America is the only nation in the world that is founded on creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just....It's interesting that he found in the creed "that governments exist to give them justice" and not, as the Declaration actually says, that government exists to protect their rights. In a sense that is giving justice, but it is largely a project of abstention rather than provision. Mostly, on the original American ideal, the government 'gives justice' by refraining from doing anything to you, or for you, at all.
Now a creed is at once the broadest and the narrowest thing in the world. In its nature it is as broad as its scheme for a brotherhood of all men. In its nature it is limited by its definition of the nature of all men. This was true of the Christian Church, which was truly said to exclude neither Jew nor Greek, but which did definitely substitute something else for Jewish religion or Greek philosophy. It was truly said to be a net drawing in of all kinds; but a net of a certain pattern, the pattern of Peter the Fisherman. And this is true even of the most disastrous distortions or degradations of that creed; and true among others of the Spanish Inquisition. It may have been narrow about theology, it could not confess to being narrow about nationality or ethnology. The Spanish Inquisition might be admittedly Inquisitorial; but the Spanish Inquisition could not be merely Spanish. Such a Spaniard.... might burn a philosopher because he was heterodox; but he must accept a barbarian because he was orthodox....
[America is] a democracy of diverse races which has been compared to a melting-pot. But even that metaphor implies that the pot itself is of a certain shape and a certain substance; a pretty solid substance. The melting-pot must not melt. The original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy; and it will remain in that shape until it becomes shapeless. America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship.
Chesterton in America
Via AVI, a letter on America.
The "John Doe" Proceedings
Or, "How The IRS, FBI and Justice Departments are Agents of Modern American Tyranny."
Imagine having a vision for your country.We have still the freedom to write about it. At least, we do if we haven't been placed under a gag order.
You worked hard to start an organization to promote the ideas and values that you believe can fix our nation.
When you apply for tax-exempt status, which should be a simple matter of paperwork, you face repeated delays and demands from the government that stretch the process across months and years.
Then you learn—not from the government, but from an outside source—that your private information was shared with multiple government agencies, all of whom wanted to “piece together” criminal charges against you.
Imagine being awakened in the middle of the night by a gang of police, shouting and waving their weapons at you. They turn your house inside-out, steal your laptop and phone, then order you not to tell anyone they were there.
All this happened because your political beliefs landed on the wrong side of those officials in power.
Jonah’s father may have been the target of the raid on his home, but according to the family, investigators went well beyond the scope of the warrant to seize business records in his mother’s possession, including confidential donor and financial information for two conservative Wisconsin nonprofits, which were paralyzed for weeks as a result. Yet despite the overly expansive search, to this day, no one in Jonah’s family has been charged with a crime. The damage to the family’s reputation was immense. Soon after the raid, and despite court orders mandating confidentiality (orders that prevented the family from publicly defending themselves), their names leaked to the press.
Heh.
Shapiro’s point is that Zoey Tur, formerly Bob Tur, is male genetically and therefore a man in fact, however he/she may identify. Tur’s reply is to grab him by the neck and threaten to knock him into the middle of next week, which is … about as cartoonishly masculine a response to an insult as I can imagine.It's true. A woman would have slapped him.
"The Little Sisters of the Poor v. the Big Sisters of the Rich"
Excerpt:
While Planned Parenthood does not call itself a religious order, it clearly has many of the trappings of a passionate and serious cult.... Our President, as the unofficial high priest, has asked God’s blessing to come upon them, making them too big to fail with even more business directed their way through Obamacare regulations.
The love and faith of the Little Sisters is perhaps most evident at the end of the lives of the residents they care for. The sisters bring them joy through socializing and even a little dancing, no matter what their physical limitations. And then when they are very close to dying, a sister is assigned around the clock so that no one will die alone.
As for the Big Sisters of the Rich, who have a government allowance of $528 million—nearly 100 times the annual budget of the Sisters of the Poor—their end of life story is slightly different.
Some Positive Eid al-Fitr News
American Muslim groups have raised $90,000 to help rebuild the black churches that have recently burned.
“In the time of the prophet (Muhammed), peace be upon him, there was a really strong history of Muslims working with Christians very closely — some of the first Muslims were sent to seek shelter under a Christian king in Ethiopia,” Islam said. “That connection has always been there.”
To Defend The Weak
``Deny it not, Sir Knight---you are he who decidedA meditation on that duty from the National Review. I agree: it is the foremost duty of a man to defend the weak. It is why God sent you strength. You will answer for how you used that strength.
the victory to the advantage of the English
against the strangers on the second day of the
tournament at Ashby.''
``And what follows if you guess truly, good
yeoman?'' replied the knight.
``I should in that case hold you,'' replied the
yeoman, ``a friend to the weaker party.''
``Such is the duty of a true knight at least,'' replied
the Black Champion; ``and I would not willingly
that there were reason to think otherwise of
me.''
Happy Eid Al-Fitr
Six things to know about today's terrorist attack on US Marines.
UPDATE:
UPDATE:
'Brothers and sisters don't be fooled by your desires, this life is short and bitter and the opportunity to submit to allah may pass you by.... Take his (Allah's) word as your light and code and do not let other prisoners, whether they are so called "Scholars" or even your family members, divert you from the truth. If you make the intention to follow allahs way 100 per cent and put your desires to the side, allah will guide you to what is right.'
All Right, My Turn
From their CD "Liquor in the Front," the Reverend Horton Heat skipped off their usual rockabilly and surf-rock to do a honky tonk piece. It's completely over the top.
Charlie Nagatani and the Cannonballs
Eric reminded me of these cultural juxtapositions.
I'll start out with a Brad Paisley video which features shots at Charlie Nagatani's place in Kumamoto, Japan. It's a good song, if you like Paisley's kind of country, but mostly I want to show you the visuals at Charlie's.
Now, here's Charlie himself, doing foreign culture in a very characteristic Japanese style.
I'll start out with a Brad Paisley video which features shots at Charlie Nagatani's place in Kumamoto, Japan. It's a good song, if you like Paisley's kind of country, but mostly I want to show you the visuals at Charlie's.
Now, here's Charlie himself, doing foreign culture in a very characteristic Japanese style.
A Helpful Article
I've never heard this allegedly Southern expression, "acting brand new." I can't vouch for anyone ever having said that. However, I find this article very helpful.
She goes on to point out that he spoke to the NAACP. Well, of course he did. The NAACP's call this week to sand blast the monument off Stone Mountain ought to be opposed for the same reason we oppose ISIS or the Taliban when they destroy artistic symbols of the world before Islam. But I don't think the NAACP is a "hate group" because of it. (Oddly enough, that's the kind of rhetoric long-time NAACP-supporter the Southern Poverty Law Center uses.) We understand there's a painful history, and oppose the rhetoric and the idea without thinking they are haters for expressing their anger and bitterness.
The differences ultimately aren't about race. They're about America, about liberty, about sovereignty, about the Constitution and about duty. Those are the things that divide us from this President. The things he does that point to race are the main things that don't bother us.
He's spoken off the cuff about race relations on a widely circulated podcast (even using the n-word) and then eloquently followed that with what can only be described as a sermon on race relations in America before breaking into song. He's challenged America to go deeper in its support of equality than retiring symbols of slavery (such as the Confederate flag) and impolitic words (such as the n-word).We've been strongly critical of the President and his administration on very many points. None of these, however, have come up as criticisms of him. In fact, in general we've supported all of these things -- prison reform, courtesy, with some regret the retirement of the Confederate flag from the war memorial at the South Carolina statehouse as a show of support for black Americans. Housing is the only one in which I suspect there's any strong disagreement lurking, and that simply because the most of you are pretty opposed to government interference in markets of any sort.
While eulogizing a slain minister and state lawmaker allegedly killed by a white supremacist in Charleston, S.C., he outlined a whole raft of ways in which discrimination remains and inequality continues to grow. And now, in the span of two weeks, he has announced two major reform packages — housing last week and criminal justice on Tuesday — that could, if ultimately implemented, be of particular benefit to people of color in the United States.
Here's the thing: This Obama might look or sound "brand new" to some Americans. He might even sound a little something like the black president some white Americans across the political spectrum feared (or hoped for).
She goes on to point out that he spoke to the NAACP. Well, of course he did. The NAACP's call this week to sand blast the monument off Stone Mountain ought to be opposed for the same reason we oppose ISIS or the Taliban when they destroy artistic symbols of the world before Islam. But I don't think the NAACP is a "hate group" because of it. (Oddly enough, that's the kind of rhetoric long-time NAACP-supporter the Southern Poverty Law Center uses.) We understand there's a painful history, and oppose the rhetoric and the idea without thinking they are haters for expressing their anger and bitterness.
The differences ultimately aren't about race. They're about America, about liberty, about sovereignty, about the Constitution and about duty. Those are the things that divide us from this President. The things he does that point to race are the main things that don't bother us.
"Why Aren't Ethicists Better People?"
Because contemporary ethical systems are bad. The two leading ethical systems are utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism is really just a modern form of hedonism, i.e., an ethical system that takes pleasure and the avoidance of pain as its ground for "the good." Quite sophisticated versions of this philosophy have been known for millennia -- Socrates tries out a version towards the end of the Protagoras. It doesn't work because "to be good" doesn't align with "to cause pleasure and not pain."
This is true even if, as Socrates attempts, you suggest a model in which we're talking about 'the most' pleasure, so that minor pleasures now that cause worse pains later are not considered good. Sacrificing your life for your children may not bring any pleasure and only pain, but it might still be the ethical choice. Utilitarians try to avoid this problem by shifting to a kind of aggregate pleasure/pain as experienced by the whole society, but it still doesn't get it right. It still can't say just why it is more obvious for a parent to sacrifice his or her life for their own particular child, but extraordinarily excellent for a stranger to lay down his life to save the child. At worst, the movement to aggregate pleasure as the standard for utilitarianism can end up saying that we ought to sacrifice the child, especially if the death of the child can mean increased aggregate pleasure for the community -- witness the Planned Parenthood atrocities currently under discussion.
So, naturally ethicists who are utilitarians won't be especially excellent people. It's not just (as the article alleges) that they don't follow their own rules. It's that their system is pointed to the wrong ends.
Deontology attempts to establish duties. It's healthier than utilitarianism, but it still has the problem of rooting its ultimate standard for goodness. Does your duty come from reason? Kant makes an argument that it can't come from anywhere else: it is only reason that allows us to make choices that are more than actions from animal instinct. Reason must therefore be the standard for ethics. If ethics comes from reason, well, rationality is the same for all of us. Thus, we will all naturally agree about what is right and wrong. Kant thought this was so obvious that there really could only be one moral philosophy.
Empirical evidence demonstrates conclusively that Kant was not right about that. The problem, I think, is this:
1) Reason applies most perfectly to logical/mathematical objects;
2) Logical objects are like physical objects only by analogy;
3) Analogies always break at some point.
Thus, it turns out that rather than discovering laws of reason that ought to govern all human situations, we end up discovering that no two situations are really alike. We reason by analogy to previous situations, and to general working rules-of-thumb, but we can't come up with rational laws for human behavior of the sort the early moderns hoped to find. Ethicists who do state that they've found such laws and try to apply them end up doing injustice by trying to force square pegs into round holes (because the hole looks at least a little bit like a square, and certainly more like a square than a triangle).
So of course ethicists are bad people. They have devoted their lives to trying to make the world comply with bad systems. Naturally, at some point, the frustration leads them to tend to give up hope and just do what they want.
This is true even if, as Socrates attempts, you suggest a model in which we're talking about 'the most' pleasure, so that minor pleasures now that cause worse pains later are not considered good. Sacrificing your life for your children may not bring any pleasure and only pain, but it might still be the ethical choice. Utilitarians try to avoid this problem by shifting to a kind of aggregate pleasure/pain as experienced by the whole society, but it still doesn't get it right. It still can't say just why it is more obvious for a parent to sacrifice his or her life for their own particular child, but extraordinarily excellent for a stranger to lay down his life to save the child. At worst, the movement to aggregate pleasure as the standard for utilitarianism can end up saying that we ought to sacrifice the child, especially if the death of the child can mean increased aggregate pleasure for the community -- witness the Planned Parenthood atrocities currently under discussion.
So, naturally ethicists who are utilitarians won't be especially excellent people. It's not just (as the article alleges) that they don't follow their own rules. It's that their system is pointed to the wrong ends.
Deontology attempts to establish duties. It's healthier than utilitarianism, but it still has the problem of rooting its ultimate standard for goodness. Does your duty come from reason? Kant makes an argument that it can't come from anywhere else: it is only reason that allows us to make choices that are more than actions from animal instinct. Reason must therefore be the standard for ethics. If ethics comes from reason, well, rationality is the same for all of us. Thus, we will all naturally agree about what is right and wrong. Kant thought this was so obvious that there really could only be one moral philosophy.
Empirical evidence demonstrates conclusively that Kant was not right about that. The problem, I think, is this:
1) Reason applies most perfectly to logical/mathematical objects;
2) Logical objects are like physical objects only by analogy;
3) Analogies always break at some point.
Thus, it turns out that rather than discovering laws of reason that ought to govern all human situations, we end up discovering that no two situations are really alike. We reason by analogy to previous situations, and to general working rules-of-thumb, but we can't come up with rational laws for human behavior of the sort the early moderns hoped to find. Ethicists who do state that they've found such laws and try to apply them end up doing injustice by trying to force square pegs into round holes (because the hole looks at least a little bit like a square, and certainly more like a square than a triangle).
So of course ethicists are bad people. They have devoted their lives to trying to make the world comply with bad systems. Naturally, at some point, the frustration leads them to tend to give up hope and just do what they want.
Attack on Naval Reserve Center
Still waiting for any reliable information. All the news knows for now is that one police officer and two Marines were injured, but not how badly. The shooter is reportedly dead, but no information about who he was has been revealed as yet.
UPDATE: They are now saying four Marines were killed.
UPDATE: Pamela Geller, who whatever you may think of her has good reason to pay attention to ISIS's social media threats, claims that ISIS's account issued a threat specifying Chattanooga at 10:34 AM.
UPDATE: The gunman's name was Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. Eid al-Fitr, the feast at the end of Ramadan, begins at sundown.
UPDATE: They are now saying four Marines were killed.
UPDATE: Pamela Geller, who whatever you may think of her has good reason to pay attention to ISIS's social media threats, claims that ISIS's account issued a threat specifying Chattanooga at 10:34 AM.
UPDATE: The gunman's name was Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. Eid al-Fitr, the feast at the end of Ramadan, begins at sundown.
Italian rock and roll
The Mojomatics, out of Venice.
This stuff amuses me no end. If I heard this on the radio, I'd be thinking "hey, a new alt-country rock band, like the Old '97s." But no. They got the style down.
Wise Advice: Anger Can Make You Stupid
It is right and proper to be angry right now. I am myself furious. Just the last month or so has been one heavy blow after another for the country I grew up in and love. This Iran deal, which appears to cede everything to Iran in return for nothing, empowering, enriching, and arming a power that has been the world leader in state sponsored terrorism. The inversion of religious freedom, which has gone from being a point of bipartisan agreement to the next target for elimination by the courts and activists. The assault on Southern culture and history, which went from a bipartisan agreement to do something to show love and respect for our fellow citizens in the wake of a vicious murder to the destruction and defacing of memorials to the dead and calls to sand-blast Stone Mountain. The way in which the two parties have colluded to sell out our sovereignty to foreign courts via the massive TPP and T-TIP deals. Failure theater from the Republican "opposition." Failure theater from the Left, too, where those trade deals are concerned. Of course the political class' absolute determination to foist "comprehensive immigration reform" on us, in spite of endless promises to focus on security. The clear proof, from Lois Lerner and the IRS to Hillary Clinton's emails, that the law will not be enforced to control the powerful. I could go on. These are just stories from the last few weeks. You know them as well as I do.
So yes, anger is right and appropriate. Andrew Klaven is right, though, that we cannot afford to be stupid. We need to be cunning. We need to think and act strategically. The ordinary means of politics have failed. Winning elections isn't enough. Opposition will have to take a new strength from other means -- legal means always, to be sure, but means of resistance to rather than cooperation with authority. This does not come naturally for many conservatives, whose hearts are loyal and who have good reason to think of many expressions of authority -- especially the military and police -- as beloved institutions involving many personal friends. I suggest we remember that this shift is necessary to protect them. It is to protect them from being asked to do things that are violations of their oath, but it is also just to protect them: Iran has already killed many of them, and our government is now acting to empower that nation further. It is in the interest of all our sheepdogs that we resist the current powers that be. We have to save the country from its government.
Here, then, is Klavan's advice, which I think good.
So yes, anger is right and appropriate. Andrew Klaven is right, though, that we cannot afford to be stupid. We need to be cunning. We need to think and act strategically. The ordinary means of politics have failed. Winning elections isn't enough. Opposition will have to take a new strength from other means -- legal means always, to be sure, but means of resistance to rather than cooperation with authority. This does not come naturally for many conservatives, whose hearts are loyal and who have good reason to think of many expressions of authority -- especially the military and police -- as beloved institutions involving many personal friends. I suggest we remember that this shift is necessary to protect them. It is to protect them from being asked to do things that are violations of their oath, but it is also just to protect them: Iran has already killed many of them, and our government is now acting to empower that nation further. It is in the interest of all our sheepdogs that we resist the current powers that be. We have to save the country from its government.
Here, then, is Klavan's advice, which I think good.
You want to win back your country? Here’s how. Fear nothing. Hate no one. Stick to principles. Unchecked borders are dangerous not because Mexicans are evil but because evil thrives when good men don’t stand guard. Poverty programs are misguided, not because the poor are undeserving criminals, but because dependency on government breeds dysfunction and more poverty. Guns save lives and protect liberty. Property rights guarantee liberty. Religious rights are essential to liberty. Without liberty we are equal only in misery.We must proceed without fear, without hate, but with complete commitment and trust in the providence of heaven.
These things are true. They’re true for white people and black people, male people and female people, straight people and gay people. We should support the smartest, most proven, most statesmanlike candidate who best represents those principles. And we should do it out of — dare I say the word? — love. Love for our neighbors, our fellow citizens, white and black, male and female, straight and gay.
“Perfect love casts out fear.”
Privileged deliberators
Hillary Clinton and the State Department defend the withholding of a September 29, 2012, email discussing the Benghazi talking points as a "deliberative privilege"--even though it seems that what they were deliberating was the cover-up they were engaged in.
Fighter Pilot Tunes
Have we had Dos Gringos at the Hall before? I don't remember. This is probably their cleanest tune, and it's not pretty.
This one isn't much worse. Maybe.
Something I really appreciate about this band is that, if you don't listen to the words, they could be folk singers playing Kumbaya around a campfire.
Here, as far as I can tell, is their one and only song dedicated to anyone other than an F-16 pilot.
This one isn't much worse. Maybe.
Something I really appreciate about this band is that, if you don't listen to the words, they could be folk singers playing Kumbaya around a campfire.
Here, as far as I can tell, is their one and only song dedicated to anyone other than an F-16 pilot.
Almost Forgot -- I Hope You Had a Happy Bastille Day!
My favorite book on the topic has always been Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities.
While getting the link I noticed that Project Gutenberg has a warning up,which I'll reproduce here:
I don't know about you, Jacques, but I'm getting tired of a certain privileged class of folk trying to run our lives.
While getting the link I noticed that Project Gutenberg has a warning up,which I'll reproduce here:
Beware of the TPP!
Project Gutenberg is concerned about a new secret international treaty, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This will extend copyright term protection worldwide, thus halting the growth of the public domain. To learn more, and join Project Gutenberg in speaking out against this treaty, visit The Internet Archive.
I don't know about you, Jacques, but I'm getting tired of a certain privileged class of folk trying to run our lives.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)