IT'S NOT CLOSE. YOU FREAKING LOST THE NOMINATION, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
I wonder how he really feels.
Bthun
Congress and States Rights?
I don't have the background to know for certain what to think about this article on proposed immigration law, which bthun sends. I'm not sure how much Congress is trying to assert new authority, and how much it's extending something it already has the power to do.
Opinion from our friends who have been called to the bar is welcome.
Woohoo
Georgia Revises Handgun Carry Law:
With the governor's signature, a major update to Georgia firearms law has passed. The AJC's coverage is typically horrid, both wrong on the facts and biased against the law even in defeat; but it's an occasion for celebration all the same. (The text of the law is here.)
Two ways in which the article is wrong, for those of you in Georgia:
"Concealed weapons will now be allowed in state — and by extension — local parks."
Wrong: the Georgia Firearms Law permits you to carry openly or concealed.
Also wrong: "...by extension -- local parks." Georgia already has a pre-emption law that forbade localities from passing laws against carrying in local parks. So really, it's just the state parks, historic sites, recreational areas, and wildlife management areas.
Another error, although minor by comparison to these basic errors of fact:
"[The NRA and] GeorgiaCarry.org... argued that holders of concealed weapons permits — who submit to fingerprinting and a criminal background check — are no danger to the public and might even protect the public."
Actually, what we argued was that armed citizens would definitely protect the public.
GeorgiaCarry deserves a lot of credit for working to get this passed, as does the NRA.
The law doesn't take effect until July 1st, 2008, so don't let your eagerness get the better of you. (I'm looking at you, JHD. :)
Now, my next hope for Georgia law: fixing the knife laws, so that anyone with a firearms license may also carry a knife (openly or concealed). It doesn't make a lot of sense to permit the one and not the other.
Patriotism
Patriotism and a Woman:
You should love her because she bore you into the world, and gave you every chance you had as a youth. You should love her because she defended you, nursed you while you were weak, and gave you a chance to grow strong. You should love her without failing because it is your duty, and because no man can hate his mother without destroying a part of himself.
Of course, "patriotism" is from the Latin patria, in turn derived from Pater, which means "Father." Still, it is usual to think of America as being a woman, in part because the name takes a feminine form. Whether you love her as a mother or as a father, however, love her that way.
Protein Wisdom was musing on proper patriotism, yesterday, as expressed by left and right. I think they both have it wrong.
[I]t is fair to infer that Obama tends to attract those who disagree that that “we should be willing to fight for our country whether it is right or wrong,” which seems entirely consistent with Obama’s view of patriotism (and of Israeli nationalism). As Michael Barone would put it, it is the difference between Jacksonians and academics. For the New Left, the idea that disagreements over foreign policy stop at the water’s edge died in Vietnam.Insofar as you want to make a metaphor wherein the country is a woman, both of these concepts are wrong. If America is a woman, she is your mother.
The New Left view can be usefully contrasted with a metaphor Rick Moran has used to describe liberal patriotism:I think it is apparent that some on the right love America in a different way than some on the left. Think of the right’s love of country as that of a young man for a hot young woman. The passion of such love brooks no criticism and in their eyes, the woman can do nothing wrong. They place the woman on a pedestal and fail to see any flaws in her beauty, only perfection.On the other hand, love of country by many liberals is more intellectualized – perhaps the kind of love we might feel for a wife of many years. The white hot passion may be gone and her flaws might drive you up a wall at times. And it is difficult not to dwell on her imperfections. But there is still a deep, abiding affection that allows you to love her despite the many blemishes and defects they see.Alternatively, it could be argued that some on the left (esp. the New Left) treat America like the girlfriend they hold to a standard of perfection and always find wanting, complaining about her to their friends in her presence. And that some on the right love America like their wives, acknowledging her past and present flaws, while recognizing that those flaws might not be corrected overnight, or even in his lifetime. And that most American husbands do not find it useful to publicly take sides in an argument against their wives, even when they might privately do so. Or to dismiss their wives’ concern that there may be an intruder in the house.
It isn’t that most on the left love America any less than those on the right. They simply see a different entity – a tainted but beloved object that has gotten better with age.
It is wonderful — not to mention politically smart — that Obama has started talking more about the greatness of America and its ideals. However, should he be elected president, he will be elected president of the nation as it is, not of its ideals. Obama claims he wants to bring Americans together. If he truly does, he will have to accept that he cannot cavalierly dismiss the views of his fellow citizens anymore than he can dismiss the views of his wife.
You should love her because she bore you into the world, and gave you every chance you had as a youth. You should love her because she defended you, nursed you while you were weak, and gave you a chance to grow strong. You should love her without failing because it is your duty, and because no man can hate his mother without destroying a part of himself.
Of course, "patriotism" is from the Latin patria, in turn derived from Pater, which means "Father." Still, it is usual to think of America as being a woman, in part because the name takes a feminine form. Whether you love her as a mother or as a father, however, love her that way.
Obama was right (this once)
Obama was Right:
Why is it that, five years into the war, the media still have this concept that Iraq is a Saudi Arabia-style desert where nothing grows but oil? The reporter objects to Obama's "pushback" on the issue, claiming that he has reported on Iraq "extensively" and that the claim strikes him as "doubtful."
OK, well, it's still true. Iraq needs agricultural experts, and there's much to be gained from deploying them. Not only does the agricultural industry exist in Iraq, it's the main industry in much of the country. Not only is Mesopotamia fertile, it's fertile enough that -- when it begins to be fully developed again -- it will be a major source of wealth and food in a time when food prices are rising worldwide.
ABCNews takes Obama to task on Iraq. Well, he deserves all he gets on that score, as his Iraq plans demonstrate neither an understanding of the military nor reasonable judgment as concerns the fate of millions of Iraqis or the stability of the region.
Yes, he deserves all he gets... almost.
No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another.Agriculture is indeed tremendously important to Iraq. The Tigris and Euphrates river valleys are very fertile, which is why so many ancient civilizations were rooted in Mesopotamia -- a fact even an ABCNews reporter might have learned in school if he'd been listening. If not, he might have learned it from the US military, which has been talking for quite some time about efforts to set up agricultural unions and coops, chicken and fish farms, help refurbish tractor factories, and so forth.
"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.
So far, so good.
"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.
Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.
Why is it that, five years into the war, the media still have this concept that Iraq is a Saudi Arabia-style desert where nothing grows but oil? The reporter objects to Obama's "pushback" on the issue, claiming that he has reported on Iraq "extensively" and that the claim strikes him as "doubtful."
OK, well, it's still true. Iraq needs agricultural experts, and there's much to be gained from deploying them. Not only does the agricultural industry exist in Iraq, it's the main industry in much of the country. Not only is Mesopotamia fertile, it's fertile enough that -- when it begins to be fully developed again -- it will be a major source of wealth and food in a time when food prices are rising worldwide.
An Reservation To Both Earlier Posts
Regarding Both Earlier Posts:
I'm not sure it's that big a problem, however: because there will also be a large number of 18-year olds coming up behind them who want to get in line for the same generous benefits. While retaining veteran servicemen who have proven excellent is indeed a necessary and important function, that can be done through further incentives for top performers.
It seems to me that we as a nation would greatly benefit if a lot more of our youth passed through the military -- on a volunteer basis, of course. Insofar as this bill would help create that, I'm all for it. We'll work out the deficiencies through more generous pay or other benefits for those who remain in the service -- another thing I'm all for.
So in any event, how does this tie together with the first post of the day?
This bill was the brainchild of Jim Webb, one of the last Southern Democrats, and the author of Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. In other words, he's one of the last -- at this point, may be the only -- of the old type of Southern Democrat to occupy a position of leadership in the Senate.
This is the kind of advantage the party could get from listening to people from the South. And it's the kind of advantage the country can get, too: this new GI Bill is good policy, not just good politics.
America would be stronger if the Democratic Party were more the party of the people it claims to be -- of the people, that is, not just "for" the people.
Both of today's posts turn out to be linked, in a way. Greyhawk says that the Obama speech is what he's calling "a telegraphed punch," and that Obama intends to fight for the military vote using the new GI Bill.
That's a telegraphed punch. Obama acknowledges he expects Hillary Clinton to get as much as 80% of the West Virginia primary vote. So he quite wisely turns his focus to his next opponent, and the issue that will ensure the Vietnam veteran loses the military/veteran vote in November - the new GI Bill.Hawk is a big fan of the bill, in part because the SECDEF is so worried about it -- Secretary Gates says that the benefits are so generous that it will be hard to retain servicemen and women past their first term of service, because they'll want to get out and start collecting benefits. That may very well be true.In response, McCain and other Republicans are busy creating "kick me" signs to wear throughout the upcoming political season.
The proposed 21st Century GI Bill would allow soldiers to receive free tuition for college. Obama said it is one of a number of upgrades to GI benefits and healthcare the federal government should provide.In fairness it must be noted that McCain supports a hastily contrived Republican alternative to the Webb bill that offers lower benefits and covers fewer troops - and has no chance of passing in a Democrat-controlled congress. But while he simplifies the issue here, Obama's characterization of McCain's opposition is on the mark."It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention," Obama told about 1,500 people at the Charleston Civic Center. After that, he stopped to shoot a game of pool with a veteran at a South Charleston pub.
The Illinois Democrat said McCain, whom he added he greatly respects as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, doesn't like the new plan.
"He is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous," Obama said. "I couldn't disagree more.
"At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American dream."
I'm not sure it's that big a problem, however: because there will also be a large number of 18-year olds coming up behind them who want to get in line for the same generous benefits. While retaining veteran servicemen who have proven excellent is indeed a necessary and important function, that can be done through further incentives for top performers.
It seems to me that we as a nation would greatly benefit if a lot more of our youth passed through the military -- on a volunteer basis, of course. Insofar as this bill would help create that, I'm all for it. We'll work out the deficiencies through more generous pay or other benefits for those who remain in the service -- another thing I'm all for.
So in any event, how does this tie together with the first post of the day?
This bill was the brainchild of Jim Webb, one of the last Southern Democrats, and the author of Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. In other words, he's one of the last -- at this point, may be the only -- of the old type of Southern Democrat to occupy a position of leadership in the Senate.
This is the kind of advantage the party could get from listening to people from the South. And it's the kind of advantage the country can get, too: this new GI Bill is good policy, not just good politics.
America would be stronger if the Democratic Party were more the party of the people it claims to be -- of the people, that is, not just "for" the people.
Obama hits boomers
Obama Hates Hippies:
Woof. TalkLeft notices Obama trying to say something nice about Vietnam Veterans, and chiding those who didn't honor their service. Which, ah, includes almost every one of his intellectual supporters:
In other words, Obama intends to battle the war-hero McCain by throwing us under the bus... Everybody will be lying under the bus, which sounds like it may be the size of a 747 before we're through with this election.Hey, don't worry, man. You fought for him, you believed in him. He'll fight for you too, right?
Swing States
Swing States:
But capitalism's real rewards aren't for the smartest, but for those who take the greatest risks. Many of these lose everything. For those who have little to gain otherwise, the risk of losing everything isn't so great -- which is why most millionaires never finished college.
For those who can do quite well, thank you, without taking those risks -- well, a reasonable appreciation of the risks suggests taking the sure but more modest gains, such as you might get with a career as a lawyer or a college professor. Being smart people, they tend to understand the risk/profit calculation, and do just that.
And then they watch people less well educated, and maybe not so smart, rush past them into wealth and power. The wealth buys access to politicial leaders, and with access comes policy preferences. And these smart folks start to get mad. They start to hate the system that preferences risk-takers over intelligent, careful, stable people. And they want to "fix" the system to raise themselves, and enshrine their class -- the class of the intellectuals -- over the others.
These people are the leaders of the modern Democratic Party. They make common cause with the poor because it's useful, but they have little idea what the problems of the poor actually are. They get what understanding they have through "listening tours" and similar things. These folks -- the ones Jeffrey was calling "the best and brightest" -- believe their intelligence and education makes them the natural leaders of mankind. They want to fix society so that they are in fact the actual leaders of mankind -- and, in return, they'll do kind things for us when they get there.
Which will be paid for through taxes. On those damn businessmen, the idiots. They never deserved all that money -- it's not right someone so stupid should have it.
The problem is that these leaders really don't understand the other half of their coalition -- more than half, in fact, since they produce the majority of the votes. The Obama critique of Pennsylvania voters ("bitter," "cling to religion and guns") arises from this basic belief: we are the natural leaders, and if we give the poor the right set of services, they will keep us in power. There is no real connection with these voters: the intellectuals are in no way part of the class that empowers them.
The Republican leaders, at least, can draw on a class of people they understand -- because they belong to it, and arise from it. Democratic leaders miss these opportunities, even in their best years, because they really don't understand the people they want to vote for them.
Consider this:
Democrats from the South, including myself, have been trying to talk the intellectual class out of this nonsense for years. I have a postgraduate degree, but I have also been poor in the South: we got by on $15,000 a year at one point. I'm part of one of the classes you want to vote for you, have been part of the other, and have cultural reasons to continue to think of myself as a Democrat even though the party refuses to listen to anything I say, and is led by people who despise my home.
Such argument hasn't worked -- the South has factored less and less in the calculus of the Democratic leadership in every election cycle. They consider the South unredeemable, mired in cultural issues they can't understand or engage; and so write off a third of the Senate in even the most friendly election year.
So again this year, as West Virginia makes clear what its preferences are -- following Florida and Arkansas, and in the face of Ohio working-class voters' clear warnings -- the intellectuals will be picking their favorite instead.
Does that mean McCain wins in November? No, but it means he has a fighting chance. I'm glad about that, because he's a better candidate than either Clinton or Obama -- especially Obama. Of course, if you really listened to the people you want to vote for you, you'd have better candidates, too.
West Virginia is voting today. According to Wikipedia, it's one of the three "swing states" in the South (assuming one counts WV, FL or Arkansas as "Southern" -- a point that might be debated).
In West Virginia the Democratic Party still enjoys a numerical advantage in registered voters. It looks like Sen. Clinton will be getting a lopsided number of those voters on her side -- something better than a thirty-point margin. Of the other two "Southern" swing states, Florida and Arkansas, Clinton won 70-26 in Arkansas, and won Florida under the odd circumstances of which we are all aware.
However, Clinton is increasingly unlikely to be the nominee.
So it looks like this will not be the year that the Democratic Party tries to reform its message in a way that will appeal to Southerners. In a way, that makes sense: the public mood for change has never been higher. 2006 was also a "change" election -- the Democrats won every single educational grouping, for example, as well as both males and females.
So why are we doing it all again? Amusingly, the answer is that the Democrats have been so incompetent.
The Democratic Congress has been so worthless, voters currently blame all problems on Bush and the Republicans -- who, in spite of not controlling Congress these last two years, seem to be the only ones who ever get their way on anything in government. This probably explains the Communist Party USA's demand to "end right-wing control of Congress." The Speaker of the House from San Francisco is so incompetent that she can't get Rep. Obey or her other fellow party members to line up with her, so it's the "right wing's" fault: they actually manage to vote together some of the time.
As a result, this change election is about changing out Republicans for Democrats in the minds of most of the electorate. It's about making the same change as in 2006 all over again, "but harder this time." If we do it hard enough, even these idiots might be able to pass a damn law once in a while.
Well, OK. Rational or not, that does suggest a Democratic victory in November. On the other hand, a victory can be broad or narrow; and given the supermajorities needed for real change (e.g., cloture votes in the Senate, which require 60 Senators), a broad change would be the thing to go for.
Instead, however, the Democratic party seems to want to push for the candidate least acceptable to swing state voters, and not just in the South: Ohio prefers Clinton to McCain to Obama.
So what? The overall trends are so negative for McCain and Republicans in general, why not get while the getting is good?
I think the answer has to do with the nature of the Democratic Party's constituency. Recent elections have shown that Republicans do best among those with high school educations, some college, and those with college degrees. Those who did not finish high school and those who have postgraduate degrees tend to prefer Democrats by large margins.
What do the two groups, highest and lowest, have in common? One thing: the sense that the system doesn't work for them. This makes sense for lower-education voters: they really do tend to be on the bottom, socially and economically. Whether it's their fault or the system's fault, or some combination of the two, it is easy to see why they would resent living in a system where people like them drift downward.
But why do the most highly-educated people favor Democrats? The problem was explained, and predicted, by economist Joseph Schumpeter in the 1930s.
Marx believed that capitalism would be destroyed by its enemies (the proletariat), whom capitalism had purportedly exploited. Marx relished the prospect. 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. And unlike Marx, Schumpeter did not relish the destruction of capitalism. He wrote: "If a doctor predicts that his patient will die presently, this does not mean that he desires it."The problem is resentment. Schumpeter taught that the capitalist system would create such wealth that a large class of people could make a living doing nothing but thinking and writing; and many of the smartest people of society would drift into that class.
But capitalism's real rewards aren't for the smartest, but for those who take the greatest risks. Many of these lose everything. For those who have little to gain otherwise, the risk of losing everything isn't so great -- which is why most millionaires never finished college.
For those who can do quite well, thank you, without taking those risks -- well, a reasonable appreciation of the risks suggests taking the sure but more modest gains, such as you might get with a career as a lawyer or a college professor. Being smart people, they tend to understand the risk/profit calculation, and do just that.
And then they watch people less well educated, and maybe not so smart, rush past them into wealth and power. The wealth buys access to politicial leaders, and with access comes policy preferences. And these smart folks start to get mad. They start to hate the system that preferences risk-takers over intelligent, careful, stable people. And they want to "fix" the system to raise themselves, and enshrine their class -- the class of the intellectuals -- over the others.
These people are the leaders of the modern Democratic Party. They make common cause with the poor because it's useful, but they have little idea what the problems of the poor actually are. They get what understanding they have through "listening tours" and similar things. These folks -- the ones Jeffrey was calling "the best and brightest" -- believe their intelligence and education makes them the natural leaders of mankind. They want to fix society so that they are in fact the actual leaders of mankind -- and, in return, they'll do kind things for us when they get there.
Which will be paid for through taxes. On those damn businessmen, the idiots. They never deserved all that money -- it's not right someone so stupid should have it.
The problem is that these leaders really don't understand the other half of their coalition -- more than half, in fact, since they produce the majority of the votes. The Obama critique of Pennsylvania voters ("bitter," "cling to religion and guns") arises from this basic belief: we are the natural leaders, and if we give the poor the right set of services, they will keep us in power. There is no real connection with these voters: the intellectuals are in no way part of the class that empowers them.
The Republican leaders, at least, can draw on a class of people they understand -- because they belong to it, and arise from it. Democratic leaders miss these opportunities, even in their best years, because they really don't understand the people they want to vote for them.
Consider this:
Psychologists David Sears and Donald Kinder, as well as others, found that this racial resentment was the single most important factor -- more important than even conservative ideology or political partisanship -- in explaining strong opposition to a host of government programs that either directly or indirectly benefited minorities. Of course, that doesn't mean there couldn't be principled conservative opposition to government-guaranteed equal employment or urban aid. But, according to the political psychologists, racial resentment played the largest role in fueling public skepticism.Do Republicans carry out psychology exams on the middle class to figure out what prejudices they might have? Do they then say, at the end, "But the problem is, we still don't know what this means in the real world"?
The answers also revealed which groups within society continued to harbor racial resentment. With the help of Harvard doctoral student Scott Winship, I looked at the levels of racial resentment in ANES data from 1988, 1992, and 2000 (the questions were omitted in 1996). What Winship and I found was that resentment was highest among males rather than females, the middle class rather than the wealthy or poor, those lacking a college degree, those who worked in skilled or semi-skilled blue collar jobs or as laborers, and residents of small towns in the Midwest and South. Does that profile sound familiar? It's more or less a description of the white working-class voters who have spurned Obama and with whom John Kerry and Al Gore had trouble. The only groups that didn't evince racial animosity toward blacks were voters with post-graduate degrees and, of course, African Americans....
But the problem with implicit association tests--or tests that use subliminal cues--is deciding what they mean in the real world.
Democrats from the South, including myself, have been trying to talk the intellectual class out of this nonsense for years. I have a postgraduate degree, but I have also been poor in the South: we got by on $15,000 a year at one point. I'm part of one of the classes you want to vote for you, have been part of the other, and have cultural reasons to continue to think of myself as a Democrat even though the party refuses to listen to anything I say, and is led by people who despise my home.
Such argument hasn't worked -- the South has factored less and less in the calculus of the Democratic leadership in every election cycle. They consider the South unredeemable, mired in cultural issues they can't understand or engage; and so write off a third of the Senate in even the most friendly election year.
So again this year, as West Virginia makes clear what its preferences are -- following Florida and Arkansas, and in the face of Ohio working-class voters' clear warnings -- the intellectuals will be picking their favorite instead.
Does that mean McCain wins in November? No, but it means he has a fighting chance. I'm glad about that, because he's a better candidate than either Clinton or Obama -- especially Obama. Of course, if you really listened to the people you want to vote for you, you'd have better candidates, too.
Coyote
On Coyote:
I've been curious about the interest in dangerous coyotes shown by InstaPundit and the Chicago Boyz. We have coyotes here, and I can tell you that if you're concerned about them, one of the best defenses is to have a horse. Horses love to stomp coyotes.
The general point they are trying to make -- that many wild animals we normally haven't worried about become dangerous if we stop being dangerous -- is well-taken. Coyotes are a nuisance anyway, so much so that Georgia regulations permit taking them in the day or at night; with big game weapons if you're hunting big game, and small-game weapons otherwise; with no limit; using electronic or other kinds of calls; using traps or firearms; etc. If you read through the document, you'll find they are exempted from every kind of protection that is normally afforded to animals.
In some states, coyotes have a bounty on them. And, too, you can sell the hides if they're good -- I've heard of people getting as much as $40 for a coyote hide, though mostly they're worth a lot less, and some of them are worth nothing.
In spite of all that, I've never shot one. I think I have an attitude about dangerous wildlife somewhere between the "hippies" the Chicago Boyz point to, and the "put the fear of God into them" attitude that InstaPundit seems to be favoring (if I'm understanding him correctly -- his brevity could be misleading, but I gather that he believes it is important to shoot cougars and coyote in order to keep them afraid of people). I tend to agree with the hippies that these animals are an ornament of nature, and one I would rather have around me than not. I find a world without wild animals, all of which are potentially dangerous, sterile and sad. (This will surprise no one who remembers my killing time in Iraq stalking hyenas with a camera.)
On the other hand, I and my family always go armed in part to be prepared for animal encounters, like this one with a bear when I was out swimming with what was then a very young boy. We've taken the trouble to learn how to interpret their behavior. We maintain food and garbage discipline, to avoid luring them into conflict, and so forth.
I think the proper attitude toward life runs in this direction: not to eliminate dangers, but to be dangerous enough yourself that you needn't fear to encounter them. Then you may have the beauty of the bear, without watching one carry off your children.
Life of the Mind
Life of the Mind:
Returning to a fairly classic theme for Grim's Hall, a post on the military and the life of the mind. It references two roundtables from last week, one on the Minerva project, and the other on military advances in regenerative medicine.
Mother's Day
Mother's Day:
Happy Mother's Day to all -- those of you who are mothers, and those of you who have mothers.
If you have a television, you may wish to watch the America's Favorite Mom thing tonight. Soldiers' Angels founder Patti Patton-Bader was a semi-finalist. It would be wonderful if she had won.
CPUSA 2008
A Pro-Obama Argument:
Bthun points out that we've been unfair, in printing endorsements of Obama only when they come from foreign terrorists. So here is another view, from Americans who stand ready to support him.
The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.I think that is pretty representative of the argument as I've seen it framed.
While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.
The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies.
Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.
As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.
We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.
The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected.
Lost Bearings
Yeah, His Bearings are Lost:
Its recent recommendations on Iraq aren't half-bad, unlike the "leave at any costs" philosophy so much of our Left here at home has. It has significantly more faith in the UN than I have, but it also is not hostile to the use of US power. It interacts with the US military, and in fact, the ICG rep gave a Hooah speech of sorts to female officers on the occasion of Women's History Month.
(And who was that speaker? Why, Jane Arraf, who was CNN's Baghdad Bureau Chief when they covered up for Saddam. Just who I'd go to for an honest appraisal of the situation in Iraq. But she's 'in the club,' so everything is always forgiven. Anyway, as I said, the specific recommendations aren't bad, so in spite of my distaste for her, she obviously did her job this time.)
What does that mean? It looks to me like Obama's lack of loyalty and courage has burned him again. Once again, he's thrown someone who has helped him and believed in him under the bus, because he's afraid of the conflict. This time, it was someone he really needed -- the weakest area of his candidacy, aside from his personal flaws, is his unspeakably bad foreign policy.
This is the third time, if you count this guy and also Samantha Power -- a smart and informed woman. Whatever disagreements I've had with her on policy and concept don't arise from her being ill informed: they're just honest disagreements about the best way to do things, and the most important things to do.
This guy from the ICG probably knew far more about the structure and function of the US military, and its recent history, than Obama does himself. Obama should have explained to his supporters that working for ICG is a qualification for a left-leaning Administration, not a disqualification. This is exactly the kind of person they should want to have on board: someone who is in favor of engagement, as Obama is, but isn't hostile to the US military and in fact has some understanding of its function and role in the world.
I suppose if he gets elected, he can hire them back on anyway. Maybe they'll understand about the knife in the back.
I don't, though. Loyalty and honor matter in a man, and this obsessive fear of conflict does not bode well for any potential President. He won't fight, not even for his friends and supporters.
Today's headline: "Barack Obama Sacks Advisor over Talks With Hamas."
OK, McCain wins this round big time.
But this isn't a point-keeping blog, and we already know who we're voting for. So let's tell the whole story, and see what the deeper truth at work here is.
Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.I know of the ICG. It's an organization of the type of the United Nations -- that is, it was founded as an element of Anglosphere influence in the world. Just as we were the primary influence in the UN's formation, so too was the US and UK responsible for the ICG. It is still mostly dominated by Anglosphere "internationalists," the folks who believe that the US military has an important role to play in the world -- under UN leadership, directed by the Security Council, with input from the EU and other allies.
“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.
Its recent recommendations on Iraq aren't half-bad, unlike the "leave at any costs" philosophy so much of our Left here at home has. It has significantly more faith in the UN than I have, but it also is not hostile to the use of US power. It interacts with the US military, and in fact, the ICG rep gave a Hooah speech of sorts to female officers on the occasion of Women's History Month.
(And who was that speaker? Why, Jane Arraf, who was CNN's Baghdad Bureau Chief when they covered up for Saddam. Just who I'd go to for an honest appraisal of the situation in Iraq. But she's 'in the club,' so everything is always forgiven. Anyway, as I said, the specific recommendations aren't bad, so in spite of my distaste for her, she obviously did her job this time.)
What does that mean? It looks to me like Obama's lack of loyalty and courage has burned him again. Once again, he's thrown someone who has helped him and believed in him under the bus, because he's afraid of the conflict. This time, it was someone he really needed -- the weakest area of his candidacy, aside from his personal flaws, is his unspeakably bad foreign policy.
This is the third time, if you count this guy and also Samantha Power -- a smart and informed woman. Whatever disagreements I've had with her on policy and concept don't arise from her being ill informed: they're just honest disagreements about the best way to do things, and the most important things to do.
This guy from the ICG probably knew far more about the structure and function of the US military, and its recent history, than Obama does himself. Obama should have explained to his supporters that working for ICG is a qualification for a left-leaning Administration, not a disqualification. This is exactly the kind of person they should want to have on board: someone who is in favor of engagement, as Obama is, but isn't hostile to the US military and in fact has some understanding of its function and role in the world.
I suppose if he gets elected, he can hire them back on anyway. Maybe they'll understand about the knife in the back.
I don't, though. Loyalty and honor matter in a man, and this obsessive fear of conflict does not bode well for any potential President. He won't fight, not even for his friends and supporters.
"Civilization is hard work."
-Commentor TmjUtah on Jeff Goldstein's explanation of why people should try to figure out what other people mean when they say something, and why this is would be a useful thing for judges to be able to do.
It helps some if you read Goldstein out loud to yourself as you go along.
-Commentor TmjUtah on Jeff Goldstein's explanation of why people should try to figure out what other people mean when they say something, and why this is would be a useful thing for judges to be able to do.
It helps some if you read Goldstein out loud to yourself as you go along.
O, Generous Prince:
Apparently Daniel thought I was in peril of jail for violating the law against having a house without Tabasco Sauce (I'm sure there must be a law about that somewhere). Either that, or he owns stock in the McIlhenny Company.
For what to my wondering eyes should appear today but the UPS truck, with a great big giant package. My wife says, "It's for you. What did you order?" I didn't order anything.
Nevertheless, behold:
Eight bottles of Tabasco's finest recipes.
Many thanks, Daniel, my friend. I promise to use them all.
Oh, My
Oh, My:
And I thought evil defense contractors were bad:
In a speech in 1971, Vice-President Spiro Agnew accused CBS News of disseminating "deceptive, self-serving propaganda". He quoted from reports by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Commerce Committee. These reports mentioned a CBS documentary called "Project Nassau",an effort to depose the Francois Duvalier regime in Haiti. "The House Subcommittee found that CBS had, in effect, financially subsidized a planned 1966 invasion of Haiti in order to make a documentary on the event."Slow news week? Commission a war!
Obama accuses
Obama Accuses:
"...a Hamas adviser's apparent affinity for Obama. The adviser, Ahmed Yousef, said in a recent interview: 'We like Obama and hope that he will win the election.'"
Wouldn't want the fact that actual terrorists endorse you to interfere with the debate.
We wouldn't want any name calling.
For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate.Comments like what?
"...a Hamas adviser's apparent affinity for Obama. The adviser, Ahmed Yousef, said in a recent interview: 'We like Obama and hope that he will win the election.'"
Wouldn't want the fact that actual terrorists endorse you to interfere with the debate.
WITCHES, CLOWNS & SIRENS, OH MY!
WITCHES, CLOWNS & SIRENS, OH MY!
Apparently Code Pink is having some trouble attracting participants to their ongoing protest in front of the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Office. So much so that they have enlisted (pun intentional) the help of practitioners of the dark arts to foil Marine Corps recruitment and end the war. Read the article here.
"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.
I am sure that wisdom is the last thing that will be imparted by this parade of horribles. Nevertheless, I look forward to the final score in this contest:
United States Marine Corps 1
Witches 0
Apparently Code Pink is having some trouble attracting participants to their ongoing protest in front of the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Office. So much so that they have enlisted (pun intentional) the help of practitioners of the dark arts to foil Marine Corps recruitment and end the war. Read the article here.
"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.
I am sure that wisdom is the last thing that will be imparted by this parade of horribles. Nevertheless, I look forward to the final score in this contest:
United States Marine Corps 1
Witches 0
RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES UNDER ATTACK
RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES UNDER ATTACK
Feddie over at Southern Appeal has an informative post concerning Sen. Grassley’s assault on our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The word needs to get out about this abuse of government power.
Feddie over at Southern Appeal has an informative post concerning Sen. Grassley’s assault on our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The word needs to get out about this abuse of government power.
Who makes that now?
Listen:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
I'm sure you'll like this:
How about this:
Or this:
Or this:
Can't forget this:
So I say lots of people are making that now. Most of those clips have dragged the music out of the movie, but I think that's similar to playing the overture there without the rest of the opera.
But let's consider Wagner again: Listen to Tannhauser, and you're listening to 1845.
Let's go back a bit:
That's 1724. And I'm going to make a wild ass guess and say Wagner never heard that. But you just did. (Maybe Wagner did hear that, but I betting not because I don't think anyone was playing the Viola de Gamba in 1845 in Germany, in a style of music written a century earlier, in France, for a French King.)
And why did you hear that? Its the technology.
Let's go back another 100 years:
I wonder if Wagner ever heard Monteverdi. Anybody know if Monteverdi got performed in mid 19th century Germany?
And go back even earlier:
I'm sure Wagner never heard that. But now we have.
Now watch these guys mash it up:
Looks pretty fearless too. I wonder what they've heard that influenced and inspired them and how they heard it--and who are they going to inspire someday? Sure, it isn't Wagner, but hell, he was a genius. I bet if Wagner was alive today he'd be making films.
Its the technology part everybody misses here. Its part of the problem with 'classical' music in the 20th century. The original article walked right past it:
Through the technology, everything old is new again. There is so much of it, that one could not listen to it all. And because we are all different, we can now follow our different likes. And through the technology, we don't have to go to an opera house to listen to Piercello play Tannhauser. We can record him and listen to him while typing our blog posts.
So what's been lost? Its not so much lost as it is found. We as listeners have access to all styles of music from all history now. And other cultures too. All because of the technology.
UPDATE:
Grim asks "Where are the geniuses like Wagner now?" Which is a fair question (although I'd not call it a "problem" per se).
I don't have a answer, only a hunch. And that hunch is that those geniuses are out there, but they're doing something else. What? well, what ever they want to. The time and place that Wagner grew up in was a more circumscribed culture than was now exists in nearly any Western country Maybe any country. Perhaps he's playing on his xbox right now. I'm not sure.
As to what happened in the 20th century--well, there were close to 100 million people killed off before their time, and who knows what they would have done. Those thread were snipped. One cannot know what would have happened.
Also, musical tastes and forms have changed. Wagner was writing for an orchestra, which is just one kind of musical form. When Piercello gets back, perhaps he can give us some idea of how that has changed over the years.
Or take Jordi Savall, the guy in that video you so liked. He's not composing anything new, he's reviving old stuff. he maybe arranging it, and intrepreting it, but its not really the creation of "new" music, the way it would be if he say, wrote an new opera about the Reconquista or something, even if was in the style of Monteverdi. And that idea there, the revival of the old--especially in terms of music developed in the last century, and to my observation that was new. Before, the old went out style and stayed that way, for the most part.
I googled this phrase: "revival of ancient music" and look what popped up:
WASHINGTON LIKES OLD TUNES.; A Revival of Ancient Strauss Music Due to Mrs. McKinley. (Open the .pdf file) That was in 1899, and Strauss' "Blue Danube" is described as "Ancient". (And notice that the Marine band was chucking Tannhauser aside to play Blue Danube). The New York Times thought it was noteworthy enough to comment on it. Think about that for a minute.
And if this wikipedia article on Early Music Revival is anywhere near accurate, although it started in the 19th century, it seems to have taken off with the advent of recording, and is described as 'fully underway' in the 1950's. When you could record anything you'd ever want to record. To reiterate: this had to have an effect on 'new' music.
Listen:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
I'm sure you'll like this:
How about this:
Or this:
Or this:
Can't forget this:
So I say lots of people are making that now. Most of those clips have dragged the music out of the movie, but I think that's similar to playing the overture there without the rest of the opera.
But let's consider Wagner again: Listen to Tannhauser, and you're listening to 1845.
Let's go back a bit:
That's 1724. And I'm going to make a wild ass guess and say Wagner never heard that. But you just did. (Maybe Wagner did hear that, but I betting not because I don't think anyone was playing the Viola de Gamba in 1845 in Germany, in a style of music written a century earlier, in France, for a French King.)
And why did you hear that? Its the technology.
Let's go back another 100 years:
I wonder if Wagner ever heard Monteverdi. Anybody know if Monteverdi got performed in mid 19th century Germany?
And go back even earlier:
I'm sure Wagner never heard that. But now we have.
Now watch these guys mash it up:
Looks pretty fearless too. I wonder what they've heard that influenced and inspired them and how they heard it--and who are they going to inspire someday? Sure, it isn't Wagner, but hell, he was a genius. I bet if Wagner was alive today he'd be making films.
Its the technology part everybody misses here. Its part of the problem with 'classical' music in the 20th century. The original article walked right past it:
We all know that the invention of recorded sound around 1900 made possible an extraordinary dissemination of the riches of the classical repertoire – largely composed for the rich and powerful – to the mass of ordinary people. On the gramophone, the radio, television and, subliminally and hence more powerfully, through the movies, the classical sound in all its variants (even the supposedly rebarbative confections of the Second Viennese School) has insinuated itself into the culture at large. Never before have so many people listened to, or liked, so-called classical music. Yet this extraordinary triumph has culminated in a malaise, a feeling, widespread in the musical profession and elsewhere, that classical music is in crisis and that things have never been so bad. Classical music feels abandoned, left behind as history has moved on, sulking in its tent as the real cultural action happens somewhere else.(emphasis mine)
Through the technology, everything old is new again. There is so much of it, that one could not listen to it all. And because we are all different, we can now follow our different likes. And through the technology, we don't have to go to an opera house to listen to Piercello play Tannhauser. We can record him and listen to him while typing our blog posts.
So what's been lost? Its not so much lost as it is found. We as listeners have access to all styles of music from all history now. And other cultures too. All because of the technology.
UPDATE:
Grim asks "Where are the geniuses like Wagner now?" Which is a fair question (although I'd not call it a "problem" per se).
I don't have a answer, only a hunch. And that hunch is that those geniuses are out there, but they're doing something else. What? well, what ever they want to. The time and place that Wagner grew up in was a more circumscribed culture than was now exists in nearly any Western country Maybe any country. Perhaps he's playing on his xbox right now. I'm not sure.
As to what happened in the 20th century--well, there were close to 100 million people killed off before their time, and who knows what they would have done. Those thread were snipped. One cannot know what would have happened.
Also, musical tastes and forms have changed. Wagner was writing for an orchestra, which is just one kind of musical form. When Piercello gets back, perhaps he can give us some idea of how that has changed over the years.
Or take Jordi Savall, the guy in that video you so liked. He's not composing anything new, he's reviving old stuff. he maybe arranging it, and intrepreting it, but its not really the creation of "new" music, the way it would be if he say, wrote an new opera about the Reconquista or something, even if was in the style of Monteverdi. And that idea there, the revival of the old--especially in terms of music developed in the last century, and to my observation that was new. Before, the old went out style and stayed that way, for the most part.
I googled this phrase: "revival of ancient music" and look what popped up:
WASHINGTON LIKES OLD TUNES.; A Revival of Ancient Strauss Music Due to Mrs. McKinley. (Open the .pdf file) That was in 1899, and Strauss' "Blue Danube" is described as "Ancient". (And notice that the Marine band was chucking Tannhauser aside to play Blue Danube). The New York Times thought it was noteworthy enough to comment on it. Think about that for a minute.
And if this wikipedia article on Early Music Revival is anywhere near accurate, although it started in the 19th century, it seems to have taken off with the advent of recording, and is described as 'fully underway' in the 1950's. When you could record anything you'd ever want to record. To reiterate: this had to have an effect on 'new' music.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)