Afghanistan's Women

The Shia Women of Afghanistan:

Some of you may recall that earlier this year, the Afghan government came under fire for approving a Shia marriage law that was unfair to women. It resulted in some protests by Afghan women, which are unusual, and so the government promised to go back to the drawing board.

The new law is reportedly not much better. Unfortunately, the text is not available online as yet. Human Rights Watch, which has taken quite a bit of criticism over the years, claims to have seen a copy of the final law.

The law gives a husband the right to withdraw basic maintenance from his wife, including food, if she refuses to obey his sexual demands. It grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers. It requires women to get permission from their husbands to work. It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying "blood money" to a girl who was injured when he raped her....

The law regulates the personal affairs of Shia Muslims - who make up between 10 and 20 percent of the population - including divorce, separation, inheritance, and the minimum age for marriage. The initial version of the law included articles that imposed drastic restrictions on Shia women, including a requirement to ask permission to leave the house except on urgent business, and a requirement that a wife have sex with her husband at least once every four days.

This law sits in a very strange place in the Afghan legal system. The Afghan Constitution has some fairly clear and explicit statements about the rights of its citizens.

Article Twenty-Two

Any kind of discrimination and distinction between citizens of Afghanistan shall be forbidden. The citizens of Afghanistan, man and woman, have equal rights and duties before the law.

The Shia "exception" is here:

Article One Hundred Thirty-One

The courts shall apply the Shia jurisprudence in cases involving personal matters of followers of the Shia sect in accordance with the provisions of the law. In other cases, if no clarification in this Constitution and other laws exist, the courts shall rule according to laws of this sect.

Finally, there is a relevant article in the section on changing laws.

Article One Hundred Forty-Nine

The principles of adherence to the tenets of the Holy religion of Islam as well as Islamic Republicanism shall not be amended. Amending fundamental rights of the people shall be permitted only to improve them.

It would seem that Article 22 is exactly the kind of "clarification in this Constitution" that Article 131 considers. It seems reasonable to believe that the law should be unconstitutional for that reason.

Article 149 complicates the matter. To the degree that it declares Islam to be the model for Afghanistan, it harmonizes with 131 but clashes with 22. Shia jurisprudence is certainly Islamic, and certainly admits to the model the law proposes. On the other hand, it states that anything that could be considered an amendment to basic liberties is not constitutional -- unless it improves those liberties. (We could use a version of that language in our own Constitution!)

I don't know how Afghanistan's government resolves a constitutional clash like this. I'm guessing, since it is patterned on our own form of government in key respects (like having a nine-member Supreme Court), that it would look to its court system. The oath of office repeats the verbiage from 149, with two additional invocations to underline the importance of adhering to Islam: "In the of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, I swear in the name of God Almighty to attain justice and righteousness in accordance with tenets of the Holy religion of Islam, provisions of this Constitution as well as other laws of Afghanistan, and to execute the judicial duty with utmost honesty, righteousness and impartiality."

So: what wins out? The 'tenets of Islam,' or the Constitution's explicit text? They appear to be in direct conflict.

One Man Shall Drive a Hundred

Mrs. Palin Presses the Fray:

One man shall drive a hundred,
As the dead kings drave;
Before me rocking hosts be riven,
And battering cohorts backwards driven,
For I am the first king known of heaven
That has been struck like a slave.

The lady was handled as roughly and unfairly as anyone could dream, when she first came onto the scene; not only her, but her children. Yet Senators and Presidents recoil from her, and she presses her claim.

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on?....

In the fall, when the Senate and the House must come together in conference, perhaps it may not matter. Yet if it does, she will have won this battle as a private citizen, writing arguments on her Facebook page. She's nothing more than that: not a governor any more, not a candidate for any office. Just a blogger, really; another citizen, like any of us.

Like any of us but for one thing: she has a bigger audience, paid for with the slanders and cruelty aimed at her children. They struck her, and now they must answer her.

Music, Story

Change the Music, Change the Story:

The New Axis of Evil

The New Axis of Evil:

It's you, according to the Senate Majority Leader. He does have the good grace to be slightly ashamed of having said it out loud.

Palin on Death Panels

Palin on "Death Panels":

Mrs. Palin -- who, as a private citizen, has the honor of having the President address her arguments by name -- responds to certain claims today.

A few days ago, when we were discussing her earlier letter, I said that I didn't think she was talking about Sec. 1233. In today's piece, she discusses her reading of 1233 at length, since the President interpreted her comments as pertaining to it; but adds at the end:

My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

I had a feeling that was where she was pointed, because that's where you get a "panel" whose job it is to make recommendations about who lives and who should be let to die. Pro-health-care-reformist Mickey Kaus notes that Obama's own words strongly indicate that he favors such a panel:

He's talking about a panel of independent experts making end-of-life recommendations in order to save costs that have an effect at an individual level. And he thought it would be in the bill that emerges. ... It's also pretty clear that something like the "IMAC" panel is what he has in mind. Whether or not the IMAC would actually do this--Harold Pollack says end-of-life issues are well down the curve-bender's list, for example--Obama thought it would do it. . .

Indeed, what the President said was that "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill." If that's true, any savings would almost have to come out of care for them: almost all the money is being spent there to start with. Add in the fact that his advisor, Dr. Emmanuel, is pushing to focus our efforts on the remaining 20% of cases, and you can be pretty clear about what the President is thinking. We're going to save money, and we're going to do it by cutting the amount we spend on "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives."

Mrs. Palin is right about that. In spite of the arm-waving, she's quite correct to say that this is the vision being advocated.

A Ruling!

A Ruling!

Articles posted by Arts & Letters Daily are usually worth the time it takes to read them. Today, for example, there was a debate between two scholars of feminism, one of whom has been challenging that the other's data is a collection of garbage. The other -- one Nancy K. D. Lemon (presumably Dr. Lemon but never so titled in the article) -- makes the following defense. The particular item they chose as the focus for their dispute is somewhat amazing:

In regard to the rule of thumb, for example, she asserted that Romulus of Rome, who is credited in my book with being involved with the first antidomestic-violence legislation, could not have done this as he was merely a legendary, fictional character, who along with his brother Remus was suckled by a wolf.

In fact, Plutarch and Livy each state that Romulus was the first king of Rome. He reigned from 753-717 BC, and created both the Roman Legions and the Roman Senate. He is also credited with adding large amounts of territory and people to the dominion of Rome, including the Sabine women. The modern scholar Andrea Carandini has written about the historic reign of Romulus, based in part on the 1988 discovery of the Murus Romuli on the north slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome.

Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers (whose biography states that she is a doctor, though she is also not given a title in the piece) disputes that idea.

Essentially everything in Professor Lemon's response is wrong.

She confidently informs us that Romulus actually existed and ruled Rome from 753-717 BC. That is preposterous. She cites Livy and Plutarch as sources. These first-century writers did not claim to be offering historically accurate accounts of events that took place some 700 years before their time, but openly professed to be summarizing beliefs, myths, and legends that had come down through the ages. She also cites the contemporary Roman archaeologist Andrea Carandini—a maverick figure who discovered what he claims might have been a wall of a palace that could have belonged to Romulus. As the July/August 2007 issue of Archaeology politely notes, his suggestion "represents a sharp break with two millennia of scholarship."

Well, it happens we have an expert on Roman history here among us. Mr. Blair, will you kindly give us a ruling on this dispute?

Congress

A Unique Honor:

"You know, this Congress comes home covered in a certain species of achievement. By the time the next elections roll around, it seems likely they will not only have spent more money than any other Congress in history, it's possible -- likely even -- that they will have spent more money than all the other Congresses combined."

"[Passing laws you have not read] is perilously near treason."

Bill Whittle, on the matter of the day.

Debate Update

Debate Update:

Things are not going well!

FreedomWorks’ August Recess Call to Action encouraged grassroots citizens to attend Congressional town hall meetings and listening sessions. We asked everyone to voice their opinions and communicate their opposition to the President’s proposed hostile takeover of the American health care system. Apparently, the very act of showing up and having an opinion is, in effect, to act like a “thug.” Opposing President Obama’s policy agenda on health care is, in and of itself, unacceptable, and has no place in our democracy. Bottom line: it’s “disgusting,” according to our friends on the left.

We didn’t know this. Evidently, we also didn’t know best practices in a respectful, dignified policy debate, but our leftist friends were kind enough to “take FreedomWorks to school”, so to speak.

Specifically, “school” included phone call blitzes from MoveOn.org and the AFL-CIO that jammed FreedomWorks phone lines and filled up staff voice mail boxes. Callers’ consistently used profanity, vulgarity, ever-popular references to “Nazis” and “brown-shirters,” racial slurs targeting an African-American staffer, and even veiled threats of violence and bodily harm.

Making a point about the unity of first and second amendment rights is this fellow, who lawfully brought a gun to a place where the President would be speaking. I personally think it would be healthy if the government trusted rather than feared its citizens, but the relationship should work the other way according to Ezra Klein.

What we're seeing here is not merely distrust in the House health-care reform bill. It's distrust in the political system. A healthy relationship does not require an explicit detailing of the "institutional checks" that will prevent one partner from beating or killing the other. In a healthy relationship, such madness is simply unthinkable. If it was not unthinkable, then no number of institutional checks could repair that relationship.

Is it unthinkable? Consider today's Day By Day.

The White House is actually hiring union thugs to attend rallies to counterprotest. Those thugs have actually attacked American citizens, describing those citizens as terrorists. The White House response, after the attacks, praised the union's efforts, while making no reference to the attacks and no attempt to cool their behavior.

Other bad behavior by the administration is less worrisome, like stacking town halls with cute little plants and selling out Medicare to Big Pharma. Hiring union thugs, though, crosses one of those lines of trust. It's not unthinkable now that a union ally of the President's might come bust your teeth, because you had the temerity as a citizen to carry a sign protesting government seizure of control of our health care. Following as it does government seizures of our banks and auto industries, some people want to protest: but they find allies of the President physically threatening them if they do.

Nancy Pelosi said it's un-American to try to drown out the opposition.

I have a memo from SEIU Local 2001....

“Action: Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.”

The relationship between citizen and government has passed the point at which it's "unthinkable" that "one party" might "beat or kill" the other. Both sides have reasons to fear actual violence.

Let's look at the reasonable fears of the President's supporters, too. It appears there has been an increased use of the fellow's favored Jeffersonian rhetoric. The rhetorical point Jefferson was making was honest enough: he believed, based on his own experience and a reading of English history, that liberty could only survive if it was regularly defended. Such defenses took the form of cyclical wars: his own Revolution, the Jacobite wars, the English Civil War, etc., all the way back to the wars against King John that established the Manga Carta.

Such violence was easy for Jefferson to contemplate coolly, having just finished his own generation's participation. On what might prove to be the front side of such a cycle, it's hard to be as sanguine. Some are worried, noticing the increase in death threats against this President. They are worried enough to declare that the law should be set aside:

Now, this guy is carrying a legal weapon, says NBC News' Ron Allen. The local chief of police has no objections. Open carriage of licensed handguns is legal in New Hampshire, and the man is standing on the private property of a nearby church (!) that has no problem with an armed man hanging around.

But let's be clear: anyone watching the mounting rage over, of all things, health care — perhaps one of the most boring and complex policy subjects — has to worry that these people are going to try to kill Barack Obama. That's not an extrapolation from unhinged rhetoric, or a partisan reading of the imagined intentions of our political enemies. It's a rational reading of the anticipated behavior of a man who brandishes a gun at the location where the president is expected to imminently arrive while holding a sign that openly advocates his assassination. And the astonishing, breathtaking, maddening fact that he hasn't been violently taken to the ground by large men wearing suits and earpieces is an open encouragement to anyone else so inclined to give it a shot.

Now, I understand the fear. I regret that the author is so frightened of his fellow citizens that he refers to them as "these people," and suspects them of plotting murder. I hope that we can change that sense in the future.

Nevertheless, notice that the call here is to void the law entirely. It doesn't matter what the state law is; what the local police think; what rights the man may have under state and Federal constitutions; or what the property owner wants. It makes no difference that a handgun is no threat to the President's convoy anyway, as it is armored far above the level a handgun could penetrate, and guarded by men with M4 carbines, body armor, and endless backup immediately available. The man should have been taken down, the argument goes, and violently. The fact that he wasn't is worrisome -- apparently more worrisome than a rank violation of the law by Federal agents would be.

Here's some good news: The Secret Service, and the local police, did the right thing. Their obedience to the law in no way resulted in any threat to the President, as they were aware of the man and quite capable of dealing with him. Nobody trusted anyone else: the man didn't trust the unions, the Secret Service didn't trust the man, the President doesn't trust the protesting citizens. Everyone was anticipating violence from the other parties involved.

Nevertheless, the system worked. The rights of the people were respected both by law enforcement and by the unions, the President came and went without incident. Trust wasn't necessary. It's a wonderful thing, but something that we can't always expect to have. Therefore, the system doesn't require it.

Ezra Klein is wrong. The system we have isn't predicated on trust. It's predicated on checks and balances, and the assumption that tyrants and bad-actors will sometimes be in charge. Every part of the system works this way, not just the relationship between Congress and the Executive, or the two and the Supreme Court. The government isn't required to trust its citizens: it's permitted to defend itself from any who rise up against it, as the Constitution gives it explict permission to suppress rebellions, and the Secret Service has authority to perform its noble and nonpartisan duty.

By the same token, citizens are not required to disarm themselves and submit to beatings by hired union thugs in order to exercise their rights of assembly and petition. If you're going to insist on fielding union thugs whose clear and stated intent is to disrupt protests, you have no right to complain when citizens avail themselves of lawful Second Amendment rights in defense of their First Amendment rights.

It is for just such a moment as this that these checks were created. The hope is that they will prevent a war, by ensuring that both sides have something to lose by starting one. As someone who deeply hopes to see no more violence arising out of this business, I hope that both sides will begin to back away -- but it is both sides that need to do so. The White House, having money, power, and informal armies of "purple shirts," has to back off if they want to see rhetoric cool on the side of the citizenry. If they don't want citizens to feel they need a gun to attend a protest, they ought not to take steps making it likely that a citizen might receive a beating for attending one.

We could yet reach Jefferson's cycle, if the escalation continues. These checks and balances, though, are letting it operate relatively smoothly even at this high level of tension and distrust. Compared with what similar levels of tension and distrust look like elsewhere, the American way looks pretty good.

Best. Whiskey. Ad. Evar.

Good job there, Bobby.

(via American Digest)

Death Panels

Death Panels:

One of the fairest and most reasonable points that I've heard ObamaCare proponents make is that there is already "rationing" in our current system; it's just that the rationing is handled by the market, and particularly by the insurance companies. This lies at the heart of the claim that they are the "villains" of the story, because they make money while choosing who lives and who dies.

A lady speaks here with passion and fury about the death of her mother.

I’ve been part of a death panel conversation. I know about death panels.

You have no idea what it’s like to be called into a sterile conference room with a hospital administrator you’ve never met before and be told that your mother’s insurance policy will only pay for 30 days in ICU. You can't imagine what it's like to be advised that you need to “make some decisions,” like whether your mother should be released “HTD” which is hospital parlance for “home to die,” or if you want to pay out of pocket to keep her in the ICU another week. And when you ask how much that would cost you are given a number so impossibly large that you realize there really are no decisions to make. The decision has been made for you.

Unfortunately, we are not facing a choice of saving people or letting them die. What we are facing is the choice of who will decide when they die.

The fact is that those impossibly large numbers don't change when the government is picking up the tab. The only difference is that it will be a government official who has to decide whether or not to pay, instead of you. You will be spared going into that room; but in return, no one who loves your mother will be consulted.

The result may well be the same in any case.

A loving child might possibly sell everything to pay for a mother's extra week of life. Then again, even a loving child might believe that their mother wouldn't really want them to lose everything. They make a decision in pain, and out of love.

The bureaucratic solution that is proposed has no love, and no place for love. Love is not a metric that it can understand, account for, or factor into decisions across a broad number of cases. If you are going to have a system in place that makes reasoned decisions for millions of people, emotions have to be left behind.

Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

That's what Mrs. Palin was writing about, and what bothers her. It is a system forlorn of love, where the decisions are as sterile as the room in which they are made.

Jesus the Horseman

The Horseman:

Lars Walker's blog, which I've been reading since I discovered that he had one, contains a review by one of his co-bloggers of Your Jesus Is Too Safe. I hadn't heard of the book before, though I suppose the only book about Jesus I've ever read besides the Bible is The Everlasting Man. Still, the review was interesting:

He doesn’t spend much time describing poor views of Jesus, like Hippie Jesus or the inhuman Flannel-graph Jesus. He touches on them in the context of healthy views on Jesus’ role as a shepherd, a judge, a prophet, a king, and many others.

As to which, how about Jesus as horseman?

Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.

What happens when you sit a colt that no man has ever ridden before?

It's not safe, that's for sure.

Another Victim

Another Victim:

The PA shooting we discussed below had another victim: the theology of permanent security. Ideas have consequences, and if you teach that salvation is irrevocable no matter what you do after... well, you understand the point. His long-time preacher is said to be "really broken this week." Small wonder.

The same problem exists with predestination, which lies at the heart of the Presbyterian faith in which I was raised. If you're pre-destined, what you do doesn't matter: it may (or may not) be an indicator of how your destiny lies, but you can't change it. So why be good? God made up his mind about you before you were born.

The theology of peril is the best one.

When God put man in a garden
He girt him with a sword,
And sent him forth a free knight
That might betray his lord;

He brake Him and betrayed Him,
And fast and far he fell,
Till you and I may stretch our necks
and burn our beards in hell.

The first time I read the Ballad of the White Horse, I thought the theological parts were tedious additions to an otherwise-great war poem. More and more, I realize that they were the most important parts of all.

Frightening Video?

"Great, Beautiful Half-witted Men/ From the Sunrise and the Sea."

Almost 100,000 Swedes, many of whom viewed the clip on YouTube, have joined a Facegroup group called “I am scared of the girl in the Apoliva commercial” (“Jag är rädd för tjejen i Apolivareklamen”) in reaction to the film. Several other related groups, both in favour of and against the ad, have popped up on the social media site as well....

The description of the Facebook group reads: “Those of us who have a TV and like to watch commercials can't be bothered to reach for the remote are facing a problem. Apoliva has begun to run a commercial that is frightening. A woman singing a Nordic/Swedish folk song in freezing rain with lightning. I am creating this group for those of us who need somewhere to seek support and talk things out. It's only a matter of time before it creeps into our dreams and terrorises us in our sleep.”

So: fools? Or a very clever marketing campaign?

Good Food:

Tonight I took down an excellent cookbook, and made a bread described by its recipe as:

A Festival Bread
From the Land of King Arthur

I substituted the dried fruit with fresh blueberries, as we have them on hand here.



As you can see, the bread didn't stand uncut long enough for me to get a photograph. But it has a cup of brown sugar and a stick of butter in it, in addition to the blueberries; so that is small wonder.

Miles in Shoes

Miles in Shoes:

The New Yorker begins an article by describing a Southern politician of the old sort.

Big Jim Folsom was six feet eight inches tall, and had the looks of a movie star. He was a prodigious drinker, and a brilliant campaigner, who travelled around the state with a hillbilly string band called the Strawberry Pickers. The press referred to him (not always affectionately) as Kissin’ Jim, for his habit of grabbing the prettiest woman at hand....

Folsom would end his speeches by brandishing a corn-shuck mop and promising a spring cleaning of the state capitol. He was against the Big Mules, as the entrenched corporate interests were known. He worked to extend the vote to disenfranchised blacks. He wanted to equalize salaries between white and black schoolteachers. He routinely commuted the death sentences of blacks convicted in what he believed were less than fair trials. He made no attempt to segregate the crowd at his inaugural address. “Ya’ll come,” he would say to one and all, making a proud and lonely stand for racial justice....

When the black Harlem congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., came to Montgomery, on a voter-registration drive, Folsom invited him to the Governor’s Mansion for a Scotch-and-soda. That was simply good manners. Whenever he was accused of being too friendly to black people, Folsom shrugged. His assumption was that Negroes were citizens, just like anyone else.

Thus we begin on a journey of discovery that proves that Folsom was a wicked man. His 'proud and loney stance for racial justice' is proven, by the alchemy of modern thought, to be a kind of evil. The magic begins here:

Folsom was not a civil-rights activist. Activists were interested in using the full, impersonal force of the law to compel equality. In fact, the Supreme Court’s landmark desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education ended Folsom’s career, because the racial backlash that it created drove moderates off the political stage. The historian Michael Klarman writes, “Virtually no southern politician could survive in this political environment without toeing the massive resistance line, and in most states politicians competed to occupy the most extreme position on the racial spectrum.” Folsom lost his job to the segregationist John Patterson...

It ends here, after a traipse through literary theory and To Kill A Mockingbird:

Orwell didn’t think that Dickens should have written different novels; he loved Dickens. But he understood that Dickens bore the ideological marks of his time and place. His class did not see the English social order as tyrannical, worthy of being overthrown. Dickens thought that large contradictions could be tamed through small moments of justice. He believed in the power of changing hearts, and that’s what you believe in, Orwell says, if you “do not wish to endanger the status quo.”

But in cases where the status quo involves systemic injustice this is no more than a temporary strategy. Eventually, such injustice requires more than a change of heart.

What we are being told here is that the wickedness of the mid-century Southern progressive is that he wasn't a revolutionary. He believed in changing people's hearts, in kindness, in respect to all mankind. He didn't hate enough: because if he'd been the best kind of man, he'd have known he should hate Bull Connor. As the author puts it, in a Mockingbird reference, "[T]he hearts-and-minds approach is about accommodation, not reform. At one point, Scout asks him if it is O.K. to hate Hitler. Finch answers, firmly, that it is not O.K. to hate anyone. Really? Not even Hitler?"

That dismisses outright the gentler, hearts-and-minds approach to changing a society. The kind of person who -- again, from Mockingbird -- states that you can understand others only if you "climb into his skin and walk around in it" are not suitable, according to the author, for fixing real injustice. The slow, quiet, decent method is not workable.

In fact, that was the very warning that was raised by progressives in the South during the Civil Rights era -- that pushing too hard, too fast, would cause a backlash that would make change even more difficult. The Civil Rights movement achieved all of its goals, eventually, but it did drive out the progressives, and the era saw bombings, murders, brutality, and other horrors.

The author asserts that it was necessary, because the Jim Crow system was so ingrained that slow and peaceful change could never be enough. Perhaps; but if you had looked at Chinese society during the Maoist era, you might well have thought that there was even less hope there. The Red Guard tormented the people, spies were everywhere, violence was fielded against intellectuals and, eventually, anyone who spoke at all. The government blithely demanded the people produce ingots for steel production, even though it meant they had to melt down their tools for farming. Tens of millions starved. The government refused to ask for outside aid, preferring to watch its millions die than admit the failure of its Communist planning.

Maoist China was a clear competitor for "Worst Place and Time in Human History." There was no obvious progressive movement at all. Yet now -- at a similar remove from the Civil Rights Movement -- you can see how remarkable the changes have been. In the South, where there was such a movement, who knows? Big Jim Folsom was elected governor of Alabama, after all. It's not like he was a fringe politician.

Today, Cassandra writes to warn against treating the Left from an 'us v. them' perspective. It's wise advice, though I dissent -- as I always do -- from her affection for the law. It's a conditional good only, if it is well-written and employed justly. Mao had courts and policemen too.

Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that there has been a lot of demonizing and fury going on. If it becomes de rigeur for politicians to be treated this way, we'll only get the sort of people whose lust for power overrides any sense of decency for the treatment of their families. That's hardly the kind of people we want writing, or enforcing, the law.

It may be we've passed the point of no return, and that it's already the case that decent men and women will avoid higher office. Let us hope, though, that that might also change -- with time, and patience.

Iran

Iran:

H/t: NR.

Shut Up

"Shut Up":

I was waiting to post this because I thought perhaps it was old, and pertained to a different situation than what we are now seeing. But no, it's from August 6th. So...



That's honestly amazing. 'I'm the President, and I'd just like to declare that some of my opponents have no right to participate in the debate. Just shut up, OK?'

So, who are these 'people who made the mess'? Republican politicians? Insurance companies? No, not them... Obama's kissing their feet to a degree that caused Reclusive Leftist to declare, "Understand that Obama is the Enemy." Which, actually, is stronger rhetoric than I think I've ever used about him, though I suspect I have more points of disagreement with him than she has.

So, Republican politicians, then. They've got 40 votes in the Senate, which isn't enough to stop anything on their own; but if they could just shut up, too, that'd be great.

The problem is, the Republican politicians aren't doing much of anything here. The heat that's coming is coming from fed up citizens, not the political class. The numbers are big:

Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans and 58% of unaffiliated voters say the protesters reflect the concerns of their neighbors. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats say the protests are phony.

When 58% of unaffiliated voters are against you, you lose in a landslide. The whole Obama/Pelosi strategy is based on the concept of convincing people that these protests are just bought-and-paid-for idiots, not at all a reflection of ordinary people.

Regardless of the motives behind the protests, however, voters overwhelmingly agree that the average congressman listens most to party leaders rather than the voters they represent – by a 73% to 14% margin. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided. These numbers remain virtually unchanged since April.

I guess we'll learn something definitive on that score soon. The people have spoken, as loudly and angrily as they have in a generation at least.

What to say? What to do?

What to Say? What to Do?

Elise is very angry at how the nation has treated the murders of women by a loser unable to attract them. I wondered what to say about it, and finally decided I had nothing of use to say.

The fact is that these mass killings are with us for the forseeable future. It's not a question of guns; in Iraq, they use bombs made with homemade explosives. Such weapons are not hard to make, out of chemicals readily available anywhere and too useful to ban. We are, in a sense, blessed by the guns: we read in America on rare occasion of the death of five of a dozen, rather than fifty or two hundred.

Because the killings are always the product of the unstable and strange, it's impossible to predict where they will occur, or when, or why. Indeed, giving weight to the meaning is almost pointless. It's only accidental that these minds' hatred and rage settled on X instead of Y. No amount of education or reasoning would have persuaded them to hate Y instead of X, and certainly not to hate nothing at all. You cannot teach them that womens' lives matter, or that anyone's does.

Once I would have said: "The lesson here is that women must be prepared to defend themselves; they ought to want to seek the training, and they ought to want to seek the tools." I have decided that, too, is a fool's errand. In Iraq, for example, there remains a problem of female servicemembers being raped. Rape is usually described as 'a fate worse than death,' and for good reason. When two people have sex, even if one of them sincerely does not wish it, chemicals in the brain cause a bonding with the other. Thus the raped cannot escape the memory of the rapist or the rape. The torment cannot end, does not end for many years, I have understood from those I've known who've suffered it. Yet time and again, women who were trained to arms, required to carry them everywhere, taught to kill as well as anyone could be taught, and well aware of the danger, did not use their arms, nor make themselves prepared to use them in those moments where the danger was most likley.

Some women are suited to killing, but many are not: many, and very good women, would not kill even to save themselves from death or a fate worse than death. I don't think that's a flaw in them. So, while I absolutely believe in the right of women to bear arms, and have trained many myself in their use, I know this is not the solution that will take away the problem. It can help some women, but it will not help all of them. Neither does that fact mean that there is something wrong with those it will not help.

I will certainly say to those who can bear arms that they should, always and everywhere. Be prepared, even though it is unlikely in America that you will ever encounter violence of this sort: but if you do, you may be the only hope. To those of noble heart, be ready to lay down your lives at any moment in the defense of the weak and the innocent. Evil exists. We must be ready to die at all times, in our souls and hearts as well as otherwise.

Those of us who can must be likewise ready to kill, that we may defend those who are not. It is important to do this, and to do it while remembering that those who are not able may be better than us. If you can remember that their gentleness and kindness may make them better than we are, you serve them humbly: ordinary people, who mean no harm.

If there is more to be said than this, I don't know what it is, unless it is prayer. Perhaps you know.

Order of ST. George

The Order of St. George:

Lt. Col. Edward Bohnemann, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division performs the traditional knighting for Sgt. 1st Class Byron Grier during his induction into the Order of St. George at Fort Hood's Iron Horse Gymnasium, July 22. Grier was one of three senior noncommissioned officers at the ceremony to receive the award, which is granted to armor and cavalry leaders for their dedication to duty and leadership. (Photo by U.S. Army)

Organized v. Disorganized

Organized Protests:

This marks a strange moment in American life. Ordinary citizens have come together to protest a government initiative. The government has apparently decided to declare the dissent inauthentic, and to suppress it using a combination of rhetoric and force.

It is not the first moment when protests have been declared to be the work of organized agitators, and bands of men deployed to drive them off. That was a regular feature of the early union movement, with union organizers (branded Communists, only sometimes with justification) being targeted by hired strikebreakers.

In those days, though, unions were poor and poorly represented. Though honest and hard-working, they were easy to marginalize because their experiences were not like those of the broadest part of the population. It was not difficult to convince Americans in the middle that they were dangerous, and in need of being brought to order.

The protesting groups today are composed of middle-class Americans, the most normal and ordinary sorts of people. The government has turned against these groups sharply, apparently under the belief that it can marginalize them according to the old formula.

That cannot work, however, because these people are quite mainstream. Iowahawk makes the point in satirical fashion, but quite well. Look at the examples of an organized protest -- the formatted signs, easy to read on television, or the uniforms of t-shirts, so that TV viewers will know there are large groups of people in agreement with the protest.

The opposite images -- just folks showing up in whatever they were wearing that day, amateur lettering on signs, etc -- are also available. Keep that in mind when you look at stories about these protests, because it is an excellent point.

For example, look here, at protestors that were simply locked out of the town hall meeting. (Union members were admitted through a side door, for the benefit of TV cameras inside.)

Take a look at these dues-paying members of AARP:



The White House is actively organizing a movement designed to show support for its programs, having just stated that 'organized' opposition was illegitimate. The Speaker of the House is dreaming up swastikas; scrambling to cover for her, the Huffington Post did manage to uncover a single swastika on one of those hand-lettered signs. It had a circle and a strikeout through it: 'No swastikas,' in other words.

Peggy Noonan, very much a Beltway insider, writes that the Congress is simply shocked. They knew there was hostility, of course -- that's why there was such a push to get this done before August. Nobody knew just how hot it would be. It's as hot as it has ever been in my lifetime.

I remember attending a HillaryCare "town hall" back in the early part of the Clinton administration, where an administration spokesperson came down to tell us about how great it would be. There were quite a few stiff questions about the plan then, too. Finally, in frustration, she said: 'What you really need to understand is that you'll get whatever health care you need, and it won't cost you anything.'

The audience burst out in uproarious laughter, with hoots and hollering thrown in for good measure.

Nobody seems to be laughing this time.