An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Poll: "Majority of Americans Support Sending Congress to Syria."

Whatever Happened to those "Little Platoons"?

A leftist worries aloud that America may be falling into fascism. If only we had those 'little platoons' -- whatever happened to them?

This problem goes far deeper than better techniques for getting out the vote. It reflects a massive decay of civil society, a deep disinterest and contempt for government and politics, one that often seems richly earned.

This is also the soil in which fascism grows. As political scientists have demonstrated for more than a century, it is mass society, in which people are disconnected from the "little platoons" beloved of Edmund Burke and the local associations celebrated by Tocqueville, where a strongman can suddenly seem the solution to people's inchoate frustrations with their own lives and the irrelevance of politics.

The irony of this remark is biting until you get just a little deeper into the piece, and he explains his version of this idea.

There was a time in America when poor and working class people did have representative institutions that connected them to civic and political life. They were called labor unions.

Oh, I see. If only we could assign all these people to a labor union that would help organize them 'in their own interest' and align them with correct politics. Mao did that. It wasn't exactly Burke's idea, though.

Quelle Suprise

The fruits begin to come in.

[E]ven some secular French journalists have started writing about a phenomenon that’s become difficult to ignore: an increasingly self-confident Catholicism that combines what might be called a dynamic orthodoxy with a determination to shape French society in ways that contest the status quo—both inside and outside the Church.

On October 30, readers of France’s main center-right newspaper, Le Figaro, woke up to the headline “La révolution silencieuse des catholiques de France.” What followed was a description of how those whom Le Figaro calls France’s néocatholiques have come to the forefront of the nation’s political, cultural, and economic debates. Significantly, the new Catholics’ idea of dialogue isn’t about listening to secular intellectuals and responding by nodding sagely and not saying anything that might offend others. Instead, younger observant Catholics have moved beyond—way, way beyond—what was called the “Catholicism of openness” that dominated post-Vatican II French Catholic life. While the néocatholiques are happy to listen, they also want to debate and even critique reigning secular orthodoxies. For them, discussion isn’t a one-way street. This is a generation of French Catholics who are, as Le Figaro put it, “afraid of nothing.”

Secularism was just a phase.

Good Heavens, No

This headline: "After Paris Attacks, a Political Leader Wants to Bring Back This Medieval Execution for Jihadists."

No, no, no.

The guillotine is not medieval. While there were some predecessor devices that were, the guillotine came to be during a debate of the parliament that produced the French Revolution. Its association with that revolution, and especially its frequent use during the Terror, made it a symbol of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

As a member of the assembly Guillotin mainly directed his attention towards medical reform, and it was on 10 October 1789, during a debate on capital punishment, that he proposed that "the criminal shall be decapitated; this will be done solely by means of a simple mechanism." The "mechanism" was defined as "a machine that beheads painlessly". His proposal appeared in the Royalist periodical, Les Actes des Apôtres.

At that time, beheading in France was typically done by axe or sword, which did not always cause immediate death. Additionally, beheading was reserved for the nobility, while commoners were typically hanged. Dr. Guillotin assumed that if a fair system was established where the only method of capital punishment was death by mechanical decapitation, then the public would feel far more appreciative of their rights.

Despite this proposal, Guillotin was opposed to the death penalty and hoped that a more humane and less painful method of execution would be the first step toward a total abolition of the death penalty. He also hoped that fewer families and children would witness executions, and vowed to make them more private and individualized. It was also his belief that a standard death penalty by decapitation would prevent the cruel and unjust system of the day.

So it was all about reforming the law to eliminate distinctions between classes, about bringing reason and science to bear on social problems, and about reducing the pain and cruelty of the death penalty (with an eye towards its eventual abolition, as France did in 1981). It would be ironically appropriate for the Enlightenment's foremost weapon to be brought to bear against ISIS.

Blowing Up My Insurance Was One Thing...

...but this time you've gone too far, Obamacare.

"We Heard There Was Jihad Going On Without No Union Cards..."

"Say it ain't so."

Federalism: Still A Long Way To Go

If you are a lover of the Constitution, and especially if you are the kind of Constitutionalist who takes originalism and/or the 10th Amendment seriously, this Pew poll contains a little good news and a lot of bad news. The good news is that Americans have a very low opinion of the Federal government, and are open to stripping it of some of the powers it currently exercises. The bad news is that majorities still think the Federal government should have "a major role" in tons of things that the Constitution intended to leave to the states.

Fully 80% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services, compared with just 31% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Yet both Republicans and Democrats favor significant government involvement on an array of specific issues. Among the public overall, majorities say the federal government should have a major role in dealing with 12 of 13 issues included in the survey, all except advancing space exploration.

Oddly, not even a third of Republicans and Republican leaners say they are angry with the Federal government, which they certainly have cause to be. Only half of this group thinks the Federal government runs its programs poorly, which may be even stranger for the party of Reagan in the wake of the VA scandal, the complete failure to enforce immigration laws, the Obamacare debacles -- think how much fun it must be to be one of those millions who have lost their health care plan twice due to Obamacare and its collapsing "marketplaces" -- the foreign policy embarrassments, the Justice Department's failure to prosecute crimes for politically favored individuals, the Fast & Furious scandal, the IRS-stalking-conservatives scandal, the....

You have to assume people just aren't paying attention.

A Slight Miscalculation

These airstrikes were launched not because U.S. officials were prescient. They came after the Obama administration found and quietly fixed a colossal miscalculation. U.S. intelligence had grossly overestimated the damage they’d inflicted during airstrikes on the militants’ oil production apparatus last year, while underestimating Islamic State’s oil revenue by $400 million.

That's four times as much as the administration had previously believed they were getting, and doesn't count income from the slave trade, general crime and extortion in its area of operation, etc.

Political Suicide

There are many ways in which the Democratic Party is pursuing an agenda that is bad for ordinary Americans, but for the most part the public hasn't grasped just how and why it is bad for them. There are two areas, however, where the public has clearly and substantially rejected the current agenda of the Democrats in Washington:

1) Gun Control,

2) Increasing immigration -- especially immigration of refugees from the civil war in Syria, but also generally.

The polling on these is clear, but if you don't trust polls practical behavior by Americans shows the degree to which these positions are rejected. On the one hand you have the record gun sales across the country, lasting for years. On the other you have the sustained popularity of Donald Trump, whose major virtue in the eyes of the public is intense, loud opposition to immigration. You've got the fact that a majority of state governors felt that it was good politics to formally reject new refugees last week.

What if we could combine both of these into a single symbolic effort to tie the Democratic party to the two things Americans have most clearly rejected?

Mike's got the principled argument against all this right in his post below. Even if you rejected the principles, though, politically this is irrational. It's as if they were trying to throw the 2016 elections.

Froggy Used To Call These "Security Rounds"

On stopping active shooters.

A reasonable person might well expect a suicide vest from someone engaged in an essentially terrorist act. We haven't seen them deployed in active shooting situations in America usually, but they're commonly deployed overseas. There's no reason it shouldn't become common here, really.

Why are they allowed to have guns?

We get this piece of silliness from ABC News:
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/667080923561766913/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It notes that individuals on the FBI terrorist watch list can legally purchase firearms.  What an outrage!  Why should people, arrested and charged with no crime whatsoever be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights!  They're on a watch list!!!  Isn't that like, super important?

Well, As noted over at Ace of Spades, Charles C. W. Cooke breaks down how it's not just the NRA that opposes restricting firearm purchases by those on the terrorist watch list, but that infamous right-wing group the ACLU does as well.  Why?  Well, there's this little thing called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that says that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".  And one of those liberties that no person shall be deprived of is the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Because there is no due process involved with getting on a terrorist watch list.  One is placed on that list by whim of the FBI, not by a court of law, or a jury of one's peers.  If all it took was an unelected official to declare that the NRA was a terrorist group to forbid its membership from purchasing firearms legally, well then you don't actually believe some future administration wouldn't be a bit tempted to do so, do you?  Listen to the rhetoric of people like Michael Bloomberg or Gavin Newsome.  I guarantee you if they had their way, anyone who owns a firearm would be thrown onto such a watch list.

And this brings me to the last point.  Legal points of sale are not what the terrorists have ever previously shown an interest in.  For the Paris attack (in a country with strict gun control... sorry "common sense" gun control), they did not get their weapons from the US, or another lax gun control law nation.  They got them illegally in Belgium which, if anything, has even stricter ("more sensible") gun control laws than France.  Restricting the ability of citizens to purchase weapons legally does not stop those who wish to purchase them illegally.

In the spirit of the season

Graceland

Continuing our African fusion theme, here's a song from my favorite Paul Simon album.

Ouch!

My neighbor just posted this on Facebook. I love watching these things just to see the old dancers, and it's fun to have it set to a modern funky song. But even if you don't enjoy that, the final few seconds are not to be missed. I wouldn't have thought it was possible to survive a dance move like that.

 

Also, I do love me some Fred Astaire, from head to toe.

More Friday Night Music

Continuing with the African theme, I wore out the cassette tape of this album in college. One hoped to see more of the fusion going on here.

Some Very Different Music For a Friday Night

Not sure if this is more diverse or more vibrant, but it's kind of cool.

Zero Hedge: Most of the Country Peaked in the Late 1990s

...and the labor force participation rate hasn't been this low since Carter.

Why Is It So Hard To Speak The Truth?

Someone must have seen that Iraqi comedian making fun of us for not being able to call ISIS "Islamic," and decided they needed to push back really hard.

Really hard.



So now George W. Bush is the spokesman for the Democratic Party? On the right attitude towards the war?

People can't seem to distinguish between the following claims:

1) "ISIS is essentially Islamic."

2) "Islam is essentially like ISIS."

Claim 1 is demonstrably, empirically true. ISIS -- like a number of other Islamic organizations to include Hizb-ut Tahrir and of course al Qaeda -- is founded for no other reason than to realize a particular vision of Islamic law on earth. They have put a tremendous amount of work into developing their visions. Many of their leaders are lifelong religious students. ISIS leader Baghdadi was a cleric before he became a revolutionary. These organizations have published decades' worth of material explaining exactly how their vision aligns with sha'riah law and the life of the Prophet and his companions.

Furthermore -- whether you like it or not -- their interpretations of sha'riah law are not absurd. They are often the most obvious readings of those laws.

Claim 2 is not obviously true.

For one thing, there are a lot of different schools of sha'riah law. Most of the Islamic world doesn't live under any interpretation similar to this, however obvious these interpretations may be, and haven't historically. That makes perfect sense. Catholics have the Bible, and we also have the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas -- a huge series of densely-argued Aristotelian philosophy about how to interpret the Bible, as well as a long history of earlier Catholic philosophers. The results they come up with are not always the most obvious readings of the Bible. Some Protestant schools prefer more obvious and literal readings. That doesn't make Protestants un-Christian, nor Catholics either.

Jews, by the same token, have on the one hand the Torah; and on the other, a vast collection of Rabbinical scholarship that tries to interpret and understand. Islam, for its own sake, has a similar tradition in its history. One of Thomas Aquinas' chief sources was Averroes, also known as Ibn Rushd, who was an Islamic law judge as well as a philosopher and whose reading of Islamic law was fairly humane (especially in his treatment of women).

So, are we at war with Islam? No. Are we at war with a radical Islamic group? Yes. Are they Muslims? Yes. Are all Muslims them? No. Is ISIS Islamic? Yes, essentially so. Is Islam like ISIS? Not all of it, not by far. Does Islam have anything to do with ISIS? Yes, obviously.

Speak the truth.

Safety in Numbers

One:

“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”

“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”

This is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended.

Two:

President Obama’s marquee deportation amnesty has been stalled by the courts, but the rest of his executive actions on immigration, announced exactly a year ago, are moving forward — including his move protecting more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants from any danger of deportation....

“There are 7 or 8 or 9 million people who are now safe under the current policy. That is a victory to celebrate while we wait for the Supreme Court,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat who was among the chief cheerleaders pushing Mr. Obama to go around Congress and take unilateral steps last year.

Vibrant diverse youths

The AP staff must have a macro that generates these phrases:

Saint-Denis is one of France's most historic places. French kings were crowned and buried through the centuries in its famed basilica, a majestic Gothic church that towers over the area. Today the district is home to a vibrant and very ethnically diverse population and sees sporadic tension between police and violent youths.