Choice of Arms -
All right, I have arrived in the Frozen North, and will soon be a householder again. In the coming weeks I mean to look about me for some weapons. I haven't had privately owned weapons in about three years (moreover, the weapons I did own were inheritances or gifts, meaning that I do not have experience in shopping for firearms). I am looking for some advice.
I am not a young person and I am not a hunter. I do like long walks and don't look for trouble. I am over 6' tall but I don't like recoil for the sake of it - recoil that is needed for stopping power, that's a necessary evil. I don't intend to put together a large collection - I simply want a last line of defense against any charging moose, grizzly bears, or "two-legged rats" that I can't avoid or escape.
My prior experience is with various handguns - I especially liked the Ruger SP-101 (pocket-sized .357; I typically fired .38's out of it) - and with military-issue rifles and carbines (M-16, M-4; I liked firing them but do not have direct experience with their stopping power). I very much believe in regular practice, so I want the ammunition to be reasonably priced. I also believe in regular maintenance, and in having time for good books and weblogs and marital bliss and so forth, so something that is easy to take apart and clean in a reasonable time is a definite plus. I had a few bad firing-range experiences with jamming semiautomatics, so that I'm prejudiced in favor of revolvers, but might be talked out of this prejudice.
What I have in mind is one weapon for animal defense, and one for "human defense." Now some say that a large-caliber handgun is good enough for the bears; others that you need something bigger (whatever I have needs to be reasonably transportable - no native bearers here - so that it will actually be on my person in the event of something unpleasant). What do you say? What weapons do you recommend for someone like me? Do you have any tips on shopping? Also - if I need to do some reading and research to make a good choice - where are the best places to go for that?
This doesn't look good.
Romney speaks up for sons' decisions
My own unvarnished opinion is that the Governor just stepped on his training aid there.
Romney speaks up for sons' decisions
BETTENDORF, Iowa - Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons' decision not to enlist in the military, saying they're showing their support for the country by "helping me get elected."
My own unvarnished opinion is that the Governor just stepped on his training aid there.
So. Could one of you military lawyer types attempt to explain what's going on in this story?
Airman Who Alleged Rape Faces Court-Martial
I kinda think I see why this is happening, but its in the Washington Post, and I noticed it on Memeorandum tonight, and I'll bet we hear more about it, with lots of outrage from, well, the usual suspects.
Airman Who Alleged Rape Faces Court-Martial
I kinda think I see why this is happening, but its in the Washington Post, and I noticed it on Memeorandum tonight, and I'll bet we hear more about it, with lots of outrage from, well, the usual suspects.
Unseemly - Part II
Unseemly? - Part II:
In comments to two posts below, I raised the question of whether SGT Aguina behaved in an unseemly manner when he showed up at Yearly Kos in his class A's to make the point he had to make. Several commenters agreed that he did, some quite forcefully. I'd like some help in exploring why. My jumping-off point is Grim's response:
Now, if you show up at a meeting like that to make a point like that with your uniform on, to me you're saying, "You need to listen to me, because I know what I'm talking about, because of who and what I am." That might, as Grim says, be all right in the case of (let's say) an artilleryman commenting on the effectiveness of a new gun - his technical knowledge and his experience really matter in determining what weight to give his opinion. But SGT Aguina wasn't arguing from technical knowledge or experience; he was arguing from publicly available information (and, indeed, inviting the attendees to access it) about Iraqi casualties. His choice of uniform looked like an intimidation tactic aimed at most of the people at the conference. And that is why it seems unseemly to me, or at least why I think it does - because that's not what the uniform is for.
What do you think?
In comments to two posts below, I raised the question of whether SGT Aguina behaved in an unseemly manner when he showed up at Yearly Kos in his class A's to make the point he had to make. Several commenters agreed that he did, some quite forcefully. I'd like some help in exploring why. My jumping-off point is Grim's response:
In answer to your question about whether it was "unseemly," I'll say no, for this reason: the panel discussion was explicitly on a military topic.I'll explain my problem in a roundabout way. I have noticed that some Presidential candidates like to run, not on specific policies and proposals, but as "keepers of the secret knowledge." Wes Clark was a prime example: the main focus of his campaign was the fact that he was a general, and presumably had technical knowledge and insights that most of us don't have, which (so the implication went) would make him strong on foreign policy. Ross Perot was much the same, with respect to his business experience and economic policy. I hated those campaigns. The level of grand strategy where the President must operate, and where much of the political debate takes place, goes far beyond the kind of operational judgment a successful general must make; and "I'm the man who knows because of my military experience" simply isn't satisfying. If it's presented the wrong way, it becomes an intimidation tactic - "Don't argue with me because you never did my job" - and an ineffective one at that.
Any other part of Yearly Kos, yes, it would have been unseemly to wear the uniform to it. It's a partisan political conference, one that features repeated calls for the impeachment of the Commander in Chief; even to attend that puts a uniformed military member in an odd position. (I say that having received some guidance from a sergeant about how to present myself when asked about our CiC, Clinton: "The only thing you should ever say about him is, 'I support the Commander in Chief.'" The military oaths make that explicit, so it's simply a direct and honest answer, regardless of politics.)
However, given that this panel discussion was about military topics, I think it was proper to wear a legitimate military uniform to address it. The military normally has to keep out of politics, but it does have a legitimate role in speaking to policy matters that affect it -- for example, a question like "should Congress approve funding for the Crusader system?"
By the same token, even a partisan political panel about military affairs is legitimate for a uniformed military man to address. So long as he is obedient to the law, shows due respect for the chain of command and makes clear that he speaks for himself and not the Army, I see nothing unseemly about his wearing the uniform there.
Now, if you show up at a meeting like that to make a point like that with your uniform on, to me you're saying, "You need to listen to me, because I know what I'm talking about, because of who and what I am." That might, as Grim says, be all right in the case of (let's say) an artilleryman commenting on the effectiveness of a new gun - his technical knowledge and his experience really matter in determining what weight to give his opinion. But SGT Aguina wasn't arguing from technical knowledge or experience; he was arguing from publicly available information (and, indeed, inviting the attendees to access it) about Iraqi casualties. His choice of uniform looked like an intimidation tactic aimed at most of the people at the conference. And that is why it seems unseemly to me, or at least why I think it does - because that's not what the uniform is for.
What do you think?
It's Sunday, I'm bored, and you never know what you'll find on the interntet.
Bikini Girls with Machine Guns
(hat tip: American Digest)
Bikini Girls with Machine Guns
(hat tip: American Digest)
Same facts - separate question
Same Facts, Separate Issue:
I asked this in comments below but decided it made more sense as a separate thread. With respect to the Yearly Kos Exchange, as a matter of manners and morals, and leaving aside all UCMJ questions, was the sergeant's wearing of his uniform while making that statement in that forum unseemly?
I asked this in comments below but decided it made more sense as a separate thread. With respect to the Yearly Kos Exchange, as a matter of manners and morals, and leaving aside all UCMJ questions, was the sergeant's wearing of his uniform while making that statement in that forum unseemly?
Q for Blawggers
A Question for our Blawgers:
Can I get one or both of you military lawyers to look this over, especially the video, and give me a read on it? There's apparently a question of whether this soldier crossed the line or not; and if not, how close to the line he came.
BACK IN THE SADDLE
BACK IN THE SADDLE
After a lengthy absence I have finally found time to contribute to this fine blog. I returned from a seven and a half month deployment to Fallujah, Iraq with 2/8 at the end of February. Upon my return I took about two months of leave to relax and spend time with the family. When I have not been spending quality time with the family or getting set up in my new billet I have been riding my new Black Denim Harley Davidson Street Bob as often as I can. Although I am not a cowboy like Grim, I do fancy my self a Motorcycle Cowboy.
It will be good to once again contribute to the weighty issues discussed here in the Hall. As the political theater over Iraq continues in congress and the 2008 general election approaches the battle over the direction the Republic will take is heating up. In fact, as I observe the political landscape in the aftermath of my last deployment to Iraq the words of Johnny Cash’s song, The Big Battle, come to mind.
"No son the battle’s not over, the battle has only begun.The rest of the battle will cover the part that has blackened the sun.The fight yet to come is not with cannon, nor will the fight be hand-to-hand No one will regroup the forces, no charge will a general command.
The battle will rage in the bosom of mother and sweetheart and wife. Brother and sister and daughter will grieve for the rest of their lives. Now go ahead, rise from your cover, be thankful that God let you live. Go fight the rest of the battle for those who gave all they could give.
I see sir the battle’s not over, the battle has only begun, The rest of the battle will cover this part that has blackened the sun. For though there’s no sound of the cannon and though there’s no smoke in the sky, I’m dropping the gun and the saber and ready for battle am I."
Speaking of great country music, I thought I would bring to everyone’s attention some great acts that need more recognition. Right now I am listening to Kevin Fowler and Trent Summar. I wish music like this would get more airplay than the suburban pop that currently dominates country music radio. Fans of Southern Rock should check out the Drive By Truckers.
After a lengthy absence I have finally found time to contribute to this fine blog. I returned from a seven and a half month deployment to Fallujah, Iraq with 2/8 at the end of February. Upon my return I took about two months of leave to relax and spend time with the family. When I have not been spending quality time with the family or getting set up in my new billet I have been riding my new Black Denim Harley Davidson Street Bob as often as I can. Although I am not a cowboy like Grim, I do fancy my self a Motorcycle Cowboy.
It will be good to once again contribute to the weighty issues discussed here in the Hall. As the political theater over Iraq continues in congress and the 2008 general election approaches the battle over the direction the Republic will take is heating up. In fact, as I observe the political landscape in the aftermath of my last deployment to Iraq the words of Johnny Cash’s song, The Big Battle, come to mind.
"No son the battle’s not over, the battle has only begun.The rest of the battle will cover the part that has blackened the sun.The fight yet to come is not with cannon, nor will the fight be hand-to-hand No one will regroup the forces, no charge will a general command.
The battle will rage in the bosom of mother and sweetheart and wife. Brother and sister and daughter will grieve for the rest of their lives. Now go ahead, rise from your cover, be thankful that God let you live. Go fight the rest of the battle for those who gave all they could give.
I see sir the battle’s not over, the battle has only begun, The rest of the battle will cover this part that has blackened the sun. For though there’s no sound of the cannon and though there’s no smoke in the sky, I’m dropping the gun and the saber and ready for battle am I."
Speaking of great country music, I thought I would bring to everyone’s attention some great acts that need more recognition. Right now I am listening to Kevin Fowler and Trent Summar. I wish music like this would get more airplay than the suburban pop that currently dominates country music radio. Fans of Southern Rock should check out the Drive By Truckers.
Spin!
Spin!
This is a highly welcome development, as the very best thing we can hope for from Congress on Iraq right now is that they shut up until the September report is in. We'll be able to have an informed debate at that time, with hard data from Petraeus and others about the course of the Surge. Whether we end the war or continue it, it'll go better for now if the Congress quits its constant theatrical statements of non-support for the war effort. Given that they do not have the votes to end the war, and know they do not, these theatrics do nothing but undercut our forces in the field, increase the danger to them, and make their duty more difficult to perform.
Nevertheless, it's hilarious how uncritically the spin in the article is reported. It's completely obvious that the Congressional Democrats have not got the votes to press their preferred policy, and that they need a face-saving way to tell their base, "OK, we aren't even going to try to do what you want anymore." I don't even mind granting them the face-saving maneuver, if it will get them to stop the theatrics.
Still, this is the most blatant piece of political spin I think I've ever seen. "Um, we're going to give up trying to end the war in Iraq... to punish the Republicans."
Pardon me while I laugh. :)
Mr. Aftergood Drops In
Steven Aftergood Drops In:
The argument I would pose against this is that the paper may not be the best place to test that proposition. The various agencies all have internal mechanisms to address these questions, which do not require exposing the secrets in order to resolve the question of whether or not the classification is lawful.
In cases where the internal mechanism seems untrustworthy, or too slow, there remains also Congress. However disappointing the current and previous Congress have been, this is precisely the sort of oversight that is their Constitutional responsibility. Before printing the secrets for the world to see -- not only American citizens, but everyone -- it would be better to try the formal methods.
So, if you have classified a secret that is "not respectable," in theory it shouldn't enjoy the protection of a "respectable" one. If the internal mechanisms do not work, and Congress is unwilling to do its duty, then the press may even be an acceptable alternative in some limited cases.
The regular resort to the press that has become usual, however, poses additional problems for the country and the government. As described above, they both undermine the trust on which our government's operation depends, and also make it harder to address the (far more common, in my opinion) problem of overclassification. Overclassification is the problem that arises when things are classified that are not illegal to classify, but really don't need to be classified; or when things are classified at a higher level than is necessary; or when things that were once properly classified remain secret far beyond the time when they ought to be.
All of those problems of overclassification impair government function by restricting useful information. They also damage the Republic's nature as a participatory government, by making it difficult (and sometimes impossible) to know just what it is our government is doing. There are limited cases in which secrecy is necessary; but there are far more numerous cases in which it is not (or is no longer) necessary, but still heavily practiced.
In the comments to the post below, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists dropped by to comment. His comment was short, doubtless because he knows he doesn't have to repeat his argument at length with me; I'm a longtime friend of his project, and an occasional donor to FAS. Mr. Aftergood is the keeper of FAS' Secrecy News, which is now produced in a blog format as well as in the old email format. (The archives, to 2000, are here.) I'd like to take a moment to introduce newer readers to his work, and suggest that you get on his email list if you are not already. It is always fascinating.
The exchange was as follows:
Before rushing to embrace a new police organization to enforce classification rules, it would be wise to consider the late Senator Moynihan's advice: "If you want a secret respected, see that it's respectable in the first place."The problem he is pointing to is that a certain amount of the leaks to the press come from wrongful classification, or overclassification. For example, there are laws in the United States against classifying data in order to prevent institutional embarrassment, or to conceal a violation of law by the government itself. Thus, data which is classified but which may (or definitely does) demonstrate violations of law is not rightfully classified -- and so, some people believe, it's all right to hand it off to the paper (and it may, in fact, be praiseworthy to do so).
Steven Aftergood | 07.31.07 - 2:10 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good advice.
I've read a great deal of your work on the need for robust declassification processes, and I endorse all of it. I think both that (a) we have far too many secrets, and far too great an impulse toward classification, but also (b) that oaths sworn to keep secrets should be kept.
If they are not being kept -- and it has gotten to the point that there is barely even a pretense -- then we need to enforce the oaths.
Still, we are striking a balance between two interests: the need, in a Republic, for open government; but also the need to discuss those few matters that need to be secret in confidence. The leak-prone culture in the government is, as you rightly say, a symptom of over-classification and classification for the wrong reasons.
In fixing that problem, we have to remember that the current culture of oathbreaking is not something to be encouraged either. It creates distrust and heightens political divides within the executive branch especially; it furthers damaging splits, like the State/Defense split, that prevent us from bringing all our national skill and power to bear. That damages all our national interests in the long run.
It also makes the overclassification problem harder to solve. It's hard to convince people to let up on the classification rules when secrets are regularly being leaked; that feels counterintuitive. I agree with you that it is the right way to go, but those whose secrets are being leaked doubtless feel that what is needed are more and tighter rules, not fewer. That's an understandable sentiment, even if it's one that you and I both agree is mistaken.
If we address the issue of oathbreaking successfully, the issue of over-classification becomes simpler.
Grim | 07.31.07 - 3:25 pm | #
The argument I would pose against this is that the paper may not be the best place to test that proposition. The various agencies all have internal mechanisms to address these questions, which do not require exposing the secrets in order to resolve the question of whether or not the classification is lawful.
In cases where the internal mechanism seems untrustworthy, or too slow, there remains also Congress. However disappointing the current and previous Congress have been, this is precisely the sort of oversight that is their Constitutional responsibility. Before printing the secrets for the world to see -- not only American citizens, but everyone -- it would be better to try the formal methods.
So, if you have classified a secret that is "not respectable," in theory it shouldn't enjoy the protection of a "respectable" one. If the internal mechanisms do not work, and Congress is unwilling to do its duty, then the press may even be an acceptable alternative in some limited cases.
The regular resort to the press that has become usual, however, poses additional problems for the country and the government. As described above, they both undermine the trust on which our government's operation depends, and also make it harder to address the (far more common, in my opinion) problem of overclassification. Overclassification is the problem that arises when things are classified that are not illegal to classify, but really don't need to be classified; or when things are classified at a higher level than is necessary; or when things that were once properly classified remain secret far beyond the time when they ought to be.
All of those problems of overclassification impair government function by restricting useful information. They also damage the Republic's nature as a participatory government, by making it difficult (and sometimes impossible) to know just what it is our government is doing. There are limited cases in which secrecy is necessary; but there are far more numerous cases in which it is not (or is no longer) necessary, but still heavily practiced.
The story in his head.
By now, I'm assuming that readers of this blog are aware of PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
If not, go over Michelle Malkin's site and keep scrolling.
My post is a bit of a follow to Grim's post on bloggers and journalists.
What we see here is something similar. Beauchamp has a story in his head and he got to tell it, but unfortunately, he confused his reality (or truth? or fiction?) with actual facts and incidents and mundane and boring things like that.
I think he's going to get a big dose of reality pretty soon though. Check out his 1SG and Captain, here: A/1/18 INF
It was a workable plan: Join the Army, serve in Iraq, return to civilian life and then be able with "absolute moral authority" make shit up. And become some "authentic voice" of the Iraq war, and be a writer and do that whole bohemian writer thing.
But, PVT Snuffy screwed it up by prematurely ejaculating his fictions. If he'd waited to get out, in a year or two, things could have been--would have been--more difficult to refute or verify or whatever. It would have worked. But maybe the moment would have passed too, by then, since it appears that Hollywood is set to start its Freidenssturm this fall with Anti-war movies, probably as a spoiling attack at influencing the 2008 presidential election. (Or so they think--me, I think their movies will fail miserably.)
Anyway, going back to that idea that "journalists" have their own truth or story that they want to tell, we see that The New Republic badly wanted to tell a story that PVT Beauchamp fitted perfectly into. And so they did. 10 years ago they would have go away with it. Not anymore.
And that's a good thing.
UPDATE:
bthun finds an actual email from A/1/18's 1SG here at "the Foxhole"
1SG Hatley pretty much confirms what I thought.
By now, I'm assuming that readers of this blog are aware of PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
If not, go over Michelle Malkin's site and keep scrolling.
My post is a bit of a follow to Grim's post on bloggers and journalists.
What we see here is something similar. Beauchamp has a story in his head and he got to tell it, but unfortunately, he confused his reality (or truth? or fiction?) with actual facts and incidents and mundane and boring things like that.
I think he's going to get a big dose of reality pretty soon though. Check out his 1SG and Captain, here: A/1/18 INF
It was a workable plan: Join the Army, serve in Iraq, return to civilian life and then be able with "absolute moral authority" make shit up. And become some "authentic voice" of the Iraq war, and be a writer and do that whole bohemian writer thing.
But, PVT Snuffy screwed it up by prematurely ejaculating his fictions. If he'd waited to get out, in a year or two, things could have been--would have been--more difficult to refute or verify or whatever. It would have worked. But maybe the moment would have passed too, by then, since it appears that Hollywood is set to start its Freidenssturm this fall with Anti-war movies, probably as a spoiling attack at influencing the 2008 presidential election. (Or so they think--me, I think their movies will fail miserably.)
Anyway, going back to that idea that "journalists" have their own truth or story that they want to tell, we see that The New Republic badly wanted to tell a story that PVT Beauchamp fitted perfectly into. And so they did. 10 years ago they would have go away with it. Not anymore.
And that's a good thing.
UPDATE:
bthun finds an actual email from A/1/18's 1SG here at "the Foxhole"
1SG Hatley pretty much confirms what I thought.
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City - Note for Travelers:
I had occasion to visit Oklahoma City last weekend, and saw two things worth mentioning in this Hall.
Something to see: the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum. I cannot too highly recommend this. I have never seen a musem so well balanced for a family visit. We didn't enter the children's exhibit (which had a building all to itself), but we did see the rest of it. Mrs. W. especially liked the western art gallery - I liked best the rooms dedicated to postbellum military life and ranching history, but thanks to Grim's posts, I didn't neglect the section dedicated to Western movies, and prominent actors and stuntmen. I have an idea that some of our regular visitors would simply take the whole family to the arms collection (which is half Colt, half "everyone else") and spend a few hours there.
Something not to see: the Oklahoma City memorial. As you likely know, this is dedicated to the Oklahoma City bombing. You can see large displays of the timeline, and hear a recording of a water board meeting that was taking place at the time of the explosion, and you can see collected items from the rubble (including a box of children's shoes). However, as the lady at the front desk explained, they didn't want to focus on "him", so you won't actually hear anything about the perpetrator, not even his name, nor learn his fate. The missus noticed a large group of schoolchildren there, and cogently asked, exactly what lesson were they going to take away from this? That dying in a terrorist attack is sad?
I had occasion to visit Oklahoma City last weekend, and saw two things worth mentioning in this Hall.
Something to see: the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum. I cannot too highly recommend this. I have never seen a musem so well balanced for a family visit. We didn't enter the children's exhibit (which had a building all to itself), but we did see the rest of it. Mrs. W. especially liked the western art gallery - I liked best the rooms dedicated to postbellum military life and ranching history, but thanks to Grim's posts, I didn't neglect the section dedicated to Western movies, and prominent actors and stuntmen. I have an idea that some of our regular visitors would simply take the whole family to the arms collection (which is half Colt, half "everyone else") and spend a few hours there.
Something not to see: the Oklahoma City memorial. As you likely know, this is dedicated to the Oklahoma City bombing. You can see large displays of the timeline, and hear a recording of a water board meeting that was taking place at the time of the explosion, and you can see collected items from the rubble (including a box of children's shoes). However, as the lady at the front desk explained, they didn't want to focus on "him", so you won't actually hear anything about the perpetrator, not even his name, nor learn his fate. The missus noticed a large group of schoolchildren there, and cogently asked, exactly what lesson were they going to take away from this? That dying in a terrorist attack is sad?
Home At Last
After six hundred fifty days, a soldier comes home:
[O]ur two buses were joined by escorts from the State Patrol, and a couple of dozen motorcycles from the Patriot Riders and the American Legion. As we crossed every county line in Minnesota, we picked up a new escort from the local sheriff. Just outside of Owatonna, our procession turned into a parade with hundreds of motorcycles leading us, and thousands of people lining our route. Our luxury coach bus included tinted windows, so I'm not sure if the folks we passed saw us waving back, or how many of us had to turn away as we were overcome with emotion.Via Fuzzy.
When we finally arrived at the Owatonna Armory, we had to wait a few minutes as the crowd of hundreds made way for our buses. Despite our extended absence, we are still soldiers and we still had to do what soldiers do-stand in formation. After a wonderfully brief blessing from the chaplain, and the equally short remarks by our commander, we heard the word we were waiting for-
DISMISSED!
In the chaos of the huge crowd it took me a few minutes to find my family. I had to call my wife on her cell phone before we could find each other. Most of the next few minutes are a blur in my mind even now, but hugging my kids and kissing my wife are memories that will stay with me until I am old and gray. The sacrifices and hardships of the last two years seemed at once a small price when an older gentleman in a VFW uniform, WWII or Korea Vet by his age, shook my hand with a tear in his eye and thanked me for keeping his family safe.
Bloggers/Journalists
Bloggers & Journalists:
I don't want to say that it's treason, because that has political connotations I do not intend. And yet that is exactly, precisely the correct word. It is treason -- not against a political order, or a people, or a country, to be sure.
It is a betrayal, nevertheless, of the thing to which a journalist was supposed to be devoted, to which their loyalty was alleged to belong. For years we have heard their proper loyalty was not to country, but to the reporting of the truth:
To what, then, is a journalist meant to be loyal? It is not country; they have no "higher duty" to country. It is not to the story unfolding in front of them; they cannot be loyal to that, she asserts, and ought not to try to be. It is to their own story, to the story in their head.
They should be loyal, in other words, only to themselves.
This seems right and proper to her.
I don't know how to deal with people like that. It's a shocking admission, or at least, it ought to be.
I recently wrote a piece at B5 in response to an article from Harpers, in which I offered an education for journalists into the nature of blogging.
I must admit that today I got something of an education, as a blogger, into the nature of journalism.
Here's my advice: If you do an interview with a journalist, don't expect the journalist to be there to tell your story. The journalist gets paid to tell her own stories which you might or might not be a part of.I find I honestly don't know quite how to describe my thoughts about that.
I don't want to say that it's treason, because that has political connotations I do not intend. And yet that is exactly, precisely the correct word. It is treason -- not against a political order, or a people, or a country, to be sure.
It is a betrayal, nevertheless, of the thing to which a journalist was supposed to be devoted, to which their loyalty was alleged to belong. For years we have heard their proper loyalty was not to country, but to the reporting of the truth:
Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace saida moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?Now comes Ms. Penelope Trunk to assert that she has, and feels no one can or ought to have, any loyalty even to "reporting the truth." It's not about the story they are watching unfold in front of them; it's about the story they brought along with them. A journalist who comes to interview you isn't there to tell your story, she says; she is being paid to tell hers, which you may not be a part of.
"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.
To what, then, is a journalist meant to be loyal? It is not country; they have no "higher duty" to country. It is not to the story unfolding in front of them; they cannot be loyal to that, she asserts, and ought not to try to be. It is to their own story, to the story in their head.
They should be loyal, in other words, only to themselves.
This seems right and proper to her.
I don't know how to deal with people like that. It's a shocking admission, or at least, it ought to be.
Lacplesis
The Epic of Lacplesis
My recent switch to the active Army caused me to undergo some leadership training. One of my fellow trainees was a magnificent Soldier from Latvia. While planning a PT session, I had occasion to check out the national epic of Latvia – Lacplesis. This heroic epic may be of interest to the guests in this Hall, and I found it inspiring. You can read it at Project Gutenberg here (the translation is into assonant verse; if you’re familiar with the Song of Roland it’ll have a familiar feel), or at least part of a later translation here.
Lacplesis – his name means “the bear slayer” – was raised by bears, and himself had a huge pair of hairy, bear-like ears. These ears were to Lacplesis was Samson’s hair was to him – the source of his strength. The epic traces his destiny as discussed by the pagan Latvian gods, then his heroic deeds and death.
Two events especially impressed me. The first was Lacplesis’ combat with the Estonian giant Kalapuisis. The Estonian Army is invading Latvia, and Kalapuisis is also ravaging the countryside (but separately from the army). Lacplesis sends his trusted friend to raise an army against the Estonians, and goes to face the giant himself. Kalapuisis knocks him from his horse, but he fells the giant with a single blow – and then shows mercy. They make a sworn covenant that Latvia and Estonia will never fight again, and that Kalapuisis will instead help to guard both countries against the coming invasion by the Germans.
Unlike Gilgamesh, Lacplesis does not seek out his opponent to win glory for himself – I don’t see any of that in his character – but simply to save his countrymen. And he has the foresight and the strategic sense to think beyond simply killing his enemies. When a deadly enemy is down, you cut his throat or help him to his feet, and sometimes the latter is the best (or the only) course. Lacplesis speaks to me in a way that some heroes of legend do not. This may in part be because the epic was composed in the 19th century and I haven’t read the earlier legends on which it was based – I know the Arthur of Excalibur is more understandable to a modern viewer than is the Arthur of Mallory, and if I knew Tennyson’s version I would doubtless think the same.
The other event that impresses me is the death of Lacplesis. A Latvian traitor who has sold his soul to Satan learns Lacplesis’ weakness through black magic, and gives the information to a German, who picks a witchborn black knight (and confirmed ravager and villain) to make use of it. The knight visits Lacplesis’ hall as a guest, takes part in a tournament, breaks Lacplesis’ sword, and cuts off both his ears – thus robbing him of his superhuman strength. Lacplesis, undaunted, makes an end like Sherlock Holmes’ – he wrestles his enemy over a cliff and into a deep river, where both sink from view. The tale ends tragically, as the Germans then overrun Latvia, but there is hope for the future – Lacplesis can be seen in the river, still striving with the knight, and someday he will prevail and his country will be free (as, indeed, it is today).
Some heroes of legend rely entirely on their god-born powers – and their “heroism” seems to consist mainly of crushing out lesser beings who don’t stand a chance against them. Now I believe in fighting the good fight with every unfair advantage possible; but what Lacplesis understood was that, when all that’s gone and your enemy has the upper hand, the choice still lies with you: to keep fighting or not. And you can see that he had something greater than mere power; he had the heart to fight when everything else was gone.
I commend this heroic tale to all.
My recent switch to the active Army caused me to undergo some leadership training. One of my fellow trainees was a magnificent Soldier from Latvia. While planning a PT session, I had occasion to check out the national epic of Latvia – Lacplesis. This heroic epic may be of interest to the guests in this Hall, and I found it inspiring. You can read it at Project Gutenberg here (the translation is into assonant verse; if you’re familiar with the Song of Roland it’ll have a familiar feel), or at least part of a later translation here.
Lacplesis – his name means “the bear slayer” – was raised by bears, and himself had a huge pair of hairy, bear-like ears. These ears were to Lacplesis was Samson’s hair was to him – the source of his strength. The epic traces his destiny as discussed by the pagan Latvian gods, then his heroic deeds and death.
Two events especially impressed me. The first was Lacplesis’ combat with the Estonian giant Kalapuisis. The Estonian Army is invading Latvia, and Kalapuisis is also ravaging the countryside (but separately from the army). Lacplesis sends his trusted friend to raise an army against the Estonians, and goes to face the giant himself. Kalapuisis knocks him from his horse, but he fells the giant with a single blow – and then shows mercy. They make a sworn covenant that Latvia and Estonia will never fight again, and that Kalapuisis will instead help to guard both countries against the coming invasion by the Germans.
Unlike Gilgamesh, Lacplesis does not seek out his opponent to win glory for himself – I don’t see any of that in his character – but simply to save his countrymen. And he has the foresight and the strategic sense to think beyond simply killing his enemies. When a deadly enemy is down, you cut his throat or help him to his feet, and sometimes the latter is the best (or the only) course. Lacplesis speaks to me in a way that some heroes of legend do not. This may in part be because the epic was composed in the 19th century and I haven’t read the earlier legends on which it was based – I know the Arthur of Excalibur is more understandable to a modern viewer than is the Arthur of Mallory, and if I knew Tennyson’s version I would doubtless think the same.
The other event that impresses me is the death of Lacplesis. A Latvian traitor who has sold his soul to Satan learns Lacplesis’ weakness through black magic, and gives the information to a German, who picks a witchborn black knight (and confirmed ravager and villain) to make use of it. The knight visits Lacplesis’ hall as a guest, takes part in a tournament, breaks Lacplesis’ sword, and cuts off both his ears – thus robbing him of his superhuman strength. Lacplesis, undaunted, makes an end like Sherlock Holmes’ – he wrestles his enemy over a cliff and into a deep river, where both sink from view. The tale ends tragically, as the Germans then overrun Latvia, but there is hope for the future – Lacplesis can be seen in the river, still striving with the knight, and someday he will prevail and his country will be free (as, indeed, it is today).
Some heroes of legend rely entirely on their god-born powers – and their “heroism” seems to consist mainly of crushing out lesser beings who don’t stand a chance against them. Now I believe in fighting the good fight with every unfair advantage possible; but what Lacplesis understood was that, when all that’s gone and your enemy has the upper hand, the choice still lies with you: to keep fighting or not. And you can see that he had something greater than mere power; he had the heart to fight when everything else was gone.
I commend this heroic tale to all.
The Involunteers:
A new poem by Russ Vaughn of Old War Dogs.
A new poem by Russ Vaughn of Old War Dogs.
One thing to me rings loud and clear
Through mainstream media sources:
Libs don’t understand, Volunteer,
When it comes to our fighting forces.
Their memories hark to former days,
Dubious deferments due to classes,
Craven cowering in cynical ways,
Just to cover their cowardly asses.
Pony-tailed pundits of treason foregoing,
Now scoff and condemn with derision,
Volunteer warriors, warned and knowing,
Who’ve made a fateful decision,
Foregoing the comforts liberals love,
That very succor to preserve,
A concept Libs are ignorant of:
To reap benefits, one should serve.
Ever fearful, Libs cower in classrooms,
Proclaiming the due of the masses;
On graves of the brave, toxic mushrooms,
Still cravenly covering their asses.
Preaching, protesting, showing their ire,
Cat-box covering all their worst fears,
Cowardly curs afraid of war’s fire,
They’re our nation’s Involunteers.
I know a truth from mankind’s past,
A truth that sure prevails;
Those who fight are those will last,
Throughout all man’s travails.
But those making phony excuses,
As false and fearful disguise,
Will feel history’s worst abuses,
Enslaved by their cowardly lies.
Russ Vaughn
101st and 82d Airborne
1959-1967
Fixed links
Permalinks Finally Fixed:
Now, only several months after it became a problem, our permalinks work again. Thanks to Fuzzy for giving me a tip about what the problem was likely to be; I finally had time to sit and dig through the code.
If anyone reading this knows how to do "if/then/else" statements in webpage code, drop me an email please. I've got a change I want to make to the page to make it easier to recognize the author of a post, but I haven't figured out how to tell the computer to do what I want. :)
Language & Terrorism
Language and Terrorism:
A long time ago I remember there was a push from some circles to call Arab terrorists mufsidoon, meaning "evildoer" in Arabic. You see the term now and then, but it never caught on. People adopted "jihadist" instead, falling into just the trap warned against: letting the terrorist be labeled as one doing religious work, performing a religious duty.
The Chronicle suggests that we shouldn't be quite so civilized as mufsidoon anyway: "Young Muslims would have to get used to hearing jihadist heroes described as savages, scum, and uncivilized losers, along with the reasons why. It would intellectually force them, far more than they are forced today, to choose between two visions of the world."
Savages. I like it.
A scholarly article at The Chronicle of Higher Educationmakes the case for calling people names. Well, not just any people:
The reasons fall into five categories.It's interesting that we live in a country in which we often hear our political opponents and fellow Americans called terrible names, but terrorists are normally named "insurgents" or "fighters" or even "activists." The use of the term "terrorist" without scare quotes by an organization like Reuters is cause for note.
The first rationale amounts to political correctness, however odd that may ring in regard to terrorism, the most political of all matters on the government's plate. It's the reflexive unwillingness of officials to express moral and political beliefs for fear they'll insult and offend others. Remember Fowler's classic definition of euphemism: "mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable truth."
These days officials win praise for such evasion. In London, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil-rights group Liberty, observed of Gordon Brown that he "has passed the first test of his administration. He has not played politics with the terror threat and has treated this weekend's events as an operational rather than a political matter."
But if the admirable part of political correctness is that one shouldn't utter unsupportable, reactionary ethnic, gender, or other generalizations, that principle is misapplied in the case of terrorists, who are picked out for condemnation by their acts alone. Aren't "bastards," "scum," and so on precisely the right terms for people who seek to maim and kill presumably innocent others to make a political point?
A second reason for muted language is the notion that not using emotional, judgmental words means one is acting more rationally and efficiently. Here, too, current clichés of proper official behavior encourage word-mincing. New Home Secretary Jacqui Smith won applause for the "calmness and dignity" of her remarks to Parliament after the failed car bombings.
That backslap makes little sense in regard to commentary on terrorists. Are all morally judgmental words "emotive"? Few would think that calling terrorists "wrong" or "immoral" counts as emotive, though branding them "evil" might slip into that category nowadays, on the ground that President Bush gave "evil" a bad name. The step to "cowardly" or "barbarian" strikes far more people as worrisome verbal escalation. What, though, is the logical inference between emotionally strong language by responsible people and irrational action? We don't expect President Bush to make weepy, emotionally upset decisions because he emerges teary-eyed from meetings with American families who've lost loved ones in Iraq. We don't expect religious figures or ordinary people who deliver strong, moving remarks at funerals to make irrational decisions immediately afterward. Why infer such things with politicians?
A third reason, construable as a corollary of the second, is that citizens don't want to see their leaders act emotionally. Hitler's histrionics and Khrushchev's shoe-pounding remain quintessential Bigfoot examples of the political equation that emotional language signals demagoguery. On a different scale, famous moments in American political history, such as Sen. Edward Muskie's alleged crying over attacks on his wife, reinforced a perceived equation between emotion and weakness.
Here one would like to see a poll. Politicians might be surprised by the result.
A fourth reason for morally neutral language about terrorism is fear that emotional, insulting language might make terrorists angrier and more dangerous. An old anecdote about former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir figures on the other side. Once, at an Israeli cabinet meeting, someone reportedly warned that the action contemplated would anger the Palestinians. Shamir supposedly replied, "Are they going to hate us more?" — implying that enemies of Israel had already hit their max in that department, freeing Israel from such consequentialist calculations. A similar logic appears more applicable to terrorists than fear of inciting them to greater ferocity. That aside, fear that insulting or strongly judging terrorists will cause greater terrorism appears to contradict the logic behind emotionless security talk itself — that violence is prevented by tough tactical measures rather than rhetoric. So long as rigorous tactics remain in place during rhetorical upgradings, things should not get worse.
Finally, there is the reason, intuited even by nonexperts on rhetoric, that repeating such language weakens its power. Listening to President Bush denounce terrorists every day as cowards would grow old fast, this thinking goes, as did hearing the mantra that "terrorists hate our freedom." Here, one might nonetheless ask, for what would we be trying to hold language's power in reserve? For another 9/11? A dirty bomb exploded in an American city? Is anything short of slaughtering thousands at a time insufficient for moral outrage? Nonuse of morally strong language arguably saps it of power more than repeated use, making it seem quaint and archaic.
A long time ago I remember there was a push from some circles to call Arab terrorists mufsidoon, meaning "evildoer" in Arabic. You see the term now and then, but it never caught on. People adopted "jihadist" instead, falling into just the trap warned against: letting the terrorist be labeled as one doing religious work, performing a religious duty.
The Chronicle suggests that we shouldn't be quite so civilized as mufsidoon anyway: "Young Muslims would have to get used to hearing jihadist heroes described as savages, scum, and uncivilized losers, along with the reasons why. It would intellectually force them, far more than they are forced today, to choose between two visions of the world."
Savages. I like it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)