him. The argument was that the perjury was on a matter of no real importance, having only to do with a sexual liason with a girl who was past the legal age of consent. Indeed, as I recall, there was even a legalistic argument that the offense did not rise to perjury at all, because even though he had lied under oath, it was about a matter that was not legally material to the subject at hand. That there was a point of honor -- that a man keeps his oaths, or is no man at all -- was simply not something they believed to be true.
There were some on the pro-impeachment side who were motivated by this principle of honor. They were chiefly among the citizenry, not the political class. The reason that the price Mansfield cites was paid by Republican politicians is because they were guilty -- not of pushing too hard, but of hypocrisy. There are few in Congress who are fit even to say the word "honor." It is so obvious in their conduct, that the People of the United States were disgusted to see them parading around under its flag.
From there, Mansfield makes another serious error -- one caught, in the comments below, by our friend and co-blogger Major Joel Leggett. Mansfield argues that revulsion against the duel that killed Hamilton ended dueling as a political force in America. Joel responds:
The failure to understand that is another critical error in the Mansfield piece. The Hamilton duel was deeply flawed by the point that Mansfield praises: Hamilton's intent not to fire his piece. The point of the duel is a radical affirmation of respect: you allow your opponent a chance to kill you, and he allows you the same. To refuse to fire is to assert that you are not equal to your opponent, but either better or worse than he is.
Hamilton showed faith and fidelity to his Christian principles, but not enough to refuse to attend the duel -- he cared for the accolades of this world enough that he could not refuse to participate in the institution. He showed some fidelity to the culture of honor, but not enough to participate fully in its rituals either: the duel would have been unsatisfactory even if he had survived.
His refusal to fire would have been another insult. Rather than resolving the feud, as was the purpose of the duel, it would have furthered and deepened it.
The real lesson of the Hamilton duel is that you should either fight, or not fight; you should choose pacifism, or else to fight for justice in the world. A priest or a pacifist can get by on his principles, which are widely respected, even though he must rely on others for protection.
A fighting man must fight, in his own defense and others'. This is necessary, and it is proper. The priests of the world depend upon him.
The last article is from Noel, authored by Harvey Mansfield, and titled "The Founders' Honor." It attempts to explore what honor meant to the Founders, who were willing to fight and even to die for it. Mansfield begins, though, badly.
Yet the biggest recent events in American politics make sense only when seen as motivated by a sense of honor. When President Clinton was impeached, he refused to resign, one could say, for reasons of both honor and self-interest. But the Democrats in public office who supported him could have done so only for honor. They did not want to give in to those prissy, self-righteous Republicans, who would have crowed in triumph at his fall. In refusing to sacrifice their tainted champion as self-interest would have dictated, the Democrats paid a price. Their candidate Al Gore, chief among Clinton loyalists, suffered from "Clinton fatigue" (or Clinton disgust) in the electorate, and he lost a close election he probably would have won if Clinton had resigned and had taken his bad odor with him, leaving Gore to run as a relatively unembarrassed incumbent.Whatever the Clinton saga was about, it was not about the honor of politicians -- except just one politician, Clinton, who had no interest in fighting for his honor. He swore an oath to tell the truth, violated it, got caught, and then shrugged it off as a matter of no importance.
The Republicans for their part might have been well advised by self-interest to leave well enough alone, and not insist on impeachment in the House or a trial in the Senate. But they were overcome by their outrage. They felt it necessary to uphold law and propriety against a liar who had, at long last, been caught in his lie. So the Republicans refused to "move on" and diminished their advantage from Clinton fatigue because they seemed too eager for his removal.
Those who supported him did so in large part because they agreed with him. The argument was that the perjury was on a matter of no real importance, having only to do with a sexual liason with a girl who was past the legal age of consent. Indeed, as I recall, there was even a legalistic argument that the offense did not rise to perjury at all, because even though he had lied under oath, it was about a matter that was not legally material to the subject at hand. That there was a point of honor -- that a man keeps his oaths, or is no man at all -- was simply not something they believed to be true.
There were some on the pro-impeachment side who were motivated by this principle of honor. They were chiefly among the citizenry, not the political class. The reason that the price Mansfield cites was paid by Republican politicians is because they were guilty -- not of pushing too hard, but of hypocrisy. There are few in Congress who are fit even to say the word "honor." It is so obvious in their conduct, that the People of the United States were disgusted to see them parading around under its flag.
From there, Mansfield makes another serious error -- one caught, in the comments below, by our friend and co-blogger Major Joel Leggett. Mansfield argues that revulsion against the duel that killed Hamilton ended dueling as a political force in America. Joel responds:
That statement is absolutely historically inaccurate. Andrew Jackson’s duel with the Benton brothers in May of 1813, nine years after the Hamilton/Burr affair, had significant political ramifications through out the Old Southwest (The Southeast today) and ultimately contributed to Jackson’s national reputation, which in turn propelled him to the White House.Quite right. In the South, dueling and its honor-based culture continued to be a very important political force through at least the Civil War. The caning of Sumner, for example, was very much a part of the duelist culture. The reason it was a caning and not a duel was only that Sumner was thought unfit for the honor of a duel. A gentleman duels only with equals. The duel, indeed, is principally about finding a way for the gentleman who has received offense at the hand of an equal to affirm their equality, and thus restore the balance on which the society depends. Normally this is done through the exchange of letters among the seconds; but if it comes to it, the willingness to face each other's fire fairly restores and affirms that these men are equals.
The failure to understand that is another critical error in the Mansfield piece. The Hamilton duel was deeply flawed by the point that Mansfield praises: Hamilton's intent not to fire his piece. The point of the duel is a radical affirmation of respect: you allow your opponent a chance to kill you, and he allows you the same. To refuse to fire is to assert that you are not equal to your opponent, but either better or worse than he is.
Hamilton showed faith and fidelity to his Christian principles, but not enough to refuse to attend the duel -- he cared for the accolades of this world enough that he could not refuse to participate in the institution. He showed some fidelity to the culture of honor, but not enough to participate fully in its rituals either: the duel would have been unsatisfactory even if he had survived.
His refusal to fire would have been another insult. Rather than resolving the feud, as was the purpose of the duel, it would have furthered and deepened it.
The real lesson of the Hamilton duel is that you should either fight, or not fight; you should choose pacifism, or else to fight for justice in the world. A priest or a pacifist can get by on his principles, which are widely respected, even though he must rely on others for protection.
A fighting man must fight, in his own defense and others'. This is necessary, and it is proper. The priests of the world depend upon him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)