Here is a short sample of a haunting piece of music by a group called La Nef ("The Ship"). It treats the Grail legend, and the arming of a young knight to wander in search of something beautiful -- though he cannot quite say what.
The full version is available here and here.
Do you recognize the song being sung? The lyrics are different, but the tune -- now slow, with polyphony -- is the old drinking song "The Star of the County Down."
But the tune is surely older, and it is no sin to imagine it ancient: for it well might be, fitted to other songs in other times, as is so often the case.
La Quete du Graal
La Quête du Graal:
WTF?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Campaign Edition:
It's a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the facts, which ought to be telling in a man who is running as the smart guy. Sen. McCain may have the IQ, but Sen. Obama has the reputation. I assume Sen. Obama is not intending to "endorse blackouts," as HotAir puts it, but it's plain that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The whole thing was a misery for everyone involved, not a model to emulate.
More, it shows how short the candidate is falling from his rhetoric.
The Obaman New Politics was going to put the South in play. Tell me one more time how endorsing California and Europe as your models is going to win Southern votes? Are you sure Hank done it this way?
The media is doing its best to keep Sen. Obama in the bubble. They sent the son of the great writer James Dickey down South to take the waters:
I have lived in the South most of my life, and I have heard the word "quadroon" exactly three times. The first was in a class on 'the social construction of race' that I took as an undergraduate at Georgia State University, where it was used to explain that places other than the American South had an "escape valve" from "blackness." Whereas in the South there was the "one drop rule," in places like the Dominican Republic a family could move from black to white through a series of carefully-calibrated marriages. Americans, the professor explained, had a notion that this was much more racist than our system, because it tracked how "black" you were to a sixteenth percentage, and took serious stock of who your grandfathers and even great-grandparents had been; but islanders thought we were the racists, because we offered no escape.
The second time I heard the word it was from a fellow student at the university, who was making a satirical point. The third time was yesterday, when I read the article from the younger Dickey.
The younger Mr. Dickey seems eager to repeat the favor his father -- a man I once met, and whose experience as a night-fighter pilot in the Pacific Theater of WWII I greatly respect -- did for the South. As Deliverance painted the South for a generation of outsiders, so too the Newsweek articles manages to find a host of improbables. A guy who sells evil bumperstickers and muses about "quadroons." A sheriff with a noose-wielding supporter. A group re-enacting a lynching -- indeed, lynching occupies a remarkable percentage of the article. Given the actual prevalence of lynching -- that is, its close-to-nonexistence in the last forty years -- one might almost say it's what he came to find. If all he found of it was theater, well, we'll just talk about that, then.
He paints the immigrants to the region as fearful, whether Spanish-speaking girls yelling "la migra!" when he approaches, or Hindi-speakers in Savannah who didn't want to talk to him. Certainly there are many immigrants to the South, including Hindi-speakers: when I lived in Savannah, some of our neighbors included a family like this, headed by a kind-hearted grandfather that language proved no barrier to befriending. I can attest that Dairy Queens throughout Georgia are largely run by a family of Indians, including the one not too far from here: but I never heard of them suffering anything but wealth from their chosen occupation.
"Obama's going to win," the article closes. "And if he does not?" Well, if he does not, it may be because you came to the task with such an odd view of what it entailed. You can't sway people you can't even imagine.
So today, Sen. Obama endorsed the California Model as the road to energy independence.
The state of California has implemented such a successful efficiency strategy that while electricity consumption grew 60% in this country over the last three decades, it didn’t grow at all in California. There is no reason we can’t do the same thing all across America.I was in California last in 2001. As the author points out, "rolling blackouts" was the watchword of the day. And "brownouts." This wasn't a "Model" to emulate, but a failure. As I recall, at the time we were last discussing who was responsible for the failure. Liberals cited deregulation as the cause of the failure (which means that for liberals the "California Model" is one to be avoided by governments in the future, as it was nothing but an abdication of their responsibility to act in the interest of the people); conservatives pointed to the governor (and succeeded in having him recalled over the point).
It's a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the facts, which ought to be telling in a man who is running as the smart guy. Sen. McCain may have the IQ, but Sen. Obama has the reputation. I assume Sen. Obama is not intending to "endorse blackouts," as HotAir puts it, but it's plain that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The whole thing was a misery for everyone involved, not a model to emulate.
More, it shows how short the candidate is falling from his rhetoric.
The Obaman New Politics was going to put the South in play. Tell me one more time how endorsing California and Europe as your models is going to win Southern votes? Are you sure Hank done it this way?
The media is doing its best to keep Sen. Obama in the bubble. They sent the son of the great writer James Dickey down South to take the waters:
Dent argues that when Southerners criticize Obama, "They say, 'He's a Muslim, he's a mulatto Muslim, or quadroon Muslim … [only because] they don't want to use the old N word.""Quadroon"? Seriously?
I have lived in the South most of my life, and I have heard the word "quadroon" exactly three times. The first was in a class on 'the social construction of race' that I took as an undergraduate at Georgia State University, where it was used to explain that places other than the American South had an "escape valve" from "blackness." Whereas in the South there was the "one drop rule," in places like the Dominican Republic a family could move from black to white through a series of carefully-calibrated marriages. Americans, the professor explained, had a notion that this was much more racist than our system, because it tracked how "black" you were to a sixteenth percentage, and took serious stock of who your grandfathers and even great-grandparents had been; but islanders thought we were the racists, because we offered no escape.
The second time I heard the word it was from a fellow student at the university, who was making a satirical point. The third time was yesterday, when I read the article from the younger Dickey.
The younger Mr. Dickey seems eager to repeat the favor his father -- a man I once met, and whose experience as a night-fighter pilot in the Pacific Theater of WWII I greatly respect -- did for the South. As Deliverance painted the South for a generation of outsiders, so too the Newsweek articles manages to find a host of improbables. A guy who sells evil bumperstickers and muses about "quadroons." A sheriff with a noose-wielding supporter. A group re-enacting a lynching -- indeed, lynching occupies a remarkable percentage of the article. Given the actual prevalence of lynching -- that is, its close-to-nonexistence in the last forty years -- one might almost say it's what he came to find. If all he found of it was theater, well, we'll just talk about that, then.
He paints the immigrants to the region as fearful, whether Spanish-speaking girls yelling "la migra!" when he approaches, or Hindi-speakers in Savannah who didn't want to talk to him. Certainly there are many immigrants to the South, including Hindi-speakers: when I lived in Savannah, some of our neighbors included a family like this, headed by a kind-hearted grandfather that language proved no barrier to befriending. I can attest that Dairy Queens throughout Georgia are largely run by a family of Indians, including the one not too far from here: but I never heard of them suffering anything but wealth from their chosen occupation.
"Obama's going to win," the article closes. "And if he does not?" Well, if he does not, it may be because you came to the task with such an odd view of what it entailed. You can't sway people you can't even imagine.
What?
In Todays News: The Knights Templar. Really.
I'm guessing, since Google shows nothing about this before today's story, that the association has a different name in Europe -- in Spanish? Latin? If anyone knows more about the question, and can point me in the direction of better information, I must admit to being deeply intrigued by the subject.
Here's something I didn't expect to see when I got up today: Knights Templar sue Pope.
The Association of the Sovereign Order of the Temple of Christ, whose members claim to be descended from the legendary crusaders, have filed a lawsuit against Benedict XVI calling for him to recognise the seizure of assets worth 100 billion euros (£79 billion).Ok... one thing I think I know about the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon is that they were under a vow of chastity. I realize that not every priest, even of the church militant, kept his vows with absolute faithfulness. Neverthless, is it really possible that there is a whole "association" of people in Spain who, seven hundred years after the Order was dissolved, can show that they are "descended" from knights of this Crusader order? Would a modern court really accept their standing to sue, on a seven-hundred year old question?
I'm guessing, since Google shows nothing about this before today's story, that the association has a different name in Europe -- in Spanish? Latin? If anyone knows more about the question, and can point me in the direction of better information, I must admit to being deeply intrigued by the subject.
Now this is fun:
Introducing over 175 Movie Posters of Classic War Films that are Outstanding Reproductions in Original Colors.
Enjoy.
Update: link fixed. (I think. Works for me, anyway)
Introducing over 175 Movie Posters of Classic War Films that are Outstanding Reproductions in Original Colors.
Enjoy.
Update: link fixed. (I think. Works for me, anyway)
Boyd's Cycle.
Simon over at Classical Values, thinks McCain (or his campaign) is getting inside Obama's (or his campaign's) decision cycle.
(via Instapundit)
Simon over at Classical Values, thinks McCain (or his campaign) is getting inside Obama's (or his campaign's) decision cycle.
Elections are nothing if they are not time competitive. Evidently the "freezing of the opponent" that Alinsky recommends has not worked on McCain. He was not frozen. Once that happened McCain was operating inside Obama's decision loop.Discuss.
(via Instapundit)
Heh
A New Politics:
Sen. McCain, whom rhetoric would have as the candidate of Not-Change, not only wants to move to frequent Town Hall debates where the voters can question the candidates directly -- he also has adopted laughter, rather than fear, as his mode. Karl Rove's former employees may be working for him, but it's clear that the tone is being set by the candidate, not the campaign. Indeed, the tonal difference between McCain 2008 and Bush 2000 or 2004 could hardly be greater.
So, which one is the change candidate again? Which one actually changes things? Whether for better (as here and in Iraq) or for worse (as in campaign finance reform), if actual change is what you want, McCain is your man.
One that will not involve questions from the voters.
Barack Obama’s campaign made its distaste for free-style debates more or less official yesterday in their letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates. Team Obama only will agree to three debates, which has been the tradition through the last several presidential cycles, and all of them in the standard moderated format. He will not accept McCain’s challenge to meet him in a format where voters can ask the questions...Team McCain hits back with humor, which they have apparently decided will be the trademark of their campaign.
“We understand it might be beneath a worldwide celebrity of Barack Obama’s magnitude to appear at town hall meetings alongside John McCain and directly answer questions from the American people, but we hope he’ll reconsider.”We've talked about the disconnect between rhetoric and reality in this campaign before, so this is just another example. Sen. Obama is running on "a new politics," but in fact wants the campaign to run just as previous ones have run. He wants the media to continue to serve as the moderator and filter (no surprise, given that they are strongly allied with him), and to limit debates to the traditional number.
Sen. McCain, whom rhetoric would have as the candidate of Not-Change, not only wants to move to frequent Town Hall debates where the voters can question the candidates directly -- he also has adopted laughter, rather than fear, as his mode. Karl Rove's former employees may be working for him, but it's clear that the tone is being set by the candidate, not the campaign. Indeed, the tonal difference between McCain 2008 and Bush 2000 or 2004 could hardly be greater.
So, which one is the change candidate again? Which one actually changes things? Whether for better (as here and in Iraq) or for worse (as in campaign finance reform), if actual change is what you want, McCain is your man.
Non-Prophets
Southern Appeal on Prophecy:
Francis Beckwith at Southern Appeal offers some advice to Obama on how to answer the latest McCain ad:
Here are some lines that I thought of on the way home from the gym today:(So, did you know that there were two financial entrepreneurs mentioned in the Bible? The first was Pharaoh's daughter, who went down to the river and pulled a little Prophet from the water...)
* I was going to invite Senator McCain to the Transfiguration. Not anymore.
* Ye of little faith.
* Next time he asks for me to heal his melanoma, the answer is “no.”
* I’ll turn water into wine for him, but I draw the line at being his designated driver.
* I’m surprised Senator McCain didn’t say, “I knew Moses; Moses was a friend of mine; Senator Obama, you are no Moses.”
* Ironically, more men named “Jesus” will vote for me than will vote for Senator McCain.
* The people want more jobs and less Job.
* This just shows us that the McCain campaign is a non-prophet organization.
Too Far
Too Far:
Eric will be delighted to know that I have found the limit beyond which I will not accept something into my life simply because it has echoes of chivalry and knighthood. You can see that limit right here.
If there is an item in worse taste than a toilet seat featuring the arms of Richard the Lionheart (albeit with the wrong base color), I am not sure what it would be. Nominations are not solicited.
(I've gotten this catalog for several years now, for reasons unknown to me. They have the strangest mixture of really wonderful things, like this; kind of nifty things, like this; and truly horrid things like, well, heraldic toilet seats.)
False Prophets
False Prophets:
Skip to 5:50 to where Barack Obama is explictly brought into the matter.
As for the claims Oprah is making, they aren't actually new at all; what she is advocating is nothing but Theosophy, which was also a major interest of the British upper classes in Chesterton's day, and which drew his ire. (There is more to object to theologically, for a Christian, in the teachings of the Rev. Mr. Wright and his mentors, which are also more closely and fairly attached to Sen. Obama.)
McCain clearly intends his ad for humorous effect, but the folks downloading the Oprah video are in earnest. If you follow the link to the site, it is called "BlackVoices.com," and references another site which appears (based on the content of the ads) to be a Black spiritual site. These things are starting to percolate through the Christian churches in America, and race is no barrier to them. Insofar as they harmonize with the satirical point that McCain is making, the sense of satire may be lost.
The BlackVoices site has a video -- already removed by YouTube, but I watched it this morning -- that explictly makes the connection between Obama and Biblical false prophets. We spoke of that a couple months ago (also here).
I am strongly opposed to Senator Obama's election, for many and what I think are excellent reasons. I have no special love for Oprah. I hope that people will recognize, however, that Oprah is simply the modern version of the 19th century British aristocrat, seeking a faith that eliminates conflict in the Otherworld, so that it harmonizes with her current world. Having wealth and power, comfort and luxury, naturally she wants it to endure forever: and so a faith that promises no conflict through all Eternity is an attractive one.
Who is wrong here? Some will say that Oprah is wrong, and there is a great deal of argument to be had there on theological grounds. Others may say that McCain is wrong, to mock Barack in a way that might be misconstrued (just as they said he was wrong to permit an ad that featured even a glimpse of white women, in case that might be misconstrued). That seems a bit overbearing for me, but I expect it will be said. Others will say that the Christians are wrong, to bring what are essentially non-rational concepts to bear on day to day life; but they are explictly licensed to do this by the First Amendment, which itself only recognizes an inalienable right the Founders attributed to "their Creator." I have said myself that Sen. Obama has only himself to blame, for adopting prophetic language in a country that has a strong faith tradition about such language: it's easy to be understood as a false prophet when you speak as a prophet, but are false as a politician.
It's worth thinking through, though. I don't care for the Senator, and have little love for the Oprah movement either, but I would see everyone treated fairly.
UPDATE: By the way, watch the McCain video, 0:16-0:20. Pay attention to the dancing in the shadowy background. The line, "Can you see the light?" is surely meant to evoke this:
"Jake, are you all right?"
"We're on a Mission From God!"
We've all seen McCain's newest piece on Obama:
So what about this?
A new video which features popular talk show host Oprah Winfrey denying Jesus as the only way to God has received over 5 million views on several reporting video sites.Here is the video:
The approximately seven-minute video entitled, "The Church of Oprah Exposed," was posted less than a month ago and has claimed the a Top Favorites spot in the News & Politics category of a popular social networking site.
Skip to 5:50 to where Barack Obama is explictly brought into the matter.
As for the claims Oprah is making, they aren't actually new at all; what she is advocating is nothing but Theosophy, which was also a major interest of the British upper classes in Chesterton's day, and which drew his ire. (There is more to object to theologically, for a Christian, in the teachings of the Rev. Mr. Wright and his mentors, which are also more closely and fairly attached to Sen. Obama.)
McCain clearly intends his ad for humorous effect, but the folks downloading the Oprah video are in earnest. If you follow the link to the site, it is called "BlackVoices.com," and references another site which appears (based on the content of the ads) to be a Black spiritual site. These things are starting to percolate through the Christian churches in America, and race is no barrier to them. Insofar as they harmonize with the satirical point that McCain is making, the sense of satire may be lost.
The BlackVoices site has a video -- already removed by YouTube, but I watched it this morning -- that explictly makes the connection between Obama and Biblical false prophets. We spoke of that a couple months ago (also here).
I am strongly opposed to Senator Obama's election, for many and what I think are excellent reasons. I have no special love for Oprah. I hope that people will recognize, however, that Oprah is simply the modern version of the 19th century British aristocrat, seeking a faith that eliminates conflict in the Otherworld, so that it harmonizes with her current world. Having wealth and power, comfort and luxury, naturally she wants it to endure forever: and so a faith that promises no conflict through all Eternity is an attractive one.
Who is wrong here? Some will say that Oprah is wrong, and there is a great deal of argument to be had there on theological grounds. Others may say that McCain is wrong, to mock Barack in a way that might be misconstrued (just as they said he was wrong to permit an ad that featured even a glimpse of white women, in case that might be misconstrued). That seems a bit overbearing for me, but I expect it will be said. Others will say that the Christians are wrong, to bring what are essentially non-rational concepts to bear on day to day life; but they are explictly licensed to do this by the First Amendment, which itself only recognizes an inalienable right the Founders attributed to "their Creator." I have said myself that Sen. Obama has only himself to blame, for adopting prophetic language in a country that has a strong faith tradition about such language: it's easy to be understood as a false prophet when you speak as a prophet, but are false as a politician.
It's worth thinking through, though. I don't care for the Senator, and have little love for the Oprah movement either, but I would see everyone treated fairly.
UPDATE: By the way, watch the McCain video, 0:16-0:20. Pay attention to the dancing in the shadowy background. The line, "Can you see the light?" is surely meant to evoke this:
"Jake, are you all right?"
"We're on a Mission From God!"
Trolls among us.
The article is disturbing on several levels.
In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word “troll” to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities. Early trolling was relatively innocuous, taking place inside of small, single-topic Usenet groups. The trolls employed what the M.I.T. professor Judith Donath calls a “pseudo-naïve” tactic, asking stupid questions and seeing who would rise to the bait. The game was to find out who would see through this stereotypical newbie behavior, and who would fall for it. As one guide to trolldom puts it, “If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.”
Today the Internet is much more than esoteric discussion forums. It is a mass medium for defining who we are to ourselves and to others. Teenagers groom their MySpace profiles as intensely as their hair; escapists clock 50-hour weeks in virtual worlds, accumulating gold for their online avatars. Anyone seeking work or love can expect to be Googled. As our emotional investment in the Internet has grown, the stakes for trolling — for provoking strangers online — have risen. Trolling has evolved from ironic solo skit to vicious group hunt.
The article is disturbing on several levels.
Followup clubs
A Followup on Clubs:
Again via FARK, a worthy followup to the post on clubs v. guns. Sometimes, older arms still work just fine:
Iwasaki, a Hillsboro native and decorated veteran, was honored last weekend as part of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the desegregation of the U.S. armed forces. He served in a segregated unit that became the most decorated Army infantry group in U.S. history.Generally, what matters is the spirit. If the spirit is right, the mind follows: if the mind is right, the body follows.
Iwasaki fought across France and Italy during World War II and was wounded three times. He earned a Purple Heart with two oak leaf clusters and a Bronze Star before returning to Hillsboro in 1946.
Despite Iwasaki's military experience, Washington County deputies are wary about people confronting gun-wielding suspects.
End of Racism
The End of Racism:
This is a rhetorical shift in the same direction as the shift we've already made politically: racism as a concept is being emptied of meaning, except as a hedge for those groups once disadvantaged. What does it mean? Anything. Therefore, nothing. The McCain campaign is guilty of racism even if they can only be suspected of having subconscious impulses that might have possibly informed an ad they put out; even if they strictly forbid actual racism; even if they squash attempts at legitimate criticism that might make an issue of race; even if they have been subject to actual racism themselves, in an earlier day, and learned to despise it.
Therefore, they must always be guilty of racism; and therefore, racism is not a charge to be taken seriously. It is instead a condition -- like the necessity of having oxygen around to breathe -- that you simply accept and ignore as a basic feature of reality.
Once we get there, the advantage of raising charges of "racism!" will wane to the point that it will likely go away. Four years of a President Obama waving the flag over every criticism will probably do it for most of America; the holdouts will find their currency so debased that, though they may continue to try and spend it, it will buy them little.
Thus we might really "hope" to "end racism" through President Obama after all. Middle Americans, to the degree that they are conscious of race -- the younger generations seems much less so even than mine, and mine far less than the one before -- already think of it only in terms of ameliorating the harm of historic racism. When people become convinced that the charge is finally empty, we may at last walk away from this most poisonous of weeds.
Jake Tapper is not happy:
There's a lot of racist xenophobic crap out there. But not only has McCain not peddled any of it, he's condemned it.Ed Morissey agrees:
Back in February, McCain apologized for some questionable comments made by a local radio host. In April, he condemned the North Carolina Republican Party's ad featuring images of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
With one possible exception, I've never seen McCain or those under his control playing the race card or making fun of Obama's name -- or even mentioning Obama's full name, for that matter!
(The one exception was in March when McCain suspended a low-level campaign staffer for sending out to a small group of friends a link to a video that attempts to tie Obama not only to Wright but to the black power movement, rappers Public Enemy and Malcolm X.)
...
I've seen racism in campaigns before -- I've seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I've seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.
What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.
I warned about this over a month ago, when Obama first accused McCain of racism without any evidence whatsoever. The McCain campaign has exercised considerable restraint in its choice of criticisms, frustrating some Republicans over his refusal to even mention the Jeremiah Wright debacle. It has roundly condemned other Republicans who have tried to use that argument in an attempt to show good faith in this electoral cycle, and the only payback McCain has received is to be called a racist anyway.Cassandra scoffs at the attempt to call 'racism':
I agree that the Celeb commercial is pretty weak, but if it’s racist, then Obama has defined the term so far downward as to have no meaning at all.
Yessir, there is nothing like a little honest dialog about race relations in America to dispel all that wrong/bad tension between blacks and whites. Because the Other Side, you know, they operate from the Politics of Fear. And the only way to combat the Divisive Fear and Hate perpetrated by those hateful, divisive fear mongers who keep dragging race into this campaign even though I'd prefer not to mention it is by constantly reminding you of Fear and Race. Because we all know that any criticism of Me during a hotly contested political campaign can only be based on 400 years of simmering racism.And Professor Reynolds notes:
I imagine that we'll see a lot of this kind of thing if Obama is elected President. And perhaps the best reason to vote against Obama is to spare the country an administration that reflexively characterizes any criticism as racist.It occurs to me that this -- if not quite a reason to vote for Sen. Obama -- could be a major consolation prize if he is elected. It's already the case in America that "racism" has gone from actual racism -- I remember the KKK passing out their literature on the courthouse square when I was a boy -- to "institutional" racism. "Institutional" racism is combatted in this country via a huge arrangement of what are meant to be counterbalances, but which are now the only way in which race is openly considered. Thus, the only formal recognition of race in society is designed to redound to the benefit of minorities.
This is a rhetorical shift in the same direction as the shift we've already made politically: racism as a concept is being emptied of meaning, except as a hedge for those groups once disadvantaged. What does it mean? Anything. Therefore, nothing. The McCain campaign is guilty of racism even if they can only be suspected of having subconscious impulses that might have possibly informed an ad they put out; even if they strictly forbid actual racism; even if they squash attempts at legitimate criticism that might make an issue of race; even if they have been subject to actual racism themselves, in an earlier day, and learned to despise it.
Therefore, they must always be guilty of racism; and therefore, racism is not a charge to be taken seriously. It is instead a condition -- like the necessity of having oxygen around to breathe -- that you simply accept and ignore as a basic feature of reality.
Once we get there, the advantage of raising charges of "racism!" will wane to the point that it will likely go away. Four years of a President Obama waving the flag over every criticism will probably do it for most of America; the holdouts will find their currency so debased that, though they may continue to try and spend it, it will buy them little.
Thus we might really "hope" to "end racism" through President Obama after all. Middle Americans, to the degree that they are conscious of race -- the younger generations seems much less so even than mine, and mine far less than the one before -- already think of it only in terms of ameliorating the harm of historic racism. When people become convinced that the charge is finally empty, we may at last walk away from this most poisonous of weeds.
Politics Aside
Politics Aside:
The interior ministry, if you don't know this, controls much of the police function in Iraq: so he speaks as a man who has had occasion to watch the fall of violence firsthand. Here speaks a man who knows what these wounds bought for his nation.
This is the reason to visit the wounded:
“We have come … to express our gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices made by these great warriors, soldiers, in freeing the Iraqi people and in helping us in Iraq recover from tyranny and dictatorship,” Jawad Karim al-Bolani, Iraq’s minister of the interior, said through a translator... “We also want to express our gratitude to the families of all these great men and women and express how important their sacrifices are for our nation,” he added.I haven't mentioned the subject of another visit that didn't happen, and don't intend this post to serve as a proxy for it. This, though, is what it's supposed to be about: and it's genuinely inspiring to see this man speak so.
The interior ministry, if you don't know this, controls much of the police function in Iraq: so he speaks as a man who has had occasion to watch the fall of violence firsthand. Here speaks a man who knows what these wounds bought for his nation.
GWTW
War Movies:
Cassandra is compiling lists of great war movies today. This is something we've done a few times, but I have to remark on a couple of the entries suggested.
Bthun suggested "Casablanca." That's an interesting choice. It's not a "war movie" according to what I would normally think of as the defining features of the genre: all the actual fighting is quite a long way away. It's very much on the fringes of a war, though the war is large enough that it drives the plot.
More, though, it was written to encourage the United States to join a war. In that way, it is truly a war movie.
Another one that is mentioned is "Gone With The Wind." This is the point where I have to make my own confession, similar to those literary confessions from a day or two back.
I have never seen "Gone With The Wind." I realize, for a Southerner -- and a proud one -- this is a shocking omission. Nevertheless, I have not.
Guns, yes. Clubs, no.
Guns, Yes. Clubs, No.
Georgia law is no better. I have a firearms license, which means that I can carry -- openly or concealed -- pretty much anything short of an automatic weapon. .44 Magnum revolver? No problem. A pair of Glocks and a dozen extra clips? Perfectly legal.
A knife? Well...
You can carry a knife, with certain exceptions, if it is carried openly, OR if it is not "designed for the purpose of offense or defense"; but that latter has been defined by the court in really strange ways that I still haven't fully sorted out. A cop I know tells me "it's OK if it has a clip on the outside, and it folds," but there's nothing in the law to suggest that, and I see no reason a DA couldn't decide to prosecute you on the plain meaning of the language. On the other hand, I know several knifemakers, and could get a letter from them stating that they'd made me a custom knife "not at all for the purpose of offense or defense, but purely for the enjoyment of being able to open boxes and cut onions with a handmade work of art"; but presumably that plain-language defense wouldn't stand up.
And a club? Well...
As we begin to talk about the ramifications of Heller, it will matter how "arms" are defined. The second round of lawsuits is now under way, challenging Chicago's handgun ban to try and get the 2A incorporated to the states; and also challenging DC on its attempt to ban semiautomatic handguns by fiat, though they are the most common form of firearm chosen for self defense.
There is no obvious reason, however, that more primitive forms of arms should be banned. The Founders took the field with everything from muskets and Kentucky Long Rifles to knives, swords, and clubs of the type in common use among the Indian tribes of what was then the frontier.
Via FARK, a story about how Texas animal control officers can't use a stick against an angry dog:
Harris County's animal control division wants the Legislature to allow its officers to use telescoping batons to fend off attacking dogs amid a sharp increase in the number of aggressive stray pit bulls in unincorporated areas.Texas state law allows the carrying of firearms, of course: just not clubs.
Animal control officers say the batons, called "bite sticks," can prevent serious injuries by intimidating aggressive, charging animals and blocking their attempts to bite. But they currently are prohibited in Texas under a state law that bars most people who are not certified peace officers from carrying clubs.
Georgia law is no better. I have a firearms license, which means that I can carry -- openly or concealed -- pretty much anything short of an automatic weapon. .44 Magnum revolver? No problem. A pair of Glocks and a dozen extra clips? Perfectly legal.
A knife? Well...
You can carry a knife, with certain exceptions, if it is carried openly, OR if it is not "designed for the purpose of offense or defense"; but that latter has been defined by the court in really strange ways that I still haven't fully sorted out. A cop I know tells me "it's OK if it has a clip on the outside, and it folds," but there's nothing in the law to suggest that, and I see no reason a DA couldn't decide to prosecute you on the plain meaning of the language. On the other hand, I know several knifemakers, and could get a letter from them stating that they'd made me a custom knife "not at all for the purpose of offense or defense, but purely for the enjoyment of being able to open boxes and cut onions with a handmade work of art"; but presumably that plain-language defense wouldn't stand up.
And a club? Well...
As we begin to talk about the ramifications of Heller, it will matter how "arms" are defined. The second round of lawsuits is now under way, challenging Chicago's handgun ban to try and get the 2A incorporated to the states; and also challenging DC on its attempt to ban semiautomatic handguns by fiat, though they are the most common form of firearm chosen for self defense.
There is no obvious reason, however, that more primitive forms of arms should be banned. The Founders took the field with everything from muskets and Kentucky Long Rifles to knives, swords, and clubs of the type in common use among the Indian tribes of what was then the frontier.
Go, Iraq
Go, Iraq!
I've never been a big fan of the Olympic Games. I did my best to avoid them in Atlanta in 1996, at a time when I was living there. On the other hand, I was in China during the 2000 Olympics, and I can tell you that the Chinese take it very seriously: it was absolutely eerie how the streets became empty. Millions of people disappeared, in order to watch the games huddled around whatever television they could find. And when China would win a medal, everyone would cheer.
My wife and I, walking through the darkened and empty streets of a normally-bustling city, would suddenly hear a high cry as a few million voices raised together: everywhere, but out of sight.
So it is with tremendous pleasure that I read that at least two of Iraq's Olympic hopefuls will be competing this year. It is a disgrace that the Olympic Committee couldn't get off its... ah, couldn't find a way to resolve the matter in time for the other hopefuls to compete. It will mean a lot, though, to the people of Iraq to get to see their champions in competition with those of the other nations of the world.
I'll be rooting for Ms. Dana Abdul-Razzaq. In the Olympic spirit: Good luck. Bon chance. ¡Buena suerte! I'd put it in Arabic, but I don't have enough of the language to know the form.
Science at work
Science @ Work:
Actually, I think what the scientific study has definitively proven is that laziness is very hard to overcome. Even with free treadmills, regular group meetings, and telephone pep talks.
The rest of the study's data, breathlessly reported in a major news magazine, are called into serious question by the utter breakdown of their methodology. I'd love to know who was responsible for funding a program for two years when "within a few months" it was clear the methodology had failed, and the results from the study would therefore be entirely unusable for the intended purpose.
A new study, which got attention from slick Time Magazine, purports to show that moderate exercise won't help you with your long-term weight goals. How scientific was this study?
The study, led by John Jakicic at the Physical Activity and Weight Management Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh, followed nearly 200 overweight or obese women ages 21 to 45 through a two-year weight-loss program. The women were given free treadmills to use at home, regular group meetings and telephone pep talks to help keep them on track...I love that phrasing: "A slightly different data set than they had planned for."
The problem was that not enough of the women stuck with their assigned exercise categories for the researchers to gather enough meaningful data. Within a few months, most of the participants had resorted to exercising as much as they chose to. That left researchers with a slightly different data set than they had planned for...
Actually, I think what the scientific study has definitively proven is that laziness is very hard to overcome. Even with free treadmills, regular group meetings, and telephone pep talks.
The rest of the study's data, breathlessly reported in a major news magazine, are called into serious question by the utter breakdown of their methodology. I'd love to know who was responsible for funding a program for two years when "within a few months" it was clear the methodology had failed, and the results from the study would therefore be entirely unusable for the intended purpose.
Confess
Literary Sins:
I think my favorite of these confessions is the professor who got top marks for his paper on Wuthering Heights. (H/t Arts & Letters Daily.)
This points to a serious problem with far more than literature theory, though: the academic world has become extremely derivative. Nothing will produce greater disdain than writing a paper on a work of literature or history, or a scientific topic, which does not show that you have read the important secondary works on the subject. In a way, this makes sense: if you aren't aware of the important work already done on a topic, how do you intend to build on what we already know?
Yet it quickly becomes the case that there is so much secondary literature to read that there isn't really time to read the primary sources. Instead, you become a specialist on a small handful of topics -- or less, even -- mastering all the secondary literature on that little demense. In doing that, though, your own mind is quite limited in its capacity to investigate the original work. How will you tell me about Bronte if you haven't read her contemporaries? You may know everything about her, but if you didn't read the works that influenced her... or know about the politics troubling her lifespan...
We are pushing against the limits of human capacity. There is a short span in which a man lives, learns, writes, and dies. The need to build on what has come before us must, of necessity, cut into our capacity to see the original picture. As we were discussing Sidney Lanier, look again at his capacities: Middle English and French, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon. A man who today wished to be an expert in Anglo-Saxon poetics, as he was, would scarcely have time for any of the others. He would be swamped in secondary sources.
What is the answer? A second ring of generalists of the old sort, to check the specialists against the bigger picture?
Muzzle Discipline
Muzzle Discipline Is So Important:
Via The Donovan, the funniest thing I have seen in ages. This guy looks exactly like an Army Reserve Captain I used to know.
Military Deception
Military Deception:
As a continuation of yesterday's post on the ethics of manipulation, an interesting example from the Hundred Years' War.* Sir John of Norwich is commanding a garrison in a city that comes under siege by a large French army. Discovering that the citizens are inclined to the French, that he has few provisions, and that there is little hope of aid from the main army, he decides to escape with his trusted companions.
He summons the Duke of Normandy, commanding the French army, and obtains a one-day truce to honor the Feast of Candlemas, "in honor of Our Lady." Then he packs up his stuff, and boldly rides out on that day directly through the French Army. Obliged by his word and his honor, the Duke allows them to withdraw in peace.
The poet Sidney Lanier,** in his redaction, adds a footnote: "This act of Sir John Norwich was mean and small beyond all decent words; for he took the basest advantage of the Duke of Normandy's honorable confidence in his fidelity to the sacred obligations of a truce."
In truth, I doubt the Duke minded much, since the result was that the city surrended to him peacefully. He obtained whole and without bloodshed what might have come to him in a far poorer condition, and with some loss.
Military deception has advantages and also disadvantages: a man who keeps his word and his truce in war does profit by it, especially in counterinsurgency efforts to win the population. Part of the reason the people of the city were inclined to be ruled by the Duke of Normandy was his honorable and decent character.
By the same token, American efforts in Iraq have profited strongly by the understanding that we would keep our word. Of all the actors in Iraq, of all the factions, we have been the most reliable: our terms are clear, and if you adhere to them, we will defend you and further your interests. While Iraq's factions still want self-rule, not American protection, they find it easier to trust and work with us as brokers than they do even with each other. Deception, while useful in certain cases, will dissolve that key advantage if overused.
On the other hand, trusting the enemy's word leaves you open to manipulation. It worked to the Duke's advantage in this case, but obviously it does not always. Likewise, there are times when deception is the only chance for a weaker party to attempt a danger: Sir John of Norwich saved his command unharmed for future battles this way; and centuries later, Allied forces were able to attempt Normandy due to careful efforts to distract its defenders.
The existence of war obviously changes the terms somewhat. We're looking at three different kinds of cases now: deceptive manipulation in intelligence work, deceptive manipulation in war, and deceptive manipulation between neighbors. It would be tempting to say that deception was licensed in a decreasing degree along these types of cases: nearly always in intelligence work, sometimes in war, and rarely in peaceful relations with neighbors. (And how about in a fourth case: politics?)
Insofar as men must carry out these deceptions, we should still try to establish an idea of exactly when "sometimes" is.
* If you follow the link and head down to the next chapter, starting on p. 122, you can read an interesting account of medieval counterbattery fire.
** It should be noted that Sidney Lanier practiced what he preached. He was a pilot on blockade runners, assisting English vessels in shipping Confederate cotton out through the Union blockade. On one occasion the ship was borded, and he refused to don an English uniform or deny his status as a Confederate. The Federals imprisoned him, and he contracted tuberculosis in prison, which tormented him the rest of his life. He has, therefore, earned the right to speak on the subject as a man who has sacrificed for his principles.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)