Dizzy Gillespie breaks all our rules.
I Guess It's Good That It's "Official"
The Washington Post: "A slew of bad economic headlines last week made it official: The Obama economy has failed."
Oh, Good, We're Paying Ransoms Now
I mean, what are the odds that Iran will interpret this as an incentive to take more Americans hostage, right?
Oh, you say they're already doing that? Gee, who could have predicted that?
You know, Trump may be right. As ridiculous as the claim seems, he may really understand foreign policy better than President Obama.
Oh, you say they're already doing that? Gee, who could have predicted that?
You know, Trump may be right. As ridiculous as the claim seems, he may really understand foreign policy better than President Obama.
Dark Ages Palace Discovered in Cornwall
Some Arthurian news of more interest:
Archaeologists have discovered the impressive remains of a probable Dark Age royal palace at Tintagel in Cornwall. It is likely that the one-metre thick walls being unearthed are those of the main residence of the 6th century rulers of an ancient south-west British kingdom, known as Dumnonia.
Scholars have long argued about whether King Arthur actually existed or whether he was in reality a legendary character formed through the conflation of a series of separate historical and mythological figures.
But the discovery by English Heritage-funded archaeologists of a probable Dark Age palace at Tintagel will certainly trigger debate in Arthurian studies circles – because, in medieval tradition, Arthur was said to have been conceived at Tintagel as a result of an illicit union between a British King and the beautiful wife of a local ruler.
How to Start a Clash of Civilizations
Foreign Policy has an interesting piece by that title. The sub-head is:
And then:
It's an interesting and brief article that discusses the history of Catholicism in France and recent statements about refugees and Islam by European politicians and the pope, then turns to Marion Le Pen and the French Catholic reaction.
I think it's too little, too late: How much of France is still really Catholic? I've heard the term "culturally Catholic" to describe western European Catholics who are really secular and often atheists. So, maybe the small number of real French Catholics are willing to stand up against violent jihad, but what about the rest of France?
On the other hand, I really know little of European politics. Maybe it's true that while there is life there is hope.
If the Islamic State wants to renew the Crusades by attacking churches and killing priests, Catholic France won’t run from the fight.
And then:
Whatever the extent of Western reluctance or prudence, the truth is there’s no better way to shake Europe out of what many now see as its guilt-ridden paralysis than to assault French Catholicism — the oldest, most ingrained force that transcends nationalism in Europe’s most powerful proud nation.
It's an interesting and brief article that discusses the history of Catholicism in France and recent statements about refugees and Islam by European politicians and the pope, then turns to Marion Le Pen and the French Catholic reaction.
I think it's too little, too late: How much of France is still really Catholic? I've heard the term "culturally Catholic" to describe western European Catholics who are really secular and often atheists. So, maybe the small number of real French Catholics are willing to stand up against violent jihad, but what about the rest of France?
On the other hand, I really know little of European politics. Maybe it's true that while there is life there is hope.
Seventy Years Since
The Battle of Athens ought to be an inspiration to us all -- if only we all knew about it.
It Was Over A Hundred This Afternoon....
...in the country.
I imagine it was right brutal in the city.
I imagine it was right brutal in the city.
The Elitist Elites Rally Against The Donald
Joe Bob Briggs, drive in movie reviewer to the stars, writes about journalists' treatment of Donald Trump. I'm going to quote only one of his points about the way the self-appointed elite gatekeepers of our democracy view Trump.
Meanwhile, the President of the United States himself has come out to declare the opposition party's candidate manifestly unfit to serve. It's hard to get more elite than the sitting President, and he's simply declaring that the opponent's candidate should be dismissed outright from consideration.
Now, I also happen to think that Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit for the office he's seeking. I also think that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is morally unfit for the same office. Of the two, I regard a defect in moral character as the more disqualifying.
Still, it's a predictable brouhaha in a way. Donald Trump, the billionaire, has somehow become the voice of the anti-establishment movement. The whole establishment is united against him. They're united against him in a more vocal way than we've ever yet seen.
I suppose that means they think he's going to win. You only pull out all the stops like this when you're terrified of what's about to happen.
But let’s cut to the chase and look at what I’m calling the Big Eight. Of all the words used by the press to describe Donald Trump, the million-hit wonders are these:You should read the rest, which is at Taki's magazine in the UK.
bully 1.4 million
self-obsessed 2.5 million
vicious 9.1 million
rude 13.3 million
cruel 13.3 million
liar 16.2 million
angry 19.3 million
And the winner—drum roll, please:
idiot 20.5 million
Notice that five of the eight are internal attributes, only one can be fact-checked, and the most popular epithet of them all is the last refuge of sputtering incoherent rage. It’s reminiscent of the old Saturday Night Live routine, with Dan Aykroyd responding to anything Jane Curtin said with, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
Meanwhile, the President of the United States himself has come out to declare the opposition party's candidate manifestly unfit to serve. It's hard to get more elite than the sitting President, and he's simply declaring that the opponent's candidate should be dismissed outright from consideration.
Now, I also happen to think that Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit for the office he's seeking. I also think that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is morally unfit for the same office. Of the two, I regard a defect in moral character as the more disqualifying.
Still, it's a predictable brouhaha in a way. Donald Trump, the billionaire, has somehow become the voice of the anti-establishment movement. The whole establishment is united against him. They're united against him in a more vocal way than we've ever yet seen.
I suppose that means they think he's going to win. You only pull out all the stops like this when you're terrified of what's about to happen.
A Purely Personal Note About the Protests
So, in addition to the things I've written previously, I want to note for the record that protesters like me on sight. Not everyone usually does. I'm not the sort of person who comes by protests often, but they really appreciated that I was there. They were vocal about it.
Whole years go by without someone complimenting my appearance, but I had a pretty young lady come up and shake my hand emphatically. "You're just so cool," she said.
At the Black Men for Bernie protest, one of the Black Men for Bernie came up to me and said, "What's up, my brother with the best beard ever?" He proved, in a few seconds conversation, to have accurately guessed that I'd been to Iraq. I'm not sure what he was picking up on -- I wasn't wearing my "Baghdad Summer Camp" T-shirt.
I also met a very nice, older lesbian couple who had spent their younger years as trappers in the north, and were now raising exotic plant species. They were great fun to talk to, worried about corporate influence on our elections but very much in favor of the freedom to wander the forests.
There was also a reporter I met from Australia, who said he was working for their version of VICE. He was a fun guy to hang out with and swap stories. His opinion was that these protests were proof that, for the first time in a while, personal character had become a real issue in an American Presidential election. The rise of third parties wasn't mostly about ideology, but about the fact that both major party nominees were really bad people.
He was right about that, I think. For a while, I was carrying a sign somebody gave me that read, "Which Liar Do You Trust?"
It does seem to be the relevant question this year.
Whole years go by without someone complimenting my appearance, but I had a pretty young lady come up and shake my hand emphatically. "You're just so cool," she said.
At the Black Men for Bernie protest, one of the Black Men for Bernie came up to me and said, "What's up, my brother with the best beard ever?" He proved, in a few seconds conversation, to have accurately guessed that I'd been to Iraq. I'm not sure what he was picking up on -- I wasn't wearing my "Baghdad Summer Camp" T-shirt.
I also met a very nice, older lesbian couple who had spent their younger years as trappers in the north, and were now raising exotic plant species. They were great fun to talk to, worried about corporate influence on our elections but very much in favor of the freedom to wander the forests.
There was also a reporter I met from Australia, who said he was working for their version of VICE. He was a fun guy to hang out with and swap stories. His opinion was that these protests were proof that, for the first time in a while, personal character had become a real issue in an American Presidential election. The rise of third parties wasn't mostly about ideology, but about the fact that both major party nominees were really bad people.
He was right about that, I think. For a while, I was carrying a sign somebody gave me that read, "Which Liar Do You Trust?"
It does seem to be the relevant question this year.
No, These Do Not Constitute 'Similarities'
This guy is apparently both a Ph.D. and a "retired senior military officer," so he claims.
At one point I had a computer program glance over the page, and it found that less than 1% of the posts and commentary in the Hall included profanity. My capacity to keep up those standards is being intensely pressured by nonsense like this.
Contentious as it might sound, there are significant similarities between the Islamic State terrorist organization, ISIS, and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Of course there are differences as well, but examining issues of congruence adds another dimension to the gun violence controversy.I hardly know where to begin. Fear and intimidation? Defy ISIS and they'll murder a hundred people in cafes in your peaceful city. Defy the NRA, and you'll get lots of angry postcards.
The most important parallels between ISIS and the NRA are:
- Institutionally, both organizations are remorseless about the deaths of victims
- Both use fear and intimidation to obtain their objectives
- Both assume their ideology is superior to the wishes of the majority of citizens
- Both have intensely loyal followers
- Both recruit and indoctrinate members who are ignorant of the basic facts
- Both are relatively small organizations that have impact far beyond their size
- Neither organization will apologize for the harm they cause
At one point I had a computer program glance over the page, and it found that less than 1% of the posts and commentary in the Hall included profanity. My capacity to keep up those standards is being intensely pressured by nonsense like this.
Oh, Really?
Vox is worried that Trump's talk about a "rigged election" could take a sledgehammer to the bedrock of America's faith in democracy.
I'd have thought it was the DNC's proven rigging of elections that was undermining faith in the fairness of elections. I mean, the only reason Trump doesn't sound paranoid is that you've just proven that you Vox types are totally on board with actively rigging elections -- and also totally on board with making sure no one suffers any consequences for it, as long as they're on your side.
I'd have thought it was the DNC's proven rigging of elections that was undermining faith in the fairness of elections. I mean, the only reason Trump doesn't sound paranoid is that you've just proven that you Vox types are totally on board with actively rigging elections -- and also totally on board with making sure no one suffers any consequences for it, as long as they're on your side.
Not Just A Right, But A Duty
D29 has an important distinction on the matter of defense:
In any case, it is worth making clear that the right to defense is only part of the issue. A duty also exists in some cases. We are less responsible for the defense of our fellow citizens than for our family members, but I'm not sure there ought not to be a moral duty of citizens to defend one another as well. Just as we say that you must stop and render aid and assistance in the case of an accident, ought you not to aid your fellows if you find them being robbed or beaten?
'Ought implies can,' so the duty is less onerous for those who are less capable. Yet this is a good reason for an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment: we are all more capable if we keep and bear arms, especially if they are arms in which we regularly train.
Turning the other cheek is the counsel Christ gave in the instance of an individual when morally insulted: Humility conquers pride. It has nothing to do with self-defense.Presumably, outside of Catholic circles, we would say that the mother has an equal responsibility rather than standing on the idea of complementarianism. I leave that decision to you each to make for yourselves. I can see arguments for complementarianism in some spheres, of which the family is perhaps the most obvious. Still, even there, there is something to be said for the liberty for families to order themselves without much if any external interference. There is no greater space for liberty than the human family, which is a genuinely pre-political structure that politics should not, in general, intrude upon. There may be exceptions to that principle, but I am suspicious of the business of crafting exceptions to it. The argument for each particular exception would need to be quite strong.
The Catholic Church has always maintained that the defiance of an evil force is not only a right but an obligation. Its Catechism (cf. #2265) cites St. Thomas Aquinas: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State.”
A father is culpable if he does not protect his family.
In any case, it is worth making clear that the right to defense is only part of the issue. A duty also exists in some cases. We are less responsible for the defense of our fellow citizens than for our family members, but I'm not sure there ought not to be a moral duty of citizens to defend one another as well. Just as we say that you must stop and render aid and assistance in the case of an accident, ought you not to aid your fellows if you find them being robbed or beaten?
'Ought implies can,' so the duty is less onerous for those who are less capable. Yet this is a good reason for an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment: we are all more capable if we keep and bear arms, especially if they are arms in which we regularly train.
Texas Readers Take Note
Six nights of the Reverend Horton Heat at the Continental Club in Austin.
The undisputed Godfather of Psychobilly, The Reverend Horton Heat, invites its congregation to join them this October in Austin, TX for six white-hot nights as the legendary Continental Club is transformed to The Continental Church Of The Reverend Horton Heat.That's going to be an amazing set of shows.
For the first time ever in its historic 50 years plus existence a band will be selling out 6 consecutive nights of shows, guaranteeing this event’s rightful place in Austin’s music and folklore history.
Making the event even more special, each show will feature a unique line up with some VERY SPECIAL guest artists and bands.
Get ready… as hot rods, lowriders and choppers descend on South Congress to The Continental Church of The Reverend Horton Heat.
A Hunch about the Democrats' Foreign Policy
I suspect Obama's Iran deal and Hillary's support for Russian weapons development are parts of a strategy to limit the power of the United States and force US politics to focus on domestic issues, where Democrats believe they are strong and Republicans are weak.
Generally, Republicans are more focused on foreign involvement, and Democrats on domestic involvement. If the Democrats can make foreign involvement much less meaningful, then they force US politics to focus on the Democrats' strengths.
By helping Iran and Russia become militarily powerful nations, they make the stakes for US military involvement overseas much, much higher. In addition, weakening relations with our traditional military allies also limits us. Doing these things will almost certainly lead to a much lower probability of US military action in those regions. This can be used to claim we don't need as much military power and then to reduce our forces, which will further limit our options. (As a bonus, the military is a hotbed of Republican support, so reducing it is always good for Democrats.)
Given our own weakness in the face of powerful foreign forces, they can then, quite reasonably, claim that since we can't do much about what foreign nations do, we should focus on social justice here. Voila! The entire national debate shifts dramatically.
It's just a hunch, though.
Generally, Republicans are more focused on foreign involvement, and Democrats on domestic involvement. If the Democrats can make foreign involvement much less meaningful, then they force US politics to focus on the Democrats' strengths.
By helping Iran and Russia become militarily powerful nations, they make the stakes for US military involvement overseas much, much higher. In addition, weakening relations with our traditional military allies also limits us. Doing these things will almost certainly lead to a much lower probability of US military action in those regions. This can be used to claim we don't need as much military power and then to reduce our forces, which will further limit our options. (As a bonus, the military is a hotbed of Republican support, so reducing it is always good for Democrats.)
Given our own weakness in the face of powerful foreign forces, they can then, quite reasonably, claim that since we can't do much about what foreign nations do, we should focus on social justice here. Voila! The entire national debate shifts dramatically.
It's just a hunch, though.
Of Course She Doesn't Want to "Repeal" It
Hillary Clinton claims she doesn't want to 'repeal' the Second Amendment.
Of course she doesn't. Repealing it would require a supermajority vote of the legislature, followed by ratification by numerous states. That's exactly the kind of democracy she opposes as insufficiently submissive to the whims of the elite.
What she wants is to appoint a reliable majority to the Supreme court that will redefine the Second Amendment so that it says what she wants it to say. We shall all have the right to keep and bear arms insofar as we belong to an official state militia, none of which shall be allowed as the National Guard is a perfectly appropriate substitute for them. It won't be repealed, just interpreted in a way that ensures that none of us can appeal to it for any legal reason whatsoever.
Of course she doesn't. Repealing it would require a supermajority vote of the legislature, followed by ratification by numerous states. That's exactly the kind of democracy she opposes as insufficiently submissive to the whims of the elite.
What she wants is to appoint a reliable majority to the Supreme court that will redefine the Second Amendment so that it says what she wants it to say. We shall all have the right to keep and bear arms insofar as we belong to an official state militia, none of which shall be allowed as the National Guard is a perfectly appropriate substitute for them. It won't be repealed, just interpreted in a way that ensures that none of us can appeal to it for any legal reason whatsoever.
Death to Wells Fargo
I don't especially like when corporations go after gun rights, and I'd be only too happy to see a few heads on pikes as a warning to others. A company that goes after knife manufacturers, though: that's a bridge too far. Now it's not about the particular dangers of guns of this or that type. You're just opposed to weapons. To be opposed to weapons is not to oppose the human right of self-defense. It's just to oppose the tools that would make such a right realizable.
It's like favoring voting rights, but being opposed to polling stations.
It's like favoring freedom of speech, but being against people being allowed to keep their tongues.
It's like favoring freedom of religion, but opposing anyone building a church.
Corporations that try to destroy the practical realization of any of our freedoms deserve to be destroyed in turn.
It's like favoring voting rights, but being opposed to polling stations.
It's like favoring freedom of speech, but being against people being allowed to keep their tongues.
It's like favoring freedom of religion, but opposing anyone building a church.
Corporations that try to destroy the practical realization of any of our freedoms deserve to be destroyed in turn.
The Glories of Obamacare Continue to Shine
That grandfathered plan I have had since the enactment of this monstrosity we call Obamacare is being canceled next year. The company just doesn't want to offer it any longer, though I was promised that 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.' They're offering a similar plan, with the much-smaller network associated with Obamacare, for only 122% of the price of my current plan.
Of course, "you should know changing your health care plan will cause you to lose your grandfathered status -- and under the health care law, you can't get it back."
So, I have the option of changing my plan and losing that status, or having the plan canceled out from under me and replaced with a much more expensive one that isn't nearly as good.
UPDATE: I should add that this plan has more or less doubled in price since 2010 already. At this point, I'd be paying nearly three times the original rate for less access to health care.
Maybe this monster worked for somebody, but from my perspective Obama's signature legislative accomplishment has been an unmitigated disaster.
Of course, "you should know changing your health care plan will cause you to lose your grandfathered status -- and under the health care law, you can't get it back."
So, I have the option of changing my plan and losing that status, or having the plan canceled out from under me and replaced with a much more expensive one that isn't nearly as good.
UPDATE: I should add that this plan has more or less doubled in price since 2010 already. At this point, I'd be paying nearly three times the original rate for less access to health care.
Maybe this monster worked for somebody, but from my perspective Obama's signature legislative accomplishment has been an unmitigated disaster.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)