Egypt

Egypt:

It's difficult to know what to make of the Egypt situation. It is clear that there is a genuinely popular movement kicking off there; our instincts ought to be to support such a movement. On the other hand, there are clearly some radical elements in that movement -- and we all remember how well it worked out when we backed the popular movement led by the radical Fidel Castro in Cuba. What happens to be popular at any given moment may not be virtuous, and there are good reasons to be suspicious about the virtues of some of the leadership elements here.

One might be inclined to look to guiding stars, but they are giving mixed signals on this issue. For example, John Kerry is strongly in favor of backing the democracy movement.

...tear gas canisters marked “Made in America” fired at protesters, United States-supplied F-16 jet fighters streaking over central Cairo.

Normally when Kerry starts talking like that, I know just which way to lean; but then comes Richard Cohen, another man whose judgment is highly reliable.

The dream of a democratic Egypt is sure to produce a nightmare.

Egypt's problems are immense. It has a population it cannot support, a standard of living that is stagnant and a self-image as leader of the (Sunni) Arab world that does not, really, correspond to reality. It also lacks the civic and political institutions that are necessary for democracy. The next Egyptian government - or the one after - might well be composed of Islamists. In that case, the peace with Israel will be abrogated and the mob currently in the streets will roar its approval.

The man I really want to consult I don't know how to reach. Our translator/interpreter in Iraq -- he was also my roommate for a while -- was a man from Egypt. He was an older man, just old enough to have only white hair, and a poet in his native Arabic: he was working on a Ph.D. in his spare time. I remember watching President Obama's inauguration with him, on AFN. He was crying -- literally with tears streaming down his face. I asked him why, and he said it was because "This could never happen in my country."

By "this," I took him to mean the peaceful transfer of authority between parties and individuals who disagreed about the right thing to do (peaceful and friendly, even -- Bush was quite jovial about getting to get on that helicopter and get out of town).

My sense is that he would want us to back the movement, because it offers hope instead of only stability. Hope includes the possibility of disappointment: it is hope, after all, not certainty. Still, it is one of the great virtues. Perhaps we should practice it now.

Constitutionalism

Constitutional Tea:

I didn't have time to read the decision in yesterday's Obamacare case, though I was pleased to learn from news reports that it had voided the entire act. Now that I've had more time, I'm fairly pleased with it. The judge has done precisely what a member of the elite should do: refer to the Constitution and the original principles explicated in the Federalist Papers (or, in the case of later amendments, similar documentation); examine the current case in the light of those principles; and issue a decision that forces adherence to those principles.

That's what the Constitution is for. The law means just what it meant when it was enacted and nothing else; if you want to change the law, that's fine, but you must do so according to Article V (which is also part of the original law). Judges who catch the government trying to pull a fast one on that should slap it down. If the elite -- that is, if Congress and federal judges and administrators and so forth -- consistently did this, there would be little need for a TEA Party, and little reason for it to concern them.

The most impressive aspect of the ruling is that it starts with Federalist 51; it is delightful to see that it includes wording from then-candidate Obama. This was a good line too, and one that shows where the man's heart is:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

That's a very good point. The tea mattered then, and it matters now.

Pathetic Youngsters Going to Die

Pathetic Youngsters Going to Die:

This is framed as a gender story, but it's really a story about rising incompetence among the young. That's too bad, because we needed them to survive to pay all these debts we're putting on their shoulders.

BASIC "female" skills are becoming endangered with fewer young women able to iron a shirt, cook a roast chicken or hem a skirt.

Just as more modern men are unable to complete traditional male tasks, new research shows Generation Y women can't do the chores their mothers and grandmothers did daily....

That's all well and good, if the reason is that they are acquiring other skills that will let them pay others to roast their chickens and hem their skirts. Too, it's not like you couldn't pick those skills up in short order if you found that you needed them.

Still, today's xkcd flowchart suggests that the problem may be real. How many youngsters can operate a chainsaw? Change a tire, or fix a flat? Hit a man-sized target with a rifle at 300 yards? Fight with a knife? Write a poem?

Is it a big deal that they can't? What can they do instead?

Careful

Ya'll Be Careful Out There:

Jousting re-enactor killed in freak accident.

Paul Allen, 54, died when the shard from his wooden lance flew through the eye slit in his helmet and pierced his eye socket, inflicting horrific brain injuries.

The tiny balsa wood splinter was sent flying through the air when a joust struck his shield at Rockingham Castle near Corby, Northants.

Balsa wood!

A Beautiful Day in January:

The temperature today topped at seventy-one degrees. I spent the morning splitting wood -- for next winter -- and then devoted the afternoon to a motorcycle ride.



The photo is from last April, as I forgot to take the camera today, but it was much the same. What a glorious day. All the good things: fine weather, hard work, family, a good ride, and an evening fit for reading philosophy by a bit of wine. If every day were like this, ah!

Western Civ

Western Civ:

InstaPundit has an interesting post today recommending Western Civ "courses" for those who didn't get them in school. There's a lot there, and probably none of it would have occurred to me as the right way to approach the problem.

The best suggestion of the several is the endorsement of St. John's college reading list. I probably would not have thought of their list, although their fame is well known to me (and well deserved, from all I've heard). It was recommended to me as a school when I was young enough to be looking, but I could not afford it. It's a good list they've put together, though it is too heavy on Enlightenment and modern thinkers, whose importance I have come to believe is overrated.

Fascinating that they decide to wind up the four year program with two classes on Virginia Woolf, for example. Instead of leaving the Medievals in the middle of the second year, I would have spent the whole of the second year on them, as well as part of the third year on them, the rest on the early moderns (Shakespeare, etc); and wrapped up the Enlightenment and moderns in the fourth year only, leaving some weeks at the end for a review of how it all tied together.

You probably do need a year and a half of the program for the ancients; a year at least for the Medievals; half a year for the early moderns; and then the fourth year for the Enlightenment and moderns.

Except in physics, the great ideas are the old ones. The rest is commentary.

Laughter

Merry Men:

The Politico reports on certain lawsuits:

The federal lawsuits against last year’s health care overhaul were greeted with eye-rolling and snickers from many conventional legal scholars.

Nobody’s laughing now.

That's not true at all!

It's an interesting argument, and an encouraging one. Some of these efforts are wiser than others: may they prevail.

Tzeitel's Wedding

Tzeitel's Wedding

I was reminded by something at Assistant Village Idiot of my idea of the perfect wedding. This scene makes me weep with happiness. -- It's funny to see "Motel" spelled that way. It's not "Motel" as in "Hotel and Motel Management" but "Maht-el," pronounced the way Mid-lanticans used to say "bottle," with a swallowed "t" sound.

Feast

A Feast in the Hall:

Today was a special day, not for any holiday, but because my sister came. I always try to prepare something delicious, as she loves good food and good wine, and might therefore come more often.

The First Course.

The Main Course.

This matters to the Hall because it gives me an opportunity to give especial thanks and praise to one of you who deserves it. The centerpiece of today's feast was provided by Mark, whose generous heart was moved by the fact that I was unable to eat the Christmas Duck we so long discussed here. He sent me a large number of pheasants instead. Two of these -- one cut up, and one served whole -- were the main course.

Basque Pheasant.

I made Basque Pheasant, a cake common to Transylvania, and a honey wheat bread. The pheasant was by far the star of the show. Here are the ingredients as listed in this extraordinary reference guide and cookbook:

Basque Pheasant

2 pheasants, cut up
1/3 cup packed brown sugar
3/4 cup white whine
1/2 cup olive oil
1/2 cup vinegar
1 cup medium pitted prunes
1 cup pitted medium Spanish green olives
1/4 cup capers with liquid
3 cloves garlic, minced
2 bay leaves
2 tablespoons snipped fresh parsley
2 tablespoons dried basil leaves

As for preparation, I simply put the pheasant in a cast iron dutch oven, mixed all the other ingredients together and poured them on as a marinade. After several hours, put them in to roast at 350 degrees for an hour; then remove the lid from the dutch oven, turn the temperature up to 425 and finish browning the skin and ensuring proper internal temperature (165 degrees in the thickest part of the meat).

It's an interesting flavor, similar to coq au vin for the obvious reasons, but with a sweetness to match the savor that is not found in the French recipe. If you're looking for something new, you might give it a try.

Many thanks to Mark for his generous gift, part of which we greatly enjoyed this evening. I award him "The Hero's Portion" for today, although he could not be here to share it!

Sidepork Pandemonium.

I don't know. Don't ask.

Responses

Responding to Bachmann:

Continuing yesterday's discussion on the TEA Party's challenge to the extant Republican party, some Republican thoughts on Rep. Bachmann:

When Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann was named to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year, one of her Republican colleagues responded this way: “Is that a punchline?” Another simply said, “Jumbo shrimp. Oxymoron.”

Neither dared to attach his name to his comment.

That's not very impressive, guys.

The best response -- from Rep. Walsh -- is still not really an argument.

“She was out of line. She had no business stepping on the official Republican response to the State of the Union,” Walsh said in an interview with POLITICO. “I can say that to you saying I’m a fan of Michele Bachmann’s. She and I think the same on virtually probably every darn issue.”

I say that this isn't an argument because it doesn't answer the question: if it is "out of line" to step on the "official Republican response," why is it out of line? What gives the Republican leadership the legitimate authority to claim the exclusive right to frame a response?

Our party system isn't based on authority, but rather on free association. In many states, you can elect to run as a member of a party without anyone's permission -- for example, in South Carolina, the Democratic Party probably would not have agreed to this.



Mr. Greene paid his money and took his shot, as a free citizen freely choosing to align himself with his party. What if he had won? He would go to the Senate, where he would again freely choose to caucus with the Democratic Party. That second choice is not binding either.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday he is switching parties, almost certainly giving President Barack Obama and the Democrats the ability to build a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The Specter announcement, coming on the eve of the president's 100th day in office, secured the Democrats a 59th seat in the Senate, counting two independents who caucus with the party.

If this is the system, there's nothing like a chain of command that has the authority to assert control over messaging. There is no oath taken, and no legal structure in place. You associate with the party of your choice, only for as long as you want to do so.

That leaves open the question of whether Congressmen should adhere to party discipline even though they do not have to do so. There are two kinds of arguments that could be made for why it would be proper.

1) Money: the national party may have supported your candidacy with cash or other mechanisms. Even though you associate with them on a free basis, you owe them for helping you.

2) Effectiveness: a disciplined party structure is more likely to achieve its agenda than one riven by infighting.


The problem with (1) is that it perverts the intent of the American electoral system. We call members of the House "representatives" because it is descriptive of their duty. They are meant to serve as the representative from their district. The interest of the people who voted for them needs to be their guiding star. To the degree that they let the money flowing through the system distort that guidance, they are off course.

Senators have a slightly different duty, which is to serve as the representatives of their states. That includes their constituents, but also the interests of the state government at the Federal level. If the Senator turns away from those interests in service to a national party, he is failing in his real duty.

The only truly Federal elected officials are the President and Vice-President. These two might reasonably take the will of the national party as some sort of proxy for the will of their whole constituency (although there are still problems with doing so, insofar as the party structure has been captured by wealthy interests). Senators really are not free to do that, if they take their duty to serve their state seriously.

As for (2), it's a very solid point insofar as the party's agenda aligns with your constituents'. If you were elected by a movement like the TEA Party, whose entire point is to force reform, naturally your duty lies in trying to force reform rather than in pursuing an agenda your constituents don't share. Your duty is to try and move the party toward your constituents' agenda.

That may sometimes -- may usually -- involve compromise and negotiation, but it probably doesn't involve submission. A good example might be the Congressional Black Caucus, which generally votes with the party, but certainly makes clear that it has its own reasons for doing so. The difference is that the CBC is an isolated movement unlikely to garner wider support; thus the Democratic leadership can shrug it off. The Republican Party is genuinely threatened with being overthrown and replaced, as its mainline constituents have more reason to align with the TEA Party's populism than with the business interests that long ago captured its leadership. It may be up to the older interests to prove their value to the populists, rather than the other way around.

The Well-Dressed Viking

The Well-Dressed Viking:

Eric sends a book for those of you who enjoy well-known Viking pursuits like sewing.

Khan

Genghis Khan, Environmentalist:

It's amazing how little we appreciate his extraordinary achievements.

So how did Genghis Khan... earn such a glowing environmental report card?... [T]he same way he built his empire — with a high body count.

Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world's total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests.

In other words, one effect of Genghis Khan's unrelenting invasion was widespread reforestation, and the re-growth of those forests meant that more carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere.

In this he set a shining example for today's advocates of DDT-banning in Africa, the one-child policy in China, and abortion everywhere.

Gators

We have gators, too, but not like this. One of the nice things about winter is that the gators and snakes lie low for a while. The tape dates from last summer, in Okeefenokee.

Shhhhhh

Shhhhhhhh

Remember when the mainstream media scarcely could bring themselves to acknowledge that there was such a thing as a grassroots movement called the Tea Party? Demonstrations could be held all over the country involving hundreds of thousands of people, but reporters would dismiss them as "a few dozens malcontents" whose aims and wishes were simply incomprehensible.

I was surprised, therefore, to read on HotAir that voices are rising up against CNN's shocking decision to air Michelle Bachman's separate Tea Party response to the State of the Union earlier this week. Liberals worry

that it could create a fundamental imbalance — two Republicans responding to one speech from Obama — and that there’s no way CNN would allow a liberal Dem to offer a response from the left, as Bachmann is doing from the hard right.

Republicans, in turn, are said to worry that having two responses from the right would dilute their message. CNN itself took the radical position that it made sense to run the speech because it was newsworthy -- itself a newsworthy development:

The Tea Party has become a major force in American politics and within the Republican Party. Hearing the Tea Party’s perspective on the State of the Union is something we believe CNN’s viewers will be interested in hearing and we are happy to include this perspective as one of many in tonight’s coverage.

Maybe it's time for the FCC to turn its sights on CNN.

Idjits

Embarrassment:

It's amazing what people find embarrassing.

"It's an embarrassment to the state to have as a symbol that was used only a few weeks ago to kill innocent people," Gunn said.

There's something to be embarrassed about here, but I don't think he and I agree about what it is.

Eric's Knife

A Knife for Eric:

From ancient Rome, a pretty nifty piece of camp equipment.

SOTU

State of the Union:

There's a surprising amount of skepticism in the media about last night's speech. I expected a more bland reaction given that it was a pretty normal Democratic SOTU speech: the usual insincere framing comments ("The era of big government is over," "The rules have changed") combined with the business-as-usual Democratic Party agenda (massive new spending projects, cuts in the defense budget).

Is it a good sign that they finally realize that they can't just report the competing claims with a straight face, but have to admit that the number don't add up? I mean to say: even the press now realizes it must admit that?

WR Mead

Puritanism and President Obama:

I'm beginning to be impressed by this Walter Russel Mead. He's making good and interesting points fairly consistently.

[F}ar from being dead and buried, the Puritan political tradition in America is best represented by our current president; intellectually and morally, President Obama is a distinguished representative of Boston at its best.

New England government was charged with the creation of a moral society. There was nothing that was not its business: how much did a master pay his apprentices? Who celebrated Christmas? Who was cheating on his or her spouse? The duty of government was to make society live right; the university, the pulpit, the newspaper — these were to be the allies of government in the struggle for good.

This really is the frame we're getting from the Obama left: the state as having a duty to ensure a moral society, which requires regulation of every aspect of life. Those in the professions mentioned are supposed to fall in line with turning out a moral society on their terms: a society whose businesses pay wages that are described in moral terms, whose members have all the nice things we might all like to have, whose tone is appropriately respectful of the wise, and where those who know best are reliably at the top.

Mead notes that this project has a mixed history, which we should consider fairly.

Many of their causes today look prescient: the abolition of slavery and voting rights for women. Others, prohibition, eugenics and various forms of food-nuttery matching the changing scientific fashions of the day, look weird.

...

“Political correctness” and tortured attitudes toward language and gender have long been part of the New England Way. Victorian New Englanders pioneered feminist ideas and daring new styles of dress — but enforced rigid standards of ‘political correctness’ that stifled American literature, restricted its range of subjects, and drove authors like Mark Twain to paroxysms of rage and frustration. In the nineteenth century Bostonian literary puritanism was so focused on sex that “Banned in Boston” was a label that helped sell books around the country. Today’s Puritans want to regulate “hate” speech on college campuses and engage in tortured debates over topics like “heteronormative” discourse not unlike the hair-splitting theological debates their ancestors were famous for.

But there was never any doubt in the New England mind that the State was the chosen instrument of the righteous in the ongoing mission to make a better world.

He finishes by noting, "In any case, nobody should expect blue thinking to go away.... A rich heritage, deeply woven into American life for more than 300 years, will not vanish away."

Fair enough! The TEA Party project does not even aspire to make them go away; it just wants them to relocate their activity to the state governments, instead of trying to force their ideals on everyone using the Federal government. If Massachusetts wants universal health care, they can legislate as much as they prove to be able to afford. If Georgia wants jobs instead, that's our call.

Some among the blues (as Mead calls them) believe that this is a false dichotomy: that legislating health care is precisely the best way to ensure jobs. If so, prove it at the state level and you'll find other states will follow. Of course, they'll do it because it's economically effective -- not because they feel a moral society requires it. It's distressing to realize, but other Americans may have different ideas about the structure and function of morality.

I wonder if that would be satisfying to the blue mind: to get what they want, but not for the reason they wanted it? Would such a society be "moral" enough for them? Or is it important not just to do the right thing, but to feel the right way?

So What's Bill Up To?

What's Bill Up To These Days?

Teaching the Iraqis how to fly through canyons, apparently.



That's way more exciting than digging trucks out of the mud.

UPDATE: A competitor in the comments posts this video... which, actually, is also pretty cool.