Has the Elf King Stolen Our Children?
Instapundit sent me off on an interesting journey through an old-school role-playing gamer's blog via a novelist's.
The blogger at Jeffro's Space Gaming Blog spent a year reading the authors recommended by Gary Gygax, creator of D&D, in Appendix N of one of the rule books, and reports. A few of his more interesting conclusions are:
Author John C. Wright, of an older generation, read this and brought up the topic of how elves have changed in the popular mind.
The blogger at Jeffro's Space Gaming Blog spent a year reading the authors recommended by Gary Gygax, creator of D&D, in Appendix N of one of the rule books, and reports. A few of his more interesting conclusions are:
- ... Next to the giants of the thirties, just about everything looks tamed and watered down.
- It used to be normal for science fiction and fantasy fans to read books that were published between 1910 and 1977. There was a sense of canon in the seventies that has since been obliterated.
- Ideological diversity in science fiction and fantasy was a given in the seventies. We are hopelessly homogenistic in comparison to them.
- The program of political correctness of the past several decades has made even writers like Ray Bradbury and C. L. Moore all but unreadable to an entire generation. The conditioning is so strong, some people have almost physical reactions to the older stories now.
- The culture wars of the past forty years have largely consisted [of] an effort to reprogram peoples’ tastes for traditional notions of romance and heroism.
Author John C. Wright, of an older generation, read this and brought up the topic of how elves have changed in the popular mind.
Who Are Your Peers?
Should you be accused of a crime, you are guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers. What does that mean, exactly? We get the rule from Magna Carta, where it meant that a baron accused by the king was entitled to be tried by others of similar independence of rank and station -- and not, say, by several of the king's lackeys. The independence of the jurors is meant to prevent you from being railroaded by a system of closed power.
The American system usually thinks that all citizens are peers, being free men or free women. A judge in Louisville thinks that isn't sufficient:
It'll be interesting to see what the state Supreme Court says. My guess is that they will come down against him, if only because it would open the state to having to re-consider goodness knows how many earlier cases in which black men were convicted by all-white juries. Indeed, presumably every black man convicted previously could file an appeal on those grounds, since we wouldn't have necessarily kept a record of the race of jurors.
The American system usually thinks that all citizens are peers, being free men or free women. A judge in Louisville thinks that isn't sufficient:
Unhappy with the number of potential black jurors called to his court last week, Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Olu Stevens halted a drug trial and dismissed the entire jury panel, asking for a new group to be sent up.I'm of two minds about that. On the one hand, it's a tremendously bad decision insofar as it seeks to further enshrine race as a category of thought (and, even, of law). On the other hand, pragmatically rather than philosophically speaking, the judge is probably right that it makes a huge difference to the defendant's likely outcomes at trial. So while there is a bad legal principle at work, it is conceivable that the defendant would get a fairer trial if race were taken into account. The particular trial is about the particular defendant, who either is or is not guilty of the offenses with which he is charged. The business of the particular trial is to come to a fair and, hopefully, correct decision about that -- not to display grand legal principles, but to set a man free if he is not guilty of the crime with which he is charged. That's why we have trials by jury at all: we could enforce the law without them, as long as we weren't worried about whether the state was accurate in the charges it filed.
“The concern is that the panel is not representative of the community,” said Stevens, who brought in a new group of jurors despite objections from both the defense and prosecutor....
“There is not a single African-American on this jury and (the defendant) is an African-American man,” Stevens said, according to a video of the trial. “I cannot in good conscious go forward with this jury.”
It'll be interesting to see what the state Supreme Court says. My guess is that they will come down against him, if only because it would open the state to having to re-consider goodness knows how many earlier cases in which black men were convicted by all-white juries. Indeed, presumably every black man convicted previously could file an appeal on those grounds, since we wouldn't have necessarily kept a record of the race of jurors.
Mirror Images -- Two CIA Action Flicks
Recently I watched the movies Erased and Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. The movies themselves are good, secret agent / underworld action flicks in the tradition of the Bourne series or Taken, though not quite as suspenseful or compelling.
What I found interesting was the sociopolitical viewpoints of the two movies, which mirror each other. First I have to say that the social and political aspects in these films are minimal. Regardless of what one thinks about the US or its intelligence agencies, they are enjoyable because they are mostly fighting, chasing, and solving mysteries. However, in those few places where background is given, Erased assumes the US is part of the problem, while Jack Ryan assumes the US is one of the good guys.
I think one example from each movie is enough here. In Erased, the hero is a highly trained warrior whose motivation for leaving a US intelligence agency is that he "grew a conscience." In Jack Ryan, the hero is a former USMC officer who was severely wounded in Afghanistan and given a medical discharge. He gets a Ph.D. and joins an American intelligence agency as an analyst because he still wants to serve his country.
These little differences interest me. The stories a culture tells about itself are important. I don't think one movie is very important. But I think the themes that are repeated in movie after movie do have an impact on how that culture sees itself.
What I found interesting was the sociopolitical viewpoints of the two movies, which mirror each other. First I have to say that the social and political aspects in these films are minimal. Regardless of what one thinks about the US or its intelligence agencies, they are enjoyable because they are mostly fighting, chasing, and solving mysteries. However, in those few places where background is given, Erased assumes the US is part of the problem, while Jack Ryan assumes the US is one of the good guys.
I think one example from each movie is enough here. In Erased, the hero is a highly trained warrior whose motivation for leaving a US intelligence agency is that he "grew a conscience." In Jack Ryan, the hero is a former USMC officer who was severely wounded in Afghanistan and given a medical discharge. He gets a Ph.D. and joins an American intelligence agency as an analyst because he still wants to serve his country.
These little differences interest me. The stories a culture tells about itself are important. I don't think one movie is very important. But I think the themes that are repeated in movie after movie do have an impact on how that culture sees itself.
If You Like Your Plan...
Yeah, you know the rest.
As of this week, nine of the law’s 23 state co-ops — nonprofit health-insurance companies set up to help people enroll in Obamacare — have collapsed. Over 600,000 people who enrolled in co-op health plans will lose their insurance at the end of this year. Many of them were forced into the co-ops to begin with when Obamacare canceled their private insurance policies in 2013, meaning they will have lost their health insurance twice because of the law.
Rest in Peace, Maureen O'Hara
She lived to be ninety-five, which is a fine old age to have attained. She is perhaps most famous for playing opposite John Wayne to such powerful effect in John Ford films like Rio Grande and The Quiet Man. She also was in the Christmas classic Miracle on 34th Street. Though born in Ireland, she became an American citizen and will be buried at Arlington, beside her husband US Navy pilot General Charles Blair.
We are as a civilization enriched by her works.
We are as a civilization enriched by her works.
Patriarchy? Paternalism?
The Sage of Knoxville has a column in USA Today that says that 'feminism works in the West because patriarchy is dead -- but it might not stay that way.' His point is that the fact of feminism shows that people care about the opinions of women, and even their more minor discomforts, and that this is a necessary condition of feminism existing at all. But this will all go away, he says, because of the admission of mass immigration from genuinely patriarchal nations, where women are subjugated and treated like dirt (or, rather, like women according to these cultures' lights).
We often speak of a government as acting in a fatherly capacity if it cares for the needs and concerns of its people. This concept is usually given as "Paternalism," rather than "Patriarchy," but actually they mean almost the same thing: both of them mean that fathers should lead, but the former word suggests that they should lead in the manner of fathers. It seems to me that Paternalism is exactly what left-leaning feminist usually want: they want a government that will take care of the needs of women in the way that a father should care for his daughters. He should provide for their medical care, for their birth control expenses, for the protection of their independence, and so forth. It's the Julia concept of what government is for.
One proof of this is the aggressive nature of feminist protesters. They clearly expect to be protected. Code Pink -- and, in Europe, Femen -- operates aggressively in complete faith that policemen or even just passersby will keep them from harm in spite of their provocations. It worked out well most times, except where Vladimir Putin (who had encountered them in 2013) sent a Cossack militia armed with whips to put down a similar protest at the Sochi Olympics in 2014. There's a patriarch for you.
You don't get that here, because we who consider ourselves men in the West are in favor of women leading decent lives. We take them seriously even where our interests strongly diverge, out of love. But we also hold them to certain standards, also out of love, because to violate those standards would be to fall.
So I don't think that feminism works in the West because 'leadership by fathers' is dead. I think it works because the leadership in the West is exercised in love. What Glenn Reynolds is advocating for is men-against-women, rather than men-for-women. What I think I'd like to see more of is women-for-men rather than women-against-men, and that combined with men-for-women. Speaking as a husband and father, that dynamic of friendship and reinforcement has been of tremendous importance to me.
Of course, I don't want a paternalistic government -- no more, and perhaps less, than a patriarchal one. It might be well, though, if our civil society better embodied the idea of love and friendship across the sex divide. We ought to take care of each other, and lift each other up.
We often speak of a government as acting in a fatherly capacity if it cares for the needs and concerns of its people. This concept is usually given as "Paternalism," rather than "Patriarchy," but actually they mean almost the same thing: both of them mean that fathers should lead, but the former word suggests that they should lead in the manner of fathers. It seems to me that Paternalism is exactly what left-leaning feminist usually want: they want a government that will take care of the needs of women in the way that a father should care for his daughters. He should provide for their medical care, for their birth control expenses, for the protection of their independence, and so forth. It's the Julia concept of what government is for.
One proof of this is the aggressive nature of feminist protesters. They clearly expect to be protected. Code Pink -- and, in Europe, Femen -- operates aggressively in complete faith that policemen or even just passersby will keep them from harm in spite of their provocations. It worked out well most times, except where Vladimir Putin (who had encountered them in 2013) sent a Cossack militia armed with whips to put down a similar protest at the Sochi Olympics in 2014. There's a patriarch for you.
You don't get that here, because we who consider ourselves men in the West are in favor of women leading decent lives. We take them seriously even where our interests strongly diverge, out of love. But we also hold them to certain standards, also out of love, because to violate those standards would be to fall.
So I don't think that feminism works in the West because 'leadership by fathers' is dead. I think it works because the leadership in the West is exercised in love. What Glenn Reynolds is advocating for is men-against-women, rather than men-for-women. What I think I'd like to see more of is women-for-men rather than women-against-men, and that combined with men-for-women. Speaking as a husband and father, that dynamic of friendship and reinforcement has been of tremendous importance to me.
Of course, I don't want a paternalistic government -- no more, and perhaps less, than a patriarchal one. It might be well, though, if our civil society better embodied the idea of love and friendship across the sex divide. We ought to take care of each other, and lift each other up.
Oh, Canada.
Canada's newly elected Prime Minister 'issues a challenge' to the United States: “We’re Ending Wars and Legalizing Pot.”
Uh-huh. One can only "end" a war by winning it or surrendering it, unless you've found a way to shake hands with the people calling for a new Holocaust. You can ask the ghost of Joe Stalin how well it worked out when he thought he had a deal with the guy calling for the last Holocaust.
Otherwise, you're just running away. You can have all the pot you like if it makes you feel better, but in the end they'll just follow the smoke trail back to you. And when they do, as they have done before, it will be men like this man who save you:
Even he couldn't "end" your war. He just ended one battle.
But I know: you think they'll leave you alone now. If only you concede enough, you'll be left in peace. Our President seems to believe the same thing.
Uh-huh. One can only "end" a war by winning it or surrendering it, unless you've found a way to shake hands with the people calling for a new Holocaust. You can ask the ghost of Joe Stalin how well it worked out when he thought he had a deal with the guy calling for the last Holocaust.
Otherwise, you're just running away. You can have all the pot you like if it makes you feel better, but in the end they'll just follow the smoke trail back to you. And when they do, as they have done before, it will be men like this man who save you:
Even he couldn't "end" your war. He just ended one battle.
But I know: you think they'll leave you alone now. If only you concede enough, you'll be left in peace. Our President seems to believe the same thing.
Speaking of detachment
Hillary Clinton is some kind of humanoid, chuckling over Chris Stevens' adorable sense of humor as he tried to pick up barricades for his embassy at fire-sales, while everyone else was getting out of Dodge. She admired his entrepreneurial spirit, so that's nice.
Hillary Clinton Had No State Department Computer?
Powerline wonders if she was ever really Secretary of State:
Given her detachment from official means of communication, one wonders whether Hillary was ever really Secretary of State at all. Did she make any decisions? If so, what were they? We know that she plotted politically to make the overthrow of Qaddafi the centerpiece of her tenure at State, but we only know this because of her enraptured, off-the-record correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal and other sycophants.
If she ever had a strategy, if she ever engaged in diplomacy, if she ever made a decision, it seems to have left no trace. Maybe she didn’t need a State Department computer because she was never really Secretary of State at all. Maybe she thought the position was honorary, like being First Lady. Just one more rung on her ladder to the top.
Mammoth hurricane Patricia
A bit out of the blue, the strongest hurricane on record in this part of the world has sprung up just off the coast of Western Mexico, near Puerto Vallarta. Patricia's sustained winds are an astonishing 200 mph, with gusts predicted to 245, and a pressure of 880 mb. I get nervous about anything under about 950. Katrina was approaching 900 mb just before landfall in 2005. Camille, the nightmare storm of my childhood though it struck far to the east of my home, probably reached 900 mb. Rita, the storm that panicked Houston into evacuating a month after Katrina, was at 895 mb before it weakened dramatically near landfall.
Patricia is forecast to come right over our heads here on the Texas Coastal Bend, too, but only after it probably will have been torn to pieces by crossing over the Mexican mountains. Nevertheless, our forecast this weekend jumps right out there with a 100% chance of heavy rain. While this is good news for us, the people in the Mexican state of Jalisco are in for a terrible beating.
An amazing storm:
Patricia is forecast to come right over our heads here on the Texas Coastal Bend, too, but only after it probably will have been torn to pieces by crossing over the Mexican mountains. Nevertheless, our forecast this weekend jumps right out there with a 100% chance of heavy rain. While this is good news for us, the people in the Mexican state of Jalisco are in for a terrible beating.
An amazing storm:
The closest contender, at this point, might be Hurricane Camille when it battered the U.S. Gulf Coast in 1969. Regardless, Patricia looks to be more powerful than Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Katrina in 2005 and many others.
'Dude, That Idea Is Texas!'
Apparently Scandinavians have an interesting use of the name of our Lone-Star state.
An Appropriate Conclusion to the Argument
I think this proposal actually is pretty graceful, and would make a proper conclusion to the fight over Georgia's beautiful Stone Mountain.
An elevated tower — featuring a replica of the Liberty Bell — would celebrate the single line in the civil rights martyr’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech that makes reference to the 825-foot-tall hunk of granite: “Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.”
“It is one of the best-known speeches in U.S. history,” said Bill Stephens, the chief executive officer of the Stone Mountain Memorial Association. “We think it’s a great addition to the historical offerings we have here.”
Gross Negligence
So, just how many state secrets were lost to Russia and China because of Mrs. Clinton's gross negligence? The odds favor "lots."
If you sent emails through foreign telecoms that contained classified material, you can be sure they had a copy. She did. If you set up an email server without a digital certificate, you've ignored the most basic part of internet security. She did. And that doesn't touch the physical security of the servers, which were apparently kept in a bathroom closet at the mom and pop shop (albeit politically well-connected shop) that she hired to do all this.
No one would believe this story if you wrote it into a novel or a movie.
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
"Zero privacy" is at least a good a doctrine as "zero tolerance." In fact, I expect them to be combined for maximum effect.
Today the Air Force, tomorrow the world!
Today the Air Force, tomorrow the world!
But How Can This Be?
Via D29, we have an argument of a sort that the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee doesn't need to allow guns on the campus because the campus is so safe. Nonsense. I have it on good authority that 1 in 5 women on campus is subject to sexual assault. At least, if both the President and Vice President of the United States aren't a good authority, I don't know who is.
This university actually has a pretty even 51/49 sex ratio, unusual these days, so only slightly more than half of these are women. So that's about 12,500 women, which means that 2,500 rapes must occur every 4 years, or about 625 a year.
Well, actually, the article suggests it's not quite that high:
This university actually has a pretty even 51/49 sex ratio, unusual these days, so only slightly more than half of these are women. So that's about 12,500 women, which means that 2,500 rapes must occur every 4 years, or about 625 a year.
Well, actually, the article suggests it's not quite that high:
Sex offenses, forcible: 7 on-campus, 1 non-campus and 1 public propertySo that's, um, twenty-six? Well, that's four percent of the expected number, anyway. Obviously it's an underperforming college -- must be because it has such an unusually high percentage of men enrolled.
Sex offenses, rape: 8 on-campus, 4, non-campus and 0 public property
Sex offenses, non-forcible: None in all categories
Sex offenses, statutory rape: None in all categories
Sex offenses, incest: None in all categories
Sex offenses, fondling: 4 on-campus, 1 non-campus and 0 public property
Good energy-policy news (unexpectedly)
The Obama administration has approved a natural gas export facility in Palm Beach, an action I applaud. From the Daily Caller:
In Japan, for example, natural gas prices are nearly three times higher than in America, so companies are looking to export there. Japan’s appetite for gas is only going to increase, especially since the country scaled back its nuclear power plant fleet after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.
In Europe, American gas exports are the only major alternative to Russian gas. European officials fear Russia’s grip on energy markets could be used to achieve political goals. Russia has used its natural gas to manipulate politics in the past. Indeed, Europe was initially hesitant to rebuke Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula because of its control over natural gas pipelines.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)