How Different Are The Male and Female Experiences of the World?
Take something very basic to the human experience -- pain. The ancients thought that pain and pleasure were the two biggest problems for ethics. To experience pleasure, or to avoid pain, human beings will often do terrible things. For the Epicureans, ethics was all about moderation because it provided the greatest pleasure and the least consequent pain (think of enjoying wine without the hangover; only perhaps you don't need the wine, either). For the hedonists, enjoying life as much as possible while experiencing the least pain was the whole purpose of ethics. Modern utilitarians explain things in roughly the same way, albeit with collective pleasure and pain as the measure.
So what if the experience men call "pain" and the one women call "pain" aren't actually the same thing at all? There's some evidence from lab rats that this might be true.
Well, that's one more reason not to be a utilitarian -- a matter already over-determined, in my book.
So what if the experience men call "pain" and the one women call "pain" aren't actually the same thing at all? There's some evidence from lab rats that this might be true.
A growing body of evidence—including a 2012 analysis of 11,000 patient records—indicates that women are more sensitive to pain. In fact, they may be hardwired to feel pain differently. Last year, Magil and a plethora of co-authors published a study showing that female lab mice actually used different cells to transmit pain signals through their spinal cord. And while no one has confirmed that this is also the case in human females (paging the ethics committee…), Magil says evidence in animals is both compelling and growing stronger.As the article says, it may not be true that humans differ in this way just because mice do. Considering the possibility, however, raises some really big epistemological and metaphysical questions. Maybe some ethical ones too, especially for the utilitarians.
Well, that's one more reason not to be a utilitarian -- a matter already over-determined, in my book.
OODA Loop Beats AK
A concealed carrier takes down a rifleman.
We often hear this can't be done. Of course it can be done. It just can't always be done. If the guy walks in with his rifle and lights you up first thing, you aren't going to have a chance to do anything. But if he's there for something else, and you're careful not to be observed bringing your own weapon to bear, you have the advantage provided that you can hit your target. He's going to have to observe you, orient to what he's observing, and decide to shoot you before he can do it. If you're decisive, it's possible.
We often hear this can't be done. Of course it can be done. It just can't always be done. If the guy walks in with his rifle and lights you up first thing, you aren't going to have a chance to do anything. But if he's there for something else, and you're careful not to be observed bringing your own weapon to bear, you have the advantage provided that you can hit your target. He's going to have to observe you, orient to what he's observing, and decide to shoot you before he can do it. If you're decisive, it's possible.
Wagner, Love, and the Loss of God
A piece in Prospect tries to untangle the lessons of the story:
So Wagner has a reply to Feuerbach, and to Feuerbach’s other great disciple, Karl Marx, namely: stop looking to politics for your salvation. But stop expecting from love anything more than it demands: which is sacrifice. It is a harsh moral, but a true one.The piece is worth reading.
Matter and Intelligence
A new study suggests fat people have less grey and white matter in a significant network of their brains -- though not in the brain overall -- than people who are not fat. The article suggests this means that they are less "intelligent" when it comes to making good food choices.
I'm not buying it, if only because the measure they used was BMI. Someone who has a high BMI because they are a weightlifter is all about smart food choices. It takes considerable attention to ensure you get enough protein to maintain large muscles. The suggestion that BMI correlates with weakened self-control over food choices isn't adequate. (I doubt that they really used only BMI, anyway. If they wanted to study 'fat people,' they doubtless used an informal visual evaluation to determine which high-BMI candidates to include.)
Nor am I ready to buy off on the claim that we know exactly what part of the brain always and everywhere handles this or that function of the mind.
However, a follow-on study might be interesting if the study were done over a period of years, especially tracking thin people of whom some became obese. I'd be interested to know if the weakening of this sector proceeded or followed the increase in weight.
I'm not buying it, if only because the measure they used was BMI. Someone who has a high BMI because they are a weightlifter is all about smart food choices. It takes considerable attention to ensure you get enough protein to maintain large muscles. The suggestion that BMI correlates with weakened self-control over food choices isn't adequate. (I doubt that they really used only BMI, anyway. If they wanted to study 'fat people,' they doubtless used an informal visual evaluation to determine which high-BMI candidates to include.)
Nor am I ready to buy off on the claim that we know exactly what part of the brain always and everywhere handles this or that function of the mind.
However, a follow-on study might be interesting if the study were done over a period of years, especially tracking thin people of whom some became obese. I'd be interested to know if the weakening of this sector proceeded or followed the increase in weight.
It Does Sound Like She's Trying Out for the Supreme Court
Loretta Lynch, prosecutor, won't say that you've broken the law by speeding.
Indeed, from this perspective, until the black robed Olympians have ruled, we cannot know what the law says -- or whether there is a law at all. The "real" law isn't the text passed by some legislature, but the set of precedents that fill out just how the law will actually be applied. Too, if the Supreme Court should rule that the law is void for some reason, the mere fact that some legislature and executive passed and signed a law means nothing whatsoever. No law has been broken if there was never a law to start with.
I think we know what Bill Clinton promised her on that plane.
UPDATE: FBI agents interviewed anonymously report that they believe there was a deal struck on that plane.
Well, probably there isn't anyone who doesn't believe it deep down. There are just some who feel obligated to deny it to soothe their own consciences about what they're going to do in November.
"I've got a question for you," said Collins. "Driving down the road, speed limit says 55, I'm doing 65. Have I broke the law?"This isn't the ordinary perspective of a prosecutor, who would stand up before a jury and tell them that they have proven a breach of the law if they have proven that you were going 65 in a 55. It's the perspective of a judge, even a Justice: until a court has issued its ruling, there is no fact of the matter about whether or not you are guilty of violating the law.
"You would have to ask the Highway Patrol," Lynch answered, as the chamber erupted in snickers. "He would likely write you a ticket," she added helpfully.
The dumbfounded Collins exclaimed, "I went to a small law school. We were taught the law!" He noted that he wasn't so sure about Harvard (Lynch's alma mater) though.
He repeated his question, "Did you break the law or not — 65 in a 55? My dad was a state trooper..."
"As I said before, you would get a ticket for that," Lynch answered.
"So you broke the law!" Collins exclaimed.
"You would be cited for that," Lynch offered. "That would be considered an offense."
Indeed, from this perspective, until the black robed Olympians have ruled, we cannot know what the law says -- or whether there is a law at all. The "real" law isn't the text passed by some legislature, but the set of precedents that fill out just how the law will actually be applied. Too, if the Supreme Court should rule that the law is void for some reason, the mere fact that some legislature and executive passed and signed a law means nothing whatsoever. No law has been broken if there was never a law to start with.
I think we know what Bill Clinton promised her on that plane.
UPDATE: FBI agents interviewed anonymously report that they believe there was a deal struck on that plane.
Well, probably there isn't anyone who doesn't believe it deep down. There are just some who feel obligated to deny it to soothe their own consciences about what they're going to do in November.
...And Replace Them With What?
A Chicago BLM activist names Jessica Disu calls for the police to be -- well, she isn't very clear about what she wants. She says she wants them "demilitarized," "disarmed," and "abolished." From my perspective, that's three options rather than one. FOX News took her to be insisting on abolishing the police outright, but one could merely demilitarize or merely disarm them. One of those solutions isn't terribly radical -- I've been advocating for years that the police be armed like citizens, rather than like a branch of the military or some other specialized force. The other two are more radical.
The problem is that, asked the inevitable question, she didn't have a clear answer. That's too bad, and it might be worth trying to find out if there's a better answer forthcoming on reflection.
I think that for maybe 90% of the country -- by land mass, not by population -- we really could shift to the model of having the police work like fire departments rather than operating as patrols. Especially given the prevalence of cell phones now, it's almost always going to be the case that you could call for help if you needed it. I think this would have a very positive effect on police/citizen relations, as I have written a couple of times lately. It's very close to how policing works where I live now, and would probably work fine for most parts of America where the population is not deeply dense and crime rates are quite low.
However, Ms. Disu is talking about the least plausible places for that model. Most of America continues to enjoy historic lows in violent crime. That is not true for certain parts of several cities, where there has been a sharp uptick in crime of late. These are all poor, densely-populated urban areas with criminal gangs and drug violence. There is a plausible argument that police withdrawal from these communities, out of fear of sparking a BLM protest, is what is behind these upticks in violence. It doesn't seem like fewer police patrols is helping these areas.
So this is the real question: is it possible to replace the police in these areas with some sort of community action? Like a local citizen militia, say? Or is the answer going to be a more robust police enforcement -- say of Project Exile laws that would raise the costs of criminals carrying guns high enough that they'd stop doing it?
Or why not both? You could organize local militias like volunteer fire departments, to operate with the professional fire-deparment-like police in most of the country. As with volunteer fire departments, the government would support the volunteers by helping to fund training exercises and limited facilities. In the urban areas, whether a militia's citizens' arrest or a peace officer's arrest was at work, the Feds would back them up by actually enforcing these robust Federal laws against felons and drug gang members who carry firearms.
It seems as if we could get this under control, while also improving citizen/police relations.
The problem is that, asked the inevitable question, she didn't have a clear answer. That's too bad, and it might be worth trying to find out if there's a better answer forthcoming on reflection.
I think that for maybe 90% of the country -- by land mass, not by population -- we really could shift to the model of having the police work like fire departments rather than operating as patrols. Especially given the prevalence of cell phones now, it's almost always going to be the case that you could call for help if you needed it. I think this would have a very positive effect on police/citizen relations, as I have written a couple of times lately. It's very close to how policing works where I live now, and would probably work fine for most parts of America where the population is not deeply dense and crime rates are quite low.
However, Ms. Disu is talking about the least plausible places for that model. Most of America continues to enjoy historic lows in violent crime. That is not true for certain parts of several cities, where there has been a sharp uptick in crime of late. These are all poor, densely-populated urban areas with criminal gangs and drug violence. There is a plausible argument that police withdrawal from these communities, out of fear of sparking a BLM protest, is what is behind these upticks in violence. It doesn't seem like fewer police patrols is helping these areas.
So this is the real question: is it possible to replace the police in these areas with some sort of community action? Like a local citizen militia, say? Or is the answer going to be a more robust police enforcement -- say of Project Exile laws that would raise the costs of criminals carrying guns high enough that they'd stop doing it?
Or why not both? You could organize local militias like volunteer fire departments, to operate with the professional fire-deparment-like police in most of the country. As with volunteer fire departments, the government would support the volunteers by helping to fund training exercises and limited facilities. In the urban areas, whether a militia's citizens' arrest or a peace officer's arrest was at work, the Feds would back them up by actually enforcing these robust Federal laws against felons and drug gang members who carry firearms.
It seems as if we could get this under control, while also improving citizen/police relations.
Self-government
I have been experimenting with subsidiarity lately: the devolution of organized political control to the smallest possible local level. I think I mentioned before that I joined the board of something called an "improvement district," which is a tax-funded state-sanctioned governmental entity that resembles a utility district on steroids. It covers a development, or perhaps several developments in a relatively small area, and is responsible not only for utilities but other public amenities such as (in my case) canals, piers, and bulkheads. The development that this district is currently responsible for (the others not yet having got going) has only a few homeowners so far. As soon as possible, when there are enough homeowners, they should run for spots on the board. For now, though, the developers essentially appoint board members.
On this small peninsula, there are a handful of companies supplying water--generally well water with an associated RO treatment plant, because our well water is brackish and pretty awful--but only one entity supplies the wastewater treatment, under contract with all the others. That entity is itself a government district, in this case an ordinary municipal utility district. Recently we had some heavy rains, which predictably infiltrated the MUD's leaky sewer lines. At the same time, a building contractor on my own district's property apparently used an insufficient sewer plug to protect an open sewer line at one of the building sites, and the extra pressure from the heavy rain blew it out, causing even more freshwater intrusion in the sewer lines. The wastewater plant shut down operations only for a few hours, but cut my district off from sewer services for months while we all argued about how big a check the contractor's insurance company should write for the damage that could be attributed to the sewer plug. (We paid a honey-dipper to truck out the relatively small amount of sewage from the few current residents.) Do our state utility laws and the wastewater service contract permit the MUD to cut off our sewer services for financial leverage, after it's clear there no longer is a safety/operations issue? I'd say no, but my district's counsel is not what you would call aggressive, or even energetic; they're terrific at complying with the open-meetings rules and shepherding us through bond offerings and tax issues, but not so inclined to jump into contract negotiations or litigation. All I know is, before the MUD gets another chance to deny us service for financial leverage, I'd like to have other options, especially when we have enough residents that honey-dipping is hardly practical. Our contract, however, appears to obligate us not only to stay with the MUD for our wastewater treatment, but even to finance a significant part of a scheduled upgrade and expansion of the current rather old and tattered plant. So for the next few years, we'll probably be looking for opportunities to renegotiate the contract's requirements and freedoms. It turns out not to be all that expensive or time-consuming to get an independent permit or build and operate an independent wastewater treatment plant, and it's something I'd love to learn about. It will irritate the MUD, though, and will be politically touchy. And of course it may never happen; we may mend all the fences and/or simply find the contract requires us to grin and bear it.
Sorting through all this stuff, which had a 10-year complicated history before I got involved, has proved engrossing. I attend not only my district's meetings, but increasingly the public meetings of other entities, such as the MUD, the County Commissioners Court, and a proposed new Groundwater Commission. While the infrastructure issues I have to get up to speed on are wildly interesting, I probably never will learn to like attending a lot of meetings regularly every month. I do it because I feel the only way to keep distant government at bay is to have strong local government that doesn't flub matters and leave a public mess. It turns out, though, that there are almost limitless meetings of this kind. As it is, I don't attend monthly meetings of the fire department or the Republican Party, let alone multi-county regional meetings addressing things like the groundwater situation. I've never attended a state political convention or an annual Diocesan meeting. It could eat up your whole life, going to these things: not the best choice for an introvert.
On this small peninsula, there are a handful of companies supplying water--generally well water with an associated RO treatment plant, because our well water is brackish and pretty awful--but only one entity supplies the wastewater treatment, under contract with all the others. That entity is itself a government district, in this case an ordinary municipal utility district. Recently we had some heavy rains, which predictably infiltrated the MUD's leaky sewer lines. At the same time, a building contractor on my own district's property apparently used an insufficient sewer plug to protect an open sewer line at one of the building sites, and the extra pressure from the heavy rain blew it out, causing even more freshwater intrusion in the sewer lines. The wastewater plant shut down operations only for a few hours, but cut my district off from sewer services for months while we all argued about how big a check the contractor's insurance company should write for the damage that could be attributed to the sewer plug. (We paid a honey-dipper to truck out the relatively small amount of sewage from the few current residents.) Do our state utility laws and the wastewater service contract permit the MUD to cut off our sewer services for financial leverage, after it's clear there no longer is a safety/operations issue? I'd say no, but my district's counsel is not what you would call aggressive, or even energetic; they're terrific at complying with the open-meetings rules and shepherding us through bond offerings and tax issues, but not so inclined to jump into contract negotiations or litigation. All I know is, before the MUD gets another chance to deny us service for financial leverage, I'd like to have other options, especially when we have enough residents that honey-dipping is hardly practical. Our contract, however, appears to obligate us not only to stay with the MUD for our wastewater treatment, but even to finance a significant part of a scheduled upgrade and expansion of the current rather old and tattered plant. So for the next few years, we'll probably be looking for opportunities to renegotiate the contract's requirements and freedoms. It turns out not to be all that expensive or time-consuming to get an independent permit or build and operate an independent wastewater treatment plant, and it's something I'd love to learn about. It will irritate the MUD, though, and will be politically touchy. And of course it may never happen; we may mend all the fences and/or simply find the contract requires us to grin and bear it.
Sorting through all this stuff, which had a 10-year complicated history before I got involved, has proved engrossing. I attend not only my district's meetings, but increasingly the public meetings of other entities, such as the MUD, the County Commissioners Court, and a proposed new Groundwater Commission. While the infrastructure issues I have to get up to speed on are wildly interesting, I probably never will learn to like attending a lot of meetings regularly every month. I do it because I feel the only way to keep distant government at bay is to have strong local government that doesn't flub matters and leave a public mess. It turns out, though, that there are almost limitless meetings of this kind. As it is, I don't attend monthly meetings of the fire department or the Republican Party, let alone multi-county regional meetings addressing things like the groundwater situation. I've never attended a state political convention or an annual Diocesan meeting. It could eat up your whole life, going to these things: not the best choice for an introvert.
Gowdy Buys Lynch's Defense
He sounds very argumentative, except at one moment where he agrees that he 'understands that' it is important to protect the confidentiality of Lynch's team.
Her argument is that it's very important that these decisions not be touched by politics. That is to say, in this case, that it is important that they not have to explain themselves to the American people. This is being presented as an interest in justice: that it is important to justice itself that these decisions not only be made out of the public square, but that the explanation for the decisions never be revealed to the public at all.
And that's the part that Gowdy buys.
Her argument is that it's very important that these decisions not be touched by politics. That is to say, in this case, that it is important that they not have to explain themselves to the American people. This is being presented as an interest in justice: that it is important to justice itself that these decisions not only be made out of the public square, but that the explanation for the decisions never be revealed to the public at all.
And that's the part that Gowdy buys.
Trump Has A Point Here
Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton doesn't make any sense. It is like Occupy endorsing Wall Street.
The Clintons' actual word is worthless, but they do carry out their threats and fulfill at least those promises for which they were paid large sums of money. I suppose some combination of threats and promises must have carried the day.
The Clintons' actual word is worthless, but they do carry out their threats and fulfill at least those promises for which they were paid large sums of money. I suppose some combination of threats and promises must have carried the day.
Republicans Adopt Very Pro-Israel Platform Plank
You can read it here. I certainly do support Israel, for a number of reasons, but I have some questions about this plank.
Of greatest interest to me is the commitment to help Israel maintain a qualitatively superior military force. Barack Obama has been fueling both sides of an arms race in the Middle East. On the one hand he has guttied provisions that restrained Iran's development of ballistic missile technology, while allowing them to purchase upgraded missiles from Russia, and heavy weapons from China and elsewhere. He's also provided them with a vast windfall from the end of sanctions, cutting free tons of money that Iran is now using in large part for military upgrades (and support to its network of proxy fighters like Hezbollah). On the other hand, he has been trying to buy support for this Iran policy from Sunni states by selling them advanced American weapons in much larger quantities than ever before.
Thus, maintaining a "qualitatively superior military" in Israel has gotten a lot harder. A cynical man might see this plank as a gift to the 'military-industrial complex' of which we've heard so much. Even a non-cynical man who is a true friend to Israel might wonder about what exactly this entails, given that we are already in back of a major escalation in the Middle East's arms race. Are we going to cut sales to other nations? Can we re-impose sanctions on Iran in a meaningful way, given that the UN Security Council ruling is going to prevent most other countries from going along with it even if we try? Or -- should this plank become America's foreign policy -- are we just committing to pumping even more weapons and technologies into Israel to try to keep them ahead of the flood?
Of greatest interest to me is the commitment to help Israel maintain a qualitatively superior military force. Barack Obama has been fueling both sides of an arms race in the Middle East. On the one hand he has guttied provisions that restrained Iran's development of ballistic missile technology, while allowing them to purchase upgraded missiles from Russia, and heavy weapons from China and elsewhere. He's also provided them with a vast windfall from the end of sanctions, cutting free tons of money that Iran is now using in large part for military upgrades (and support to its network of proxy fighters like Hezbollah). On the other hand, he has been trying to buy support for this Iran policy from Sunni states by selling them advanced American weapons in much larger quantities than ever before.
Thus, maintaining a "qualitatively superior military" in Israel has gotten a lot harder. A cynical man might see this plank as a gift to the 'military-industrial complex' of which we've heard so much. Even a non-cynical man who is a true friend to Israel might wonder about what exactly this entails, given that we are already in back of a major escalation in the Middle East's arms race. Are we going to cut sales to other nations? Can we re-impose sanctions on Iran in a meaningful way, given that the UN Security Council ruling is going to prevent most other countries from going along with it even if we try? Or -- should this plank become America's foreign policy -- are we just committing to pumping even more weapons and technologies into Israel to try to keep them ahead of the flood?
Not Getting It
The President fails to understand the shooting in Dallas, in two different and predictable ways.
The far more dangerous misunderstanding is the idea that this was a "hate crime." This was not a crime in the ordinary sense of the word. It was an act of war. It was not a terrorist attack either, but a guerrilla attack that was consonant with most of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions -- especially if you include Protocol I, which the United States has not ratified, but which intends to clarify the status of guerrillas in the laws of war. The only questionable provision is the one requiring them to be under the command of a central authority: this group may have had a commanding officer among them, but it does not appear to have been part of a larger movement. Their status is therefore unclear pending the resolution of that question, and whether a 'central' authority can be derived from such a small group.
The reason this is important is not to say that the shootings were morally better or worse than a terrorist attack or a hate crime. That's a debatable question at best, and one that can be set aside completely at the moment. The reason that it's important is that the solution set is different. If it's a terrorist attack, you kill the terrorists. Terrorists are hostis humani generis. They target civilians, destroy the infrastructure on which life depends, and so forth. This attack waited until civilians dispersed, and targeted only armed agents of the state.
If it's a hate crime, you can be satisfied with merely arresting and prosecuting the hateful criminals. That sets a standard of what is acceptable within the community that will be persuasive, such that even those who are hateful will mostly be motivated by the fear of punishment not to commit such crimes.
A guerrilla swims in a sea of popular support, however. A guerrilla movement cannot exist without such a sea, as Mao pointed out. If you are dealing with a guerrilla movement, you need to address the underlying problems that are giving rise to the support for the killers.
It should be clear from the reaction nationwide that there is a sea for these fish to swim in. Likewise, the fact that "20 to 30" people brought rifles to the BLM protest suggests that there is a strong message being sent to the government that it has reached the limits of patience, and that armed force is the next option. I support such armed, peaceful protests. It's true that armed protesters can confuse police in the case of an actual attack. In that case, the police are justified in treating armed protesters as shooters until they prove themselves otherwise. But it is important that the government recognize that this willingness to take that kind of risk onto one's self is an indicator that political legitimacy has become strained. Legitimacy derives from consent of the governed. A polity that brings rifles to confront the government is still consenting to be governed: they are lawfully protesting and not shooting. But they are an important warning siren that the limits of consent have been reached, and the government should reform itself.
Ultimately I think it would make more sense for the armed protesters from the III% movement and the ones from the BLM movement to get together, and present a unified challenge to a government that has grown accustomed to exceeding its authority. A shift to a more consensual model of government would benefit all of us. There is a common flaw in the approach that gives rise to BLM -- that's "Bureau of Land Management" -- abuses out West, and the shift by localities into using police to generate revenue through the constant extraction of fines.
Nor have I any patience for the liberal/progressive tendency to sing songs of love for BLM -- that's "Black Lives Matter" -- while suggesting that they should definitely disarm themselves and pursue only fully peaceful and nonviolent resistance. If you really respect what they're doing, have the decency to recognize their right to arms. Free citizens don't submit to tyranny, nor are they under any moral obligation to endure it peacefully while begging for relief. Martin Luther King, Jr., was as successful as he was in part because he could point to the crazy radicals like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. 'Deal with my movement of Christians adhering to ordinary middle-class morality,' he did not even have to say, 'or, if you will not work with us, deal with the radicals your resistance to change creates.' If you really want to see change, rich white progressives, you should be glad to see this dynamic emerging. Your attempt to marry gun control to loud public signalling of your support for BLM sounds to me like an attempt to slip in submission to your own preferred moral scheme -- a centralized, powerful government with authority to regulate all aspects of American life, and with the sole claim to the legitimate use of force. If you really care about this as you claim to do, progressives, have the courage to dare a potentially revolutionary conflict.
Sometimes violence is a good thing. Violent resistance to overbearing authority gave us Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. None of those things would have existed without men taking up arms to fight for liberty against powerful authority. Political violence also often leads to bad results. You should recognize, however, that this particular moment is not a moment of crime, or hate, or terrorism. Those solutions aren't adequate or appropriate to this situation.
The president met for nearly two hours with leaders of eight law enforcement groups Monday, informing them that he considered the killing of the five police officers in Dallas on Thursday “a hate crime” and that he would work actively to serve as an intermediary between minority activists and police.Once more, it's all about him and his unique and pivotal role in human history. I'm reminded of his comments at the time of the financial crisis that he was the 'only one between the banks and the pitchforks.'
“I’m your best hope,” Obama remarked at one point, according to the Fraternal Order of Police’s James O. Pasco, one of the meeting’s attendees.
The far more dangerous misunderstanding is the idea that this was a "hate crime." This was not a crime in the ordinary sense of the word. It was an act of war. It was not a terrorist attack either, but a guerrilla attack that was consonant with most of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions -- especially if you include Protocol I, which the United States has not ratified, but which intends to clarify the status of guerrillas in the laws of war. The only questionable provision is the one requiring them to be under the command of a central authority: this group may have had a commanding officer among them, but it does not appear to have been part of a larger movement. Their status is therefore unclear pending the resolution of that question, and whether a 'central' authority can be derived from such a small group.
The reason this is important is not to say that the shootings were morally better or worse than a terrorist attack or a hate crime. That's a debatable question at best, and one that can be set aside completely at the moment. The reason that it's important is that the solution set is different. If it's a terrorist attack, you kill the terrorists. Terrorists are hostis humani generis. They target civilians, destroy the infrastructure on which life depends, and so forth. This attack waited until civilians dispersed, and targeted only armed agents of the state.
If it's a hate crime, you can be satisfied with merely arresting and prosecuting the hateful criminals. That sets a standard of what is acceptable within the community that will be persuasive, such that even those who are hateful will mostly be motivated by the fear of punishment not to commit such crimes.
A guerrilla swims in a sea of popular support, however. A guerrilla movement cannot exist without such a sea, as Mao pointed out. If you are dealing with a guerrilla movement, you need to address the underlying problems that are giving rise to the support for the killers.
It should be clear from the reaction nationwide that there is a sea for these fish to swim in. Likewise, the fact that "20 to 30" people brought rifles to the BLM protest suggests that there is a strong message being sent to the government that it has reached the limits of patience, and that armed force is the next option. I support such armed, peaceful protests. It's true that armed protesters can confuse police in the case of an actual attack. In that case, the police are justified in treating armed protesters as shooters until they prove themselves otherwise. But it is important that the government recognize that this willingness to take that kind of risk onto one's self is an indicator that political legitimacy has become strained. Legitimacy derives from consent of the governed. A polity that brings rifles to confront the government is still consenting to be governed: they are lawfully protesting and not shooting. But they are an important warning siren that the limits of consent have been reached, and the government should reform itself.
Ultimately I think it would make more sense for the armed protesters from the III% movement and the ones from the BLM movement to get together, and present a unified challenge to a government that has grown accustomed to exceeding its authority. A shift to a more consensual model of government would benefit all of us. There is a common flaw in the approach that gives rise to BLM -- that's "Bureau of Land Management" -- abuses out West, and the shift by localities into using police to generate revenue through the constant extraction of fines.
Nor have I any patience for the liberal/progressive tendency to sing songs of love for BLM -- that's "Black Lives Matter" -- while suggesting that they should definitely disarm themselves and pursue only fully peaceful and nonviolent resistance. If you really respect what they're doing, have the decency to recognize their right to arms. Free citizens don't submit to tyranny, nor are they under any moral obligation to endure it peacefully while begging for relief. Martin Luther King, Jr., was as successful as he was in part because he could point to the crazy radicals like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. 'Deal with my movement of Christians adhering to ordinary middle-class morality,' he did not even have to say, 'or, if you will not work with us, deal with the radicals your resistance to change creates.' If you really want to see change, rich white progressives, you should be glad to see this dynamic emerging. Your attempt to marry gun control to loud public signalling of your support for BLM sounds to me like an attempt to slip in submission to your own preferred moral scheme -- a centralized, powerful government with authority to regulate all aspects of American life, and with the sole claim to the legitimate use of force. If you really care about this as you claim to do, progressives, have the courage to dare a potentially revolutionary conflict.
Sometimes violence is a good thing. Violent resistance to overbearing authority gave us Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. None of those things would have existed without men taking up arms to fight for liberty against powerful authority. Political violence also often leads to bad results. You should recognize, however, that this particular moment is not a moment of crime, or hate, or terrorism. Those solutions aren't adequate or appropriate to this situation.
Haidt on Globalism v. Nationalism
He has the rare insight, for a member of his class, that the debate is not about why a healthy and sane globalism is being overtaken by a virulent nationalism. Rather, he says, we have to explain why globalism is attractive to anyone -- it cuts against several very normal moral senses.
It's a good piece, although as usual Haidt strikes me as wrong about some important aspects of things. Still, he is wrong with an open mind that is trying to grasp the other side's position. That's worth something.
Rather than tell you what I think is wrong, though, I'll leave the matter open in case you want to discuss it in the comments.
It's a good piece, although as usual Haidt strikes me as wrong about some important aspects of things. Still, he is wrong with an open mind that is trying to grasp the other side's position. That's worth something.
Rather than tell you what I think is wrong, though, I'll leave the matter open in case you want to discuss it in the comments.
What'd They Need a Pilot For? They Found Canada Fine the First Time
Draken Harald Hårfagre, the Viking ship currently visiting the Americas, has been forced to withdraw from "the Tall Ships Challenge 2016," an event held on the Great Lakes. The reason is that Canada decided to slap them with a massive pilotage fee in spite of having promised them that they wouldn't.
Still, that's silly given that this is a Viking ship conducting a nonprofit educational mission and not a commercial freighter. You'd think some good-spirited pilot would volunteer his time, and Canada would have the decency to waive the fees. The only thing more rapacious than a boatload of Viking warriors is a Canadian tax collector, I suppose.
The ship was invited to participate in the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2016 and entered the waters of St Lawrence and the Great Lakes with information from the Great Lakes Pilotage Authorities that a ship of the size and variety of Draken Harald Hårfagre would be excepted the requirement of pilotage. “…Foreign ships of less than 35 meters in overall length are not subject to compulsory pilotage in the Great Lakes Region”Indeed not, though I think there's a decimal point missing in that fee. It looks like the charge is going to be closer to four thousand dollars than four hundred thousand.
The expedition relied on the information from the Pilotage Authorities and the possibility not to be a subject to compulsory pilotage. Unfortunately the project learned, when entering the St Lawrence Seaway, that the ship is required a pilot at all times while at sea with no possibility of reduction in cost. The cost for the pilotage, if the ship were to participate in the schedule for Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2016, is well over 400 000 USD.
The fees are not within reason for a non profit sail training vessel, it blocks the opportunity for any foreign tall ship to enter the Great Lakes and visit the ports.
Still, that's silly given that this is a Viking ship conducting a nonprofit educational mission and not a commercial freighter. You'd think some good-spirited pilot would volunteer his time, and Canada would have the decency to waive the fees. The only thing more rapacious than a boatload of Viking warriors is a Canadian tax collector, I suppose.
"My Biggest Flaw? I Just Work Too Darned Hard."
The coverage of Hillary Clinton at Vox is shamefully in-the-tank, and never moreso than when Ezra Klein is writing it. He sounds like one of those too-clever job interviewees, except he's making the case for her getting the job instead of himself.
My favorite example remains his piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Doesn't Trust You." It purports to be a criticism of Hillary Clinton for not trusting the voters, but it is really a criticism of the voters for not really meriting her trust. The idea is to immunize her for a real flaw by admitting the flaw's existence, but then casting it as a strength. You're supposed to come away with a new respect for her wisdom in not trusting the American people, and maybe even a sense of guilt for not being worthy of her.
Today, he has a longer and more in depth version of the same rhetorical trick. Why is it that people inside Hillary's circle describe her in such different terms, adoring and glorious, when the average person doesn't trust her? Once again, he admits the problem exists, and pretends that he is going to criticize her faults as a candidate. But the real answer? "Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns.... Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens."
Oh, yeah. That's why I don't trust her. Because she listens.
Or maybe, you know, it could be this.
My favorite example remains his piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Doesn't Trust You." It purports to be a criticism of Hillary Clinton for not trusting the voters, but it is really a criticism of the voters for not really meriting her trust. The idea is to immunize her for a real flaw by admitting the flaw's existence, but then casting it as a strength. You're supposed to come away with a new respect for her wisdom in not trusting the American people, and maybe even a sense of guilt for not being worthy of her.
Today, he has a longer and more in depth version of the same rhetorical trick. Why is it that people inside Hillary's circle describe her in such different terms, adoring and glorious, when the average person doesn't trust her? Once again, he admits the problem exists, and pretends that he is going to criticize her faults as a candidate. But the real answer? "Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns.... Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens."
Oh, yeah. That's why I don't trust her. Because she listens.
Or maybe, you know, it could be this.
Scots Wha Hae
A small poem on the occasion of the Highland Games.
"Lay the proud usurpers low,
Tyrants fall in every foe,
Liberty is in every blow,
Let us do or die!"
"Lay the proud usurpers low,
Tyrants fall in every foe,
Liberty is in every blow,
Let us do or die!"
Was Off to the Wild
I spent the weekend in the Pisgah National Forest, and at the Grandfather Mountain Scottish Highland Games.
Plenty of time for hiking and camping. If you get up early enough, you'll find yourself completely alone in the Linville Gorge. It is named after a Long Hunter who was killed by the Shawnee, along with his son. Those "Long" hunts for furs could go on for as much as a year, during which time you might amass quite a store of hides. Of course, this made you an ever-more tempting target.
Saw a black bear again this weekend, a charming young male who pause and stood up to look me in the eye before continuing on his way. No aggression at all, just curiosity. I also saw a double rainbow after an evening rainstorm, the first one I've ever seen that you could fully see both of the two bows from horizon to horizon. It was especially intense in its color.
They did "Britannia Rules the Waves" at the games, as well as all the military service songs. People who had served stood up while their service's song played. Turns out bagpipes can't play the Air Force song because it features "chromatics," whatever that means.
A bit of appropriate music for the Celtic Carolina homeland. This instrument is the Appalachian Dulcimer, a simplified version of a very old instrument -- and, in its hammered form, a much more capable one. You see the Appalachian form throughout Western North Carolina. You see the hammered form more rarely.
The national animal of Scotland, by the way, is the unicorn.
The Grandfather Games
Linville Gorge
Saw a black bear again this weekend, a charming young male who pause and stood up to look me in the eye before continuing on his way. No aggression at all, just curiosity. I also saw a double rainbow after an evening rainstorm, the first one I've ever seen that you could fully see both of the two bows from horizon to horizon. It was especially intense in its color.
They did "Britannia Rules the Waves" at the games, as well as all the military service songs. People who had served stood up while their service's song played. Turns out bagpipes can't play the Air Force song because it features "chromatics," whatever that means.
A bit of appropriate music for the Celtic Carolina homeland. This instrument is the Appalachian Dulcimer, a simplified version of a very old instrument -- and, in its hammered form, a much more capable one. You see the Appalachian form throughout Western North Carolina. You see the hammered form more rarely.
The national animal of Scotland, by the way, is the unicorn.
A Little Bit of Craig Morgan
I recently got the chance to see him live over the long 4th holiday.
Morgan spent nearly a decade on active duty with the 82nd and 101st, and another six in the reserves, before releasing his first country album in 2000. In the GWOT, he toured Iraq & Afghanistan with the USO.
Morgan spent nearly a decade on active duty with the 82nd and 101st, and another six in the reserves, before releasing his first country album in 2000. In the GWOT, he toured Iraq & Afghanistan with the USO.
Keeper of Antiquities: Irish Sacrificed their Kings Horribly if Things Turned Bad in the Kingdom
A kind of early 'checks and balances,' if you will.
"The king had great power but also great responsibility to ensure the prosperity of his people. Through his marriage on his inauguration to the goddess of the land, he was meant to guarantee her benevolence. He had to ensure the land was productive, so if the weather turned bad, or there was plague, cattle disease or losses in war, he was held personally responsible."There's a famous similar argument made by Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker in the Heimskringla. The pagan mythos has been bleached out, but the 'checks and balances' sentiment remains.
[Our king] wants to have the Norway kingdom laid under him, which no Swedish king before him ever desired, and therewith brings war and distress on many a man. Now it is our will, we bondes, that thou King Olaf make peace with the Norway king, Olaf the Thick, and marry thy daughter Ingegerd to him. Wilt thou, however, reconquer the kingdoms in the east countries which thy relations and forefathers had there, we will all for that purpose follow thee to the war. But if thou wilt not do as we desire, we will now attack thee, and put thee to death; for we will no longer suffer law and peace to be disturbed. So our forefathers went to work when they drowned five kings in a morass at the Mula-thing, and they were filled with the same insupportable pride thou hast shown towards us. Now tell us [king], in all haste, what resolution thou wilt take.
3 Dead Police in Dallas, 10 Injured
So I hear. More of the injured are in critical condition.
The point at which they started shooting cops was the point at which the police will no longer listen to arguments about adjusting their training to adopt a less-aggressive posture. The window for fixing the problem just closed, at least for quite a while. Nothing good will come from this.
Requiescat in pace.
According to the live feed at this link (local NBC), it was 11 officers shot of 100 total.
The point at which they started shooting cops was the point at which the police will no longer listen to arguments about adjusting their training to adopt a less-aggressive posture. The window for fixing the problem just closed, at least for quite a while. Nothing good will come from this.
Requiescat in pace.
According to the live feed at this link (local NBC), it was 11 officers shot of 100 total.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)