Are you ready to be a horrible pain in everyone's neck this Thanksgiving? If not, don't worry! People are here to help you annoy everyone with whom you were planning to share this moment of family togetherness.
Time's Up in California
Los Angeles passed a measure banning all "high capacity" (i.e., normal capacity) detachable magazines and required citizens to turn them in to police. The sixty day "grace period" during which you would "graciously" be allowed to surrender your private property to the government without compensation has now closed, and the total number of magazines received by police is:
Zero.
Zero.
Yeah, No.
Rich Lowry: "Donald Trump’s appeal is as American as Andrew Jackson."
I missed the part where Donald Trump won a major battle, or a series of small wars, or defended his wife's honor, or indeed showed respect for anyone's honor besides his own. Trump may have some of Jackson's flaws, but I see no sign that he has any of Jackson's substantial virtues.
I missed the part where Donald Trump won a major battle, or a series of small wars, or defended his wife's honor, or indeed showed respect for anyone's honor besides his own. Trump may have some of Jackson's flaws, but I see no sign that he has any of Jackson's substantial virtues.
Drink More Whiskey
At least, that's the advice I glean for America from this review:
Cheever describes local taverns as “the cradle of the revolution.” And through the 18th century, she explains, a steady stream of beer and rum helped to unleash the bravado and defiance necessary to inch toward independence. The patriots who tossed tea into the Boston Harbor in 1773 hadn’t planned on doing so, but they were blasted after hours of drunken scheming. “Perhaps if they had been sober,” Cheever writes, “the night would have been different; they were not sober. They were drunk enough to change history.”We could use some more of that. You might try Leadslinger's.
As the American Revolution ignited, “drinking seems to have gone hand in hand with heroism.”
Duffel Blog Strikes Again
Veteran student center turned into a "safe space."
“The Veterans Center was a place where they could go where they wouldn’t feel marginalized,” Northeastern President Joseph Aoun said. “It was a state of the art building with padded walls, straightjackets, and doors that locked from the outside. Veterans could attend class online to keep them away from the student body. This would allow veterans to have a safe space and keep them contained for campus safety. Unfortunately, something went wrong.”That sounds about right.
Just days after the Veteran Center opened, construction workers were seen entering the building with metal poles and hot tubs. An audit revealed the Northeastern Student Veteran’s Association spent their entire budget sponsoring work visas for Thai women.
“We had several reports of odd purchases,” Northeastern University Police Chief Paddy O’Shea Finnegan said. “Huntington Wine and Spirits reported they were sold out. Clerks at Wollaston’s said guys with short haircuts were buying bananas but warning each other not to eat them.”
Members of the ROTC battalion attempted to enter but were only allowed access if they brought cookies from Stetson East. The cadets left the building wide eyed, with an understanding why officers are taught to be scared of enlisted soldiers.
Police were called to the Veteran Center after shirtless men were seen shooting fireworks off the top of the building.
"cultural issues of implication involved in the practice"
Yeah, I don't know what that means, either. Here's a link to the whole thing, but you're not going to be any more enlightened once you've read it. The gist of it is that the University of Ottawa decided that yoga classes for disabled students were triggering colonialist cultural appropriation cooties or something.
The yoga instructor was trying to be sensitive, so she suggested:
“What do you think about having a class that is just stretching for mental health?” she wrote. “We don’t have to call it yoga (because that’s not really what we are doing, we are just stretching). I think that will work because it would literally change nothing about the class. … I know some people are offended but I am sure we can change it so that everyone feels included.... Now that I am aware that this is a sensitivity, I can just leave all yoga-ness out.”Not so fast, running dog colonialist person of uncolor. The purge must go deeper than that.
“The higher-ups at the student federation got involved, finally we got an e-mail routed through the student federation basically saying they couldn’t get a French name and nobody wants to do it, so we’re going to cancel it for now....”
This Was Bound To Happen
Turkey has reportedly shot down a Russian jet.
The state of play in the air war over this region has been as follows: Russia dispatched substantial air forces, including their "supermaneuverable" Su-30 air superiority fighters. Now, these are plausibly multi-role fighters, so it wasn't totally odd that they would deploy them against an enemy that had no air force. Still, they were clearly testing Turkish airspace, reportedly locking onto Turkish planes and violating Turkish territory. The Pentagon decided to move a bunch of F-15Cs over to Turkey as a guarantor, since Turkey's aging F-16s are probably overmatched by the Russian jets. These are upgraded F-15s specifically structured for air-to-air combat.
Russia took note of the deployment, which wasn't even plausibly aimed at ISIS but at their own jets, and deployed S-300 missiles in Syria. These are thought capable of taking down anything we've got short of true stealth planes such as the F-22 and F-35. So far we haven't sent any, but it's the next logical phase in the escalation.
So today the Russians lost a bomber, an Su 24 according to their defense ministry. Exactly who shot it down -- ground fire or a Turkish F-16 -- is in dispute, as is the Turks' claim that it violated their airspace.
UPDATE: Reuters is reporting that the Russian pilots survived, but were shot dead by Turkish militia.
The state of play in the air war over this region has been as follows: Russia dispatched substantial air forces, including their "supermaneuverable" Su-30 air superiority fighters. Now, these are plausibly multi-role fighters, so it wasn't totally odd that they would deploy them against an enemy that had no air force. Still, they were clearly testing Turkish airspace, reportedly locking onto Turkish planes and violating Turkish territory. The Pentagon decided to move a bunch of F-15Cs over to Turkey as a guarantor, since Turkey's aging F-16s are probably overmatched by the Russian jets. These are upgraded F-15s specifically structured for air-to-air combat.
Russia took note of the deployment, which wasn't even plausibly aimed at ISIS but at their own jets, and deployed S-300 missiles in Syria. These are thought capable of taking down anything we've got short of true stealth planes such as the F-22 and F-35. So far we haven't sent any, but it's the next logical phase in the escalation.
So today the Russians lost a bomber, an Su 24 according to their defense ministry. Exactly who shot it down -- ground fire or a Turkish F-16 -- is in dispute, as is the Turks' claim that it violated their airspace.
UPDATE: Reuters is reporting that the Russian pilots survived, but were shot dead by Turkish militia.
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.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.
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.
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.Secularism was just a phase.
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.”
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
You have to assume people just aren't paying attention.
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.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....
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)