The Peace Racket

The Peace Racket:

Via The Geek w/ a .45, a link to an article worth reading.

We need to make two points about this movement at the outset. First, it’s opposed to every value that the West stands for—liberty, free markets, individualism—and it despises America, the supreme symbol and defender of those values. Second, we’re talking not about a bunch of naive Quakers but about a movement of savvy, ambitious professionals that is already comfortably ensconced at the United Nations, in the European Union, and in many nongovernmental organizations. It is also waging an aggressive, under-the-media-radar campaign for a cabinet-level Peace Department in the United States.

Is that a problem? We're all in favor of peace, right?

In March, Yusra Moshtat, an associate of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, and Jan Oberg, director of the foundation, wrote that “words like democracy and freedom are deceptive, cover-ups or Unspeak.” And in a 1997 speech at a Texas peace foundation, Oscar Arias, ex-president of Costa Rica and founder of his own peace foundation, described the American preoccupation with freedom versus tyranny as “obsolete,” “oversimplified,” and above all “dangerous,” because it could lead to war. In other words, if you want to ensure peace, worry less about freedom. Appease tyranny, accept it, embrace it—and there’ll be no more war.

Well, different strokes and all that... Costa Rica, Europeans...

Many students make it clear that they’re ashamed to be American; one of them, listing her aspirations, writes, “I envision myself American, not needing to be embarrassed of it.” They view themselves instead as “global citizens.”

Hm.

Let's consider this.

The more one considers oneself a global citizen, of course, the less one considers oneself an American citizen whose loyalty is to the Constitution and its freedoms. Each new global citizen, in fact, transfers his loyalty to the Peace Racket. No wonder these students often sound like cultists: “I have pledged my passion, dedication, and undying energy to the World Peace Program and the ongoing fight for a more peaceful world for all people.”

Confer with the post below on where rights come from, and who rightfully exercises them.

This whole movement appears to be attempting to create and motivate a class of people I would have to define as "freeloaders" on the social contract. That seems like a basic problem for society; but what happens when that class is among the wealthiest, and most tied in to the various levers of power? Confer, again, with the recent post on recruitment for PRTs in Iraq among the State Department.

Looks like a problem to me.

Big Debate Day II

Big Debate Day II:

It also turns out there is a debate centered on Megan McArdle's Atlantic Monthly blog about animal rights. This falls in so nicely with yesterday's discussion about dogs that I thought I'd move it to the front page.

I've been following with avid interest Jim Henley's attempt to generate a libertarian theory of animal cruelty law, as well as Julian Sanchez's declaration that there isn't one.

Julian takes what I would say is the typical libertarian view, which is that only rights should be enshrined in law. I shouldn't try to steal someone else's husband, but I am legally forbidden from stealing their car, because they have a property right in the car, but not in the husband. That leaves a boundary question: are animals rights-having creatures?

As with abortion, there's no inherently libertarian answer to that question. But Julian and some of Jim's commenters seem to be taking a fairly hard line: rights are binary (you have them or you don't); and animals, which don't have agency, cannot have rights.

I'd say that there are different classes of rights-holders; babies are persons, but they can't vote, and they do have the right to be supported by the state. (Of course, some libertarians would disagree with that latter, but I'm pretty firm that they do.) So it seems plausible to me that animals could have limited rights--a right not to suffer for our pleasure, say--even though none of them will ever master the lute.

Should animals have that right? Obviously, both Julian (who is a vegetarian) and I, who will only eat animals that are not industrially farmed, have both decided that the suffering of animals matters, morally. But should it matter, legally? Creating new rights is a big deal.

Okay, I'll bite the bullet. As a first principle, you shouldn't be able to burn a sheep alive because it's fun.

Oddly, just last night I was writing up a theory of how rights arise and who ought to have them, as applied to animals. Here it is.

it's a question that ought to be reasoned from first principles. The question is, "What does a dog deserve?" And the answer is:

Jeffery: Something like human rights, given the analogies to human slavery;

Daniel: The right to be protected as property, but disposed of by the owner of that property as he sees fit;

Grim: No rights as such, but certain basic protections.

Each of us is approaching the question from a different foundation. Daniel's is deeply aware of the history of how things have been done in the past. He seeks to recreate what seems like a stable society based on the guidelines of what has worked in the past. Jeffrey is looking toward a future, improved society -- by protecting animal rights more vigorously, he argues, we'll protect human rights more vigorously.

I'm not looking toward the future or to the past, but toward the world as it is. Somewhat like Hobbes, I'm arguing from the nature of the world -- that it is a fearsome and destructive place -- and the necessity of building a society and a frith that can withstand those natural forces, including other men, well enough to make a space in which freedom and peace can exist.

I argue that "rights" arise from that precise contract, and all rights stand on it. In the state of nature, you have no rights in any practical sense -- whatever inalienable rights you may hold from the Creator, they have no force on what happens to you in the world. In order to make a space in which those rights can exist practically, we must make the space and defend it.

Society owes nothing to anyone except to those who are engaged in making that space, defending it once it is made, and keeping it clear internally. They are the ones to whom society belongs.

We see in our society as it exists that there are tremendous problems caused by freeloaders, whether they are the ones who wish to live off the welfare system; or the ones who wish to live off the rich economy we have been able to create in this space, but who are not interested in defending it; or the ones who actually prey on it by making a living in criminal enterprise; and so forth.

These are all classes of people we would like to see diminish; a healthy society will have more people who are engaged in defending the space, improving it, keeping it clear. This is also true of all other societies, which is why I say it is not about past or future. There are different ways of going about this, but that is the core problem of society. It's about Natural Law in the real sense of the term: the law that nature imposes on the world.

What does that view say about dogs? That their ancestors were participants in creating and defending the space; and that they themselves continue to defend it and us. The first dog in the story, for example, was hunting for explosives to prevent soldiers from being killed. Even a small dog in the home warns its master when strangers approach.

Society eats cattle, but might have eaten other things; and the cattle don't actually do anything toward the defense of our society. We use them, as we use crops.

Dogs are not like that. They serve. That means they are owed a kind of honor, and it is a duty of the society to see that they get it.

That was originally a comment to a specific post, and not a fully-considered post of its own. I'd like to make clear that I read the human duties that entitle you to rights fairly broadly: a person who gets a job and works at it steadily is doing enough, even if they don't deserve the special praise due to soldiers.

By the same token, ancestry is important in a narrow sense -- because a society is a project across generations, we have to extend loyalty to those who went before, and those who will come after. We have to be loyal to our fathers, and recognize they deserve the benefits of society even though they may no longer be young enough to produce. We recognize that our children are too young yet, but extend them rights in expectation of their performance of their duties when it is their turn. That, in turn, imposes a real duty on them -- one that, if they do not perform it, means that society has a right to be angry. They have profited from our work, and will show no loyalty in return.

Some people, due to injury or for other reasons, have no capacity to do useful work, but because they are wrapped into these family webs, they belong anyway. We take care of them out of respect for what their fathers did for all of us, or their mothers; and what their children may do, if they have children. This is a distinct problem from "those who wish to live off the welfare system," mentioned as freeloaders, above. The question of just who in society cares for them can be debated, but unlike freeloaders, these people have a legitimate place in society.

As for those who have always enjoyed the benefits of our society, but will not defend it and may seek to undermine it, I am thinking of those people Joseph Schumpeter was talking about.

Schumpeter believed that capitalism would be destroyed by its successes. Capitalism would spawn, he believed, a large intellectual class that made its living by attacking the very bourgeois system of private property and freedom so necessary for the intellectual class's existence.

Those of you who belong to that class know who you are.

In any event, as for animal rights, this basic theory of society suggests that we owe something to animals that serve the society. Dogs do; cats, to some degree, do; horses don't, at this point, but their ancestors were indispensable (and it's possible that their children may be). Other animals do not, and are not owed anything.

I still believe in the personal virtue of kindness toward animals who are not part of the society, but I think that is a personal rather than a social virtue. If I had a bull, he would be the happiest bull in the world. His sons would not be so happy, because they would be castrated while young and slaughtered when they were old enough to provide meat. I would be as kind to both of them as the situation permitted -- but I would not feel I was doing anything wrong in humanely butchering the steer.

Big Debate Day

Big Debate Day:

Today, we're going to join a couple of the big debates swirling through the blogosphere. The first one, which I address first only to get it out of the way quickly, is the debate on masculinity that I had thought would end ages ago now. There is a post from Firedoglake, which was aimed at Protein Wisdom, which drew fire from others, and another round from Protein Wisdom, plus Instapundit (who was earlier attacked by Glenn Greenwald), etc., etc., etc.

So, here's what I have to say about the question of who is masculine. If you're doing it right, the women will tell you. If they don't, you may not be doing it right.

Now, different women want different things, and that's fine. The point is that masculinity has its opposite in femininity. It's about sex more than it's about anything else. It is, therefore, womens' business to define what they find masculine.

You realize what the reverse of that principle is, right? It's men's business to decide what is feminine. That's going to cause some headaches. Nevertheless, it's true -- and accepting that it is true will produce some peace. My wife, before we were married, used to have all the same concerns that most women do about whether or not she was beautiful. When we first began to date, and she began to express those concerns, I told her not to worry about it -- that nature had decided that I should be the judge of feminine beauty, not her, and she could see how I felt about it.

And indeed, that's precisely the case. A woman frets over her beauty, because she can never really be sure of it. A man looks at her, and is sure.

Those who want to define womanhood with no reference to men can try; but I don't think they'll do more than chase each other in a circle for a few more decades, just like they have for the last few. That's my warning to those people arguing about "masculinity" also. Don't bother; it's a waste of your time. The women will let you know when you've got it right. When they see it, they'll be sure.

Lovelorn

Echo:

A new study considers the depth of heartbreak:

"People who are more in love really are a little more upset after a breakup, but their perceptions about how distraught they will be are dramatically overstated when compared to reality," Finkel said.

"At the end of the day it, it is just less bad than you thought."

No man who has ever loved could have written that.

Good Dog

Good Dog:

Via Soldiers Angels, Germany:

Malbern, Ark., native Air Force Staff Sgt. Jacob Holm, a military working dog handler, rewards Zasko after his canine companion identified homemade explosive materials hidden outside an abandoned building during a patrol of western Baghdad supporting Company C, 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division Aug 2.

Zasko, a Belgian Malinois, had never been trained to identify homemade-explosive materials, but used a sample as a reference and soon found a cache of approximately 15 pounds.

Of course, Cassidy has her own ideas about what constitutes a good dog.

And of course we'd remiss not to mention the article from the Dallas Morning News, "Cowboys discuss Vick situation."

OK, let's discuss it. In a long-ago interview for Cassidy's place, I was asked after my favorite proverb. I picked this one:

12:10 A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.

"I've always held that you can judge the quality of a man best by meeting his dog," I said in the interview.

Rot, Vick.

Tenet's Pre-9/11 Efforts Faulted

Gee, ya think so?

How to Spy in Iraq

Michael Totten again has an excellent article, this one on the nuts and bolts of what I guess is the softer side of COIN operations in Iraq.

Yeah, I remember those....

The people at the Smoking Gun got their hands on the soldier comments about some new MRE's being fielded by the Army.

Some highlights:

"Don't ever give the stuffed cabbage to a soldier again, even POWs deserve better."

"The vanilla pudding is so good that I ripped it open. Licked the inside and rolled around on top of it like a dog."

It sounds marginally better than the stuff I ate 20 years ago, though. Anybody remember the dehydrated pork patty? Yeccch.

1776

Alright, Grim has given me the go-ahead to take over the movie club for this month. As close readers of the comments know, I have chosen 1776. My idea of a reasonable timeframe is now through next weekend to watch it, with comment threads going up Sunday or Monday - though if any of our redoutable commentators want more time before we start up the conversation, I'm sure they'll let me know.

There are of course many ways to approach this (most excellent and charming) film - comparing it to the history, evaluating it as a play and a musical, discussing fact and fantasy about why some of the scenes were cut, or meditating on the timeless themes of politics, liberty, rights, and compromise that this film brings to the fore. Given Grim's recent interest in the topic of political reconciliation, as related to both Iraq and our own country, I believe that aspect is especially timely. Think as you watch it: how do you handle a situation where, in order to achieve an extremely important goal, you absolutely must make common cause with people whose views are not only alien, but positively ungodly by your own lights?

I'll start a new thread when the time's up, and all kinds of thoughtful commentary will be welcome at that time! (And I expect plenty of it here.) However, comments as to whether Martha Jefferson is, or is not, "hawt" will be summarily deleted.

Clerisy

Clerisy:

It's interesting to see the debate referenced here, many of the links of which are worth following. It points to several of the more serious Left-thinking bloggers (as well as several of the less-serious ones) who have turned against the State Department and the rest of the foreign policy community in the wake of the O'Hanlan/Pollack piece. (See also Tigerhawk's entry into the debate). I was aware that the O'H/P piece was producing a lot of heat on the left, but I hadn't realized it had gone quite so far.

There is an interesting point raised in the debate about the "foreign policy clerisy." (See here to drop right in the thick of it.) I'd like to inform the debate from outside it, by pointing to a recent Roundtable discussion with Mr. Reeker of the State Department:

[O]ne of the tricks [in deploying State-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)] has been to get the right people, the right skills sets, in right away. You'll recall that early on there was some criticism -- I think more from misunderstanding than anything else -- that while the State Department itself wasn't able to stand up and send these people -- and it's true the State Department doesn't have, necessarily, the types of skill sets -- civil engineers or veterinary scientists -- that meet the needs of what that particular region and that provincial reconstruction team are doing towards the development and capacity building in that particular location.

And so while they go out and look for these people, we have been able to tap into the vast resources of the U.S. military -- particularly the Reserve Corps -- and so you can find the specialists and bring them out. And I think that's worked quite well. And slowly, as those people finish their rotation, then we find the others. They're filling that out and more and State Department people, but others -- contractors -- are coming at the same time and they're exploring, you know, looking at who are the best people. They may be third country nationals, in some cases, to bring these guys out, not just a veterinary scientist. You need -- the ambassador says you need a guy that really knows sheep husbandry.

My response was to say, essentially, "We can probably help you find those people," and so I've been involved in a discussion with the folks in Iraq about how State is doing its recruiting. I'm hoping we can start finding Americans to fill these needs, as the PRTs are an important part of bringing stability and prosperity to Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the discussion has caused me to think a bit about this problem of having a "clerisy," which does in fact seem to be the problem State is having.

Let me phrase the problem this way: Mr. Reeker points to the advantages DOD has, as a nation building organization, in its Reserve Corps. The advantages are broader than that. DOD recruits from all five quintiles of American society; only the poorest quintile is underrepresented, and not substantially so. Almost all members have a high school diploma; almost all officers have a college degree. Everyone goes back to school regularly, either civilian or internal military schools. In addition, there is the Reserve Corps and the National Guard, so that you have people who have fully developed careers and expertise -- from construction to banking -- who are available to you for occasional deployment to do things like what State is trying to do with its PRTs.

State has none of that. State recruits its workers from a narrow range of colleges, and from a narrow class of Americans -- that small group that thinks of "foreign policy" as something you might actually do for a living. Having attended functions at some of those schools -- like Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) -- I can tell you that budding young State Department workers are not in any sense as "diverse" a lot as you will find in the US Military, even at the entry level.

Furthermore, because there is one track -- college with a focus in foreign policy; employment by State; and only after that come any branches, mostly to think tanks aligned with State, or occasionally to other government-oriented careers -- they don't get much more diverse as time goes on.

So you end up with a problem like the PRTs: You know that one of the things you want in every member of the PRT is "foreign policy experience," and so you do your recruiting among people who have that. But the other thing you really need is someone who's made a living working with sheep.

If you can think of that as a two-element Venn Diagram, you'll see the problem. There's a populated set of people with foreign policy experience; there's a populated set with experience with sheep husbandry. Is there anyone to populate the set with both? You might find someone who grew up on a sheep farm before going to Johns Hopkins, but once he got old enough to go to college, he'll have been on the "one track," and will have no further experience in sheep husbandry. And that's a long shot -- more likely, you won't find anyone in the set of people with foreign policy experience who grew up on a sheep farm. What if you need two of them, one for Iraq and one for Afghanistan?

To a degree this is true also for construction workers, etc. There are a few jobs that State does as part of its profile, so you might get people with both "foreign policy experience" and also some useful experience in finance. As far as the skills you need for the PRT mission, though, a lot of them -- as Mr. Reeker has found -- will be difficult to fill.

Not so for the US military. It's a bigger establishment, of course, but the Reserve Corps is a huge advantage. You need a horse doctor? No problem -- we've got one somewhere. You need people who have worked construction for ten years? We've got 'em. You need people who have experience as mayor in a small town? Got 'em.

My critique here is mild compared to others, and I make it from the perspective of wanting to help State find what it needs. Leaving that aside, though, there is quite a bit to be said for what some of the more serious Lefty writers are putting out here. There is a problem with having a "foreign policy clerisy." It's nothing personal; it's just that State needs more economic and intellectual diversity, and more diversity in skills and life experience, than it currently has.

Monday Reading

Monday Reading:

I have a new piece on COIN in response to yesterday's NYT article from the 82nd ABN NCOs.

One of you, who knows who he is, suggested that he might have reason to avoid concealed carry of a firearm, but might do open carry. I once wrote a piece called "To Bear Arms," that I still think is good reading on the subject. It's something I think we should do more of in this country.

Interesting post

An Interesting Post from Kim du Toit:

On the spirit of the 3rd Amendment. I'd like to ask our lawyers their thinking on his interpretation.

On the one hand, I like where he's going in terms of an appreciation of the Founders' devotion to "negative liberty," the best kind. On the other hand, the Amendment doesn't actually say "no agents of the state may observe you without cause," but rather, "the state shall not quarter soldiers in your house." The state does not do so, making the Third perhaps unique in that it is a point of the Constitution that the government obeys entirely and without exception.

How good is the argument he makes, then, as a point of interpretation? Given that the goal he describes is laudable, is it better to assert that the 3rd covers it -- or to push for a new amendment to cover it? It seems like one area where we could find a fair amount of common cause with our friends on the Left -- at least as long as Bush remains president; I suspect at least some of them who are expressing outrage over FISA etc. would be mollified by having Ms. Clinton in the White House. It's a point I think is important, however, regardless of who is in office. Surely at least some of those on the Left would feel the same way.

I've been thinking a lot about political reconciliation lately. It seems to me that, if we can ask it of the Iraqis, we can ask it of ourselves. Finding points of agreement on basic liberties, and pushing to secure them, seems like it would be doubly useful. It might restrain the government; and it might bring us back together somewhat as Americans.

Heart Bleeds

My Heart Bleeds:

A reader sends this story about ammunition shortages for police:

Troops training for and fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are firing more than 1 billion bullets a year, contributing to ammunition shortages hitting police departments nationwide and preventing some officers from training with the weapons they carry on patrol.

Here's a little concept I've been working on: if police departments armed themselves like cops instead of carrying military-spec weapons, this wouldn't be a problem. I have yet to hear of the ammo shortage on .357 Magnum or .38 Special rounds. That cop busting caps out of his M-4? That's a choice he or his department made. They could have chosen a civilian-style rifle instead, and would find that there was no shortage at all of .30-30 Winchester cartridges.

Of course, they'd have to admit that it's perfectly honest for a cop to carry a revolver, a rifle or a shotgun like any other civilian, instead of being tricked out like a G.I. Joe Commando. The military gets first dibs on military weapons in wartime. That's just the way it has to be.

Here's another concept: maybe this isn't the time to shut down our native ammunition plants with punitive new regulations. Just a thought.

Exercise sucks

Experts: Exercise is Bad for You

That, at least, is the only message I can take from this article:

Deer hunting could be a dangerous endeavor for men with heart disease or risk factors for it, research findings suggest. In a study of 25 middle-aged male deer hunters, researchers found that the activities inherent to hunting -- like walking over rough terrain, shooting an animal and dragging its carcass -- sent the men's heart rates up significantly.

That would usually be described as "aerobic exercise," which is supposed to be the remedy for the health conditions mentioned in the article.

In general, the researchers found, deer hunting put the men's hearts under more strain than the treadmill did.

Headline: Deer Hunting Excellent Exercise! (Sidebar: Eat Lean! Eat Venison!)

No, of course not. That might encourage people to do something un-PC -- play with guns, kill animals, that sort of thing. That musn't happen at any cost.

SWJ Mattis/Kilcullen

Small Wars Journal on Mattis, Kilcullen:

The SWJ Blog has a piece contrasting David Kilcullen's work with that of USMC Lt. General Mattis, the top COIN expert in the Marine Corps. Mattis serves as both Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command and Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force.

The question at issue is how to best attack the al Qaeda narrative, which is indeed the central question in the global counterinsurgency. Give it a read.

Althouse

With Respects to the Lady:

I trust Ms. Althouse has sufficient reason for her ire toward the blogger at Firedoglake, which site seems to direct itself to providing ire and cause for it. Nevertheless, I must object to this phrase (mentioned by Instapundit):

Oh, the hell! He's in Georgia. He's in Georgia, insulting Wisconsin? Well, now, it's a war between the states!

Readers of this blog know that Georgia is my home, and the center of my patriotism. Without any disrespect towards Wisconsin, which must have some good qualities, I would gently request that the state of Georgia be left out of this quarrel.

Arizona's Grand Canyon may dwarf Providence Canyon in pure size, I confess. Perhaps there are some Carribean islands that compare to Cumberland Island, where once I stood off the stallion of a herd of wild horses. The mystery of Fort Mountain, with her 855 foot defensive wall that Cherokee legends attribute to a lost and ancient people, may be equalled elsewhere. I know that North Carolina's Grandfather Mountain is at least the equal of our Brasstown Bald; I have seen him clad in thunderstorms. Cloudland Canyon must have some equal in the Rocky Mountains.

Virginia, which gave us Washington and Jefferson, might claim to be the better of Georgia, though she gave us James Jackson. Perhaps there are Americans who fought more valiantly in our several wars than the men who fought to defend Georgia at Chickamauga. Perhaps some of them were General Oglethorpe and his band of Georgia Mounted Rangers, still in service in today's National Guard, who stood the Spanish off the colonies in 1742. Speaking of Oglethorpe, perhaps there was another man who founded a colony for as good a reason as his: to give the working poor of England a chance to escape the debtor's prison, and start a new life in a new world.

I suppose Harvard and Yale claim some precedence among American educators; well, I've argued about that from time to time. Giving them their due, whatever it is, it was the University of Georgia that was America's first state university. But there are other great colleges elsewhere; fair enough.

If Georgia is the largest state east of the Mississippi, yet there are states to the West; if Amicalola Falls is the tallest falls on this side of the country, yet there are others as tall or taller. If Doc Holliday was a native of Georgia, Wyatt Earp came from elsewhere; though if there has been a Senator in our lifetimes who spoke his mind more directly than Zell Miller, I have missed it. For that matter, our Dr. King also spoke his mind once in a while; and while cities from Montgomery to Boston burned in the civil rights disputes, Atlanta was "the city too busy to hate."

I have no quarrel with the idea that another place may be the equal or even the better of Georgia, on this or that particular point. Taken all together, though, there surely can be no place on earth, not even Scotland, which has so many fine qualities; nor can there be one that has inspired so fierce a loyalty in her children.

I trust the lady will understand. Whatever quarrel she has with others, with Georgia I hope she will have none.

A Funeral we can all Enjoy:

My friend Bill Roggio tells me that the Moro Media Center has released a celebration of the life of Khaddafy Janjalani, also known as Abu Muktar. He was killed some time ago, and there have been DNA tests to confirm his status (i.e., dead); but the formal recognition of his "matyrdom" by Abu Sayyaf is a pleasure to behold.

Besides, it dovetails so nicely with this month's "Schlock, Mercenary." Let's all take a moment to enjoy a good funeral.

Facial security

Facial Security:

I'm of two minds about this story:

Next time you go to the airport, there may be more eyes on you than you notice. Specially trained security personnel are watching body language and facial cues of passengers for signs of bad intentions.

On the one hand, body language is a very good way to get a read on someone's real intentions. It takes a lot of effort and training to overcome the natural, normal language (although actors can do it; it's not something that requires brain power, just practice).

On the other hand, it seems like the stress of airports could lead to a lot of false positives. Like if you were a father traveling with a four-year-old boy who kept dancing through the lines and pulling at people's luggage. I would expect a whole squad of police to be dispatched if someone got a look at your face while you were eyeing the miscreant.

Draft

I Take it Back: I Want a Draft

...in France. If only so there will be a few thousand fewer reporters out there who could let this slip through.

From now on, nobody gets to be a war correspondent unless they've actually fired a gun. Or at least seen one fired in person. I mean, come on.

Maverick

Maverick:

Mostly it has been too hot to think lately. Not being able to think, however, invites you to enjoy what is for me a rare pleasure: watching television. We don't have cable or other TV here, as I can't see any reason to spend the money on it. The only things I liked to watch were sports and old movies, and for what it costs to get even basic cable, I can buy the movies I want on DVD. So, I almost never see any television.

However, inspired by finding that George and Gracie show a few weeks ago, I looked to see if I could locate other old programs. I have found a source for a truly great one: the Firefly of the '50s, Maverick.

Maverick is mostly known today through the Mel Gibson movie of several years ago, which was pretty good; and through the one DVD available, with three of the series' episodes. Though two of the three episodes on that DVD are quite good, they don't do the whole series justice because they focus on the comedy of the program.

Consider "Day of Reckoning," which has some very serious moral commentary on issues of courage and rhetoric. Contrast the newspaperman, who has the right principles but lacks the courage to back them up, with Maverick, who lacks the right principles but has the necessary courage. The description the newspaperman gives of his failure of courage is one that anyone who has faced serious danger will recognize: for an audience of WWII veterans, it was a portrayal they could respect and understand.

Something similar is at work in "Passage to Fort Doom," where a man wins back the love of his wife. She had taken a lover, and the two plotted to murder her unimaginative, boring husband; but, seeing how he stands against danger and the lover flees, she begins to reevaluate her decision. Her husband receives her renewed love warmly and, not knowing the other man was her lover, tells her not to be too hard on the one who ran -- for he, the husband, 'thought of her watching him,' while the other man 'had no one he had to be brave for.'

The complexity of that moral issue is created by the fact that the woman knows that the other man did need to be brave for her, and ran instead. It underlines something else about the nature of courage: that it is often not about fear, but about duty. The man who stood was scared, but felt his duty to his wife and to the men beside him, and remained at his post. The man who ran either felt no such duty, or was unable to put that duty before his fear.

I think it's fair to say that the folks of the '50s had a more mature and developed sense of relations between men and women than is common today. For that matter, women characters in the series are on a wider range of types than is common now. You get spirited, talented women, and women who can outsmart the men, as is currently the only kind of woman permitted on a television series. But in the 1950s, women characters were allowed to be weak and foolish as well. They are occasionally so foolish, as the wife above, as to make terrible mistakes; and yet, sometimes, to redeem themselves.

Of course, in a series that ran three seasons, some episodes are better than others; I thought "Escape to Tampico" was one of the best until the last few minutes. "Duel at Sundown" is only amusing, but it does feature a very young Clint Eastwood in a highly unusual role -- that of a swaggering coward. If you do happen to pick up the DVD, "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres" is beautiful to behold.

If you find yourself with a few hours to spare while waiting on the heat to break, you might want to give these things a look. If you want to watch it 'on the big screen,' you can download the whole thing before watching it by clicking on the "Download" button. If you don't mind the small window, you can also stream it.