What Becomes of the Irish Borders?

Following Brexit, Ireland wonders if its borders are going to become tense again. They aren't now.

Worked So Well on the "Iran Deal"

The Washington Post reports that “President Obama has decided to seek a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would call for an end to nuclear testing.” Going to the Security Council could represent a deliberate effort to bypass the Senate, which rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999. Despite Obama’s adamant support for CTBT, senior officials have consistently pledged to pursue a nuclear test ban by means of a bipartisan dialogue with the Senate. Any effort to enact a test ban through the Security Council without the consent of the Senate would both violate these promises and subvert the checks and balances that enable lawmakers to restrain presidents in matters of national security.

The way this worked last year was that the President got the UN Security Council to pass Resolution 2231, which ratified the so-called "Iran deal." Only then did he submit it to Congress for ratification, and without providing the full text along with any side deals as required by the Corker-Cardin law. Then, the Democrats filibustered the resolution of disapproval, so that the 'deal' was deemed to have passed without the Senate ever taking a vote on it at all.

Of course, the next President will be free to walk away from that 'deal,' since it was not ratified as a proper treaty. It's non-binding on Obama's successor, and if the UN doesn't like it they can go jump. Knowing this, the President is all in on electing his chosen successor, in the hope that she will continue his policy. (Good luck with trusting Hillary Clinton to keep her word once she doesn't need you any more, chief.)

Lacking willing Republican suckers to play along, the President won't be able to smuggle this one in on a filibuster. But he can still force his successors to be subject to the rhetorical cudgel that they have violated an agreement ratified by their ambassador at the UN. All he can accomplish here is to hand a weapon to America's enemies on the world stage.

So that's what he's going to do.

Marksmanship Update

Most of the US Rio golds have come from marksmanship, which isn't too surprising. America has one of the last true gun cultures in the modern world, as well as the resources to train people who come up in it to high levels of expertise. It turns out there's more of a military connection than you might have guessed from the use of air rifles, though.

The United States has won more Olympic medals in marksmanship than almost any other sport, and Army Soldiers make up more than a third of the team. This year, five Soldiers will be competing in the Rio Olympics.

2016 Olympic Qualified Soldiers

Sgt. 1st Class Glen Eller
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in double trap
Won a gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics and has competed in four previous Olympic Games

Sgt. 1st Class Michael McPhail
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in men’s 50-meter rifle prone
Competed in the 2012 London Olympics

Sgt. 1st Class Josh Richmond
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in double trap during the May 2016 Shotgun Olympic Trials in Tillar, Arkansas
Competed in the 2012 London Olympics

Spc. Daniel Lowe
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in Air Rifle by winning the 2016 Air Olympic Trials June 3-5 at Camp Perry, Ohio
This will be his first Olympics

Sgt. 1st Class Keith Sanderson
Earned a 2016 Olympic Team nomination in 25-meter rapid fire pistol
Rio will be his third Olympic appearance

The Army apparently takes this Olympic shooting stuff seriously, and provides real support to potential Olympians.

A Contrast in Cultures

An essay, with photos, of the very different uniforms employed by the women's volleyball teams of Egypt and Germany. It strikes me that the Egyptians are competing at a major disadvantage, although it is wintertime in Brazil.

(Ironic, given that this is the summer Olympics, but it's true.)

Still, this will probably resolve itself. The way Germany is going, they'll be competing in burqinis any day now.

John Pilger on Obama & Clinton

This harsh criticism from the Left, by veteran Australian correspondent John Pilger, sounds very much like things I heard at the Philly rallies. I transmit it for that reason.

Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.

In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama. He is “modernising” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable”....

In Asia, the Pentagon is sending ships, planes and special forces to the Philippines to threaten China. The US already encircles China with hundreds of military bases that curve in an arc up from Australia, to Asia and across to Afghanistan. Obama calls this a “pivot”.

As a direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear weapons policy from no-first-use to high alert and put to sea submarines with nuclear weapons. The escalator is quickening.

It was Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State in 2010, elevated the competing territorial claims for rocks and reef in the South China Sea to an international issue; CNN and BBC hysteria followed; China was building airstrips on the disputed islands. In a mammoth war game in 2015, Operation Talisman Sabre, the US and Australia practiced “choking” the Straits of Malacca through which pass most of China’s oil and trade. This was not news.

Clinton declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian waters. The Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue their claims and old enmities against China. In America, people are being primed to see any Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so the ground is laid for rapid escalation. A similar strategy of provocation and propaganda is applied to Russia.

Clinton, the “women’s candidate”, leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine – literally, borderland – that Hitler’s Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton’s presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world’s ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close.

The "Rorke's Drift Paras"

This is one of the great stories of military history.

For nearly two months, the 88 men of Easy Company – a mix of Paratroopers and the Royal Irish – had faced the overwhelming force and firepower of up to 500 Taliban determined to over-run the remote Helmand outpost of Musa Qala....

Hungry and frequently at the point of exhaustion, they were forced to somehow fend off 360-degree attacks from the Taliban, with little protection beyond a series of low mud walls.

They used up a quarter of all the British Army’s Afghan ammunition for that entire year.

There's going to be a documentary that ought to be worth the candle.

Bang, Bang

American women shooters are tearing it up at the Olympics this year. Corey Cogdell took bronze in trap.

I'd pair that with a good mass-produced American brew, but not a light beer. It's only a bronze, after all. It's not the very best there is. But it's not nothing, either. Maybe a PBR, or a full-strength Coors.

Drink/Thought Pairings

So, I guess we are doing this. Co-bloggers are encouraged to suggest a drink to go along with the thought or reflection they are proposing to the Hall. It can be fancy, like Tom's suggestion of Chianti Classico, or brutal, like my suggestion of Jerry Rum. I trust you're all experienced hands.

Well, That's Inconvenient

Regarding Galileo, "The Inquisition followed sound science," according to the Boston Globe.

There's an issue about punctuation.

The Hell You Say

The government’s top watchdog revealed in a new report that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) essentially maintained a database of law-abiding gun owners by ignoring its own policies.... FFLs are required to report to the ATF the names of customers who purchase multiple firearms at once. ATF is supposed to keep the names on file for no longer than two years, after which policies require that the agency remove identifying information about the buyers if the firearms haven’t been linked to a crime.

But for more than two decades, the agency has failed to comply with the privacy protection policies with regularity.

How shocking.

Porco Rosso

On the topics of honor and Eric's series of anime, let me mention Porco Rosso, the Crimson Pig:

It's Hayao Miyazake again. The story is about Porco, a self-employed fighter pilot who also happens to be a pig, in the Mediterranean in the 1930s. He used to be Marco, a human pilot. He and his best friend joined the Italian air force to become fighter pilots in World War I, but his best friend, and most of his squadron, was killed in combat. This is the spell that turned Marco into Porco. (All of the dates and countries are rough analogues; the story is not intended to be historical, but merely rhyme with history.)

Porco is a bounty hunter who hunts pirates, of which there is no shortage. He is challenged by a man the pirate gangs hired to take him out. Honor compels him to the fight. Along the way, he is helped by Fio, a young woman who turns out to be a budding young aviation engineer, and she gets involved in the duel. In part for his own honor, and in part to save her, he stakes everything on one dogfight.

For her part, designing the best amphibian fighter plane in the world is Fio's challenge, and also finding the answer to whether or not Porco can be saved from his spell.

It is worth watching for the imagery, the music, and the story. You will not be enlightened, but who says every movie must make you rethink your life?

One caveat: In an odd juxtaposition, the early part of the movie is much more for children than the latter part. When I first saw the early part, I thought, oh, that's cute. After seeing this movie several times, I just put up with the first part in order to get to the story I'm interested in. It's a good time to make popcorn.

A second caveat: There is a point in the movie where a good friend is asking Porco not to get into this fight. In the translation, Porco replies: "A pig's gotta fly." However, the actual Japanese is: 飛ばない豚はただの豚だ. "A pig who doesn't fly is just a pig."

I understand the difficulties of translating for a movie. You have to get the meaning across, but also stick to the time allowed the scene. However, the Japanese reply carries a deeper meaning in the context of Porco's transformation from human to pig, and his insistence on personal honor when his friends have died in a lost battle and things like national honor and pride have been demolished.

UPDATE: Normally, I suppose, you watch the movie and then review it, but I had seen it maybe half a dozen times, maybe more, so I didn't bother to watch it again before posting this. I didn't intend to watch it again today, but after posting I couldn't get it out of my mind, and I had a bottle of Italian wine in the cupboard ... The children's part is shorter than I had remembered, and the whole story does depend on personal honor. The topic is brought up at several points in the story. Also, during this time Italy is turning to fascism, which is one reason why Porco doesn't return to the air force, and why he can no longer rely on national pride or honor, but only the honor of one man, er, pig, standing against the world. (Really, one man and one woman.)

I watch it in Japanese, so maybe I'm not the best one to offer advice here. In considering a non-Japanese-speaking audience, I tried watching it dubbed in English, but Michael Keaton's voice was jarring. He may be Batman, but Porco? I don't think so. I recommend it in Japanese with English subtitles if you don't mind subtitles. If you do mind subtitles, well, Michael Keaton's not terrible.

If you are the type who matches movies with drinks, allow me to recommend the Gabbiano Chianti Classico for a richer taste, or the Placido Chianti for a smoother taste, for this movie.

"A Good Gift For Bad People"

Yo.


I strive to be an honorable man, but increasingly I wonder if that is always consistent with being a good man. We all know that mafias have honor codes, but aren't good men in spite of living by these codes. It's an interesting question. Assuming for the moment that honor and goodness don't always line up, which one should be preferred? Alternatively, can you give an account of why they should always line up, one that would explain that codes like the mafia's aren't really honorable?

You might want to have a drink while considering the question. It's the kind of thing we live or die by.

Howling at Nothing

Flying Boats.



That Macchi M33 was a sweet design.

Okay, You Tell Me, Then

Yesterday I suggested a way to change Conservative rhetoric to create openings to persuade Progressives, but the comments mostly agreed that it was too late for persuasion:

raven: I have given up, and I largely avoid them. I do not believe they can be trusted, not on any grounds of compassion, but because they accept orders unconditionally, and will perform mental contortions to reconcile the new belief with the old. The gulag is the gulag and they always end up putting their opponents there....

Mississippi: Wow, I back Raven's comments. She is correct. Progressives are smug. They deem non-progressives as inferior....

Eric Blair: I think Raven has the sense of it....

Krag: I view this as an exercise in extreme futility. I think we are far past reconciliation with the left. The views for the future are too different for one nation to move forward. One side has to win, through bloody means, before America will take any more steps forward....

Anonymous: I disagree. Progressives are a manifestation of arrested development and the infantile, Nietzschean "will to power," unrestrained by any sense of reason born of maturity, discipline, reason, or Christian temperance. ... I have become convinced that this cannot be reasoned with....

So what have you tried? What convinced you that persuasion isn't possible?

And what's your solution? Or, if you don't think there's a solution, how do you think things will play out?

Don't Tread On Me

[By Lexicon, Vikrum - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1440653.]
So, before today, did any of you know that Gadsden owned slaves?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is gathering information to determine whether the iconic Gadsden flag is racist and punishable under federal workplace harassment regulations.

The impetus was a Jan. 8, 2014, complaint brought by a black federal employee who was upset by his coworker’s hat, which bore the flag.

The individual who filed the complaint did so because the flag is allegedly an “indicator of white resentment against blacks,” specifically tied to the tea party movement, and that its creator, South Carolina statesmen Christopher Gadsden, owned slaves.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who specializes in First Amendment issues and runs a blog for The Washington Post, wrote that the case includes no evidence that racial epithets were ever uttered — though some details of the case are not revealed due to secret proceedings — and the EEOC acknowledged that Gadsden created the flag “in a nonracial context” prior to the Revolutionary War.

How likely is it that someone displaying a Gadsden flag knew that Gadsden was a slave-owner if we didn't? I would like to point out that the word "slave" doesn't appear anywhere on the Wikipedia entry for the Gadsden flag. I therefore reason that your average American displaying the flag probably isn't thinking of race or slavery. They're thinking of rebellion against an overweening government.

And that's downright American. It's the core of what America is all about.

Sounds Reasonable

Pentagon kills defense reporter after toddler falls into press enclosure:

ARLINGTON, Va. — Members of the national press and the military are in shock today after a small child fell into the Pentagon’s press enclosure and officials were forced to shoot and kill a 35-year old reporter to protect the child.

I know this sounds like a drastic measure, and PETA is already up in arms, but once you know all the facts, it just makes sense.

A Hunch about Persuading Progressives to Change

Progressivism is a moral philosophy: Progress is, finally, moral progress. We get there through a process of evolution, which is very slow and very messy. Each generation may only make a little Progress. We know our society is making Progress because we are rewarded, overall, with better lives and a more just society.

Progressives live in a very simple, but powerful, moral world:

• Progressives care about other people, especially the poor, the helpless, and the victims of injustice.
• Conservatives are selfish and myopic; they often can't even see injustice.

• Progressives are generous, good-hearted people willing to sacrifice for others.
• Conservatives are greedy and only want to improve the lot of themselves and their own kind.

• Progressives are open-minded, willing to explore new ideas, and willing to accept strangers as fellow-travelers on the road to a better future.
• Conservatives are close-minded: they are afraid of new ideas, and they are afraid of strangers.

One of the reasons it is difficult to change minds is that we have this ideal of reasoning toward a good conclusion, but that's not how most people work. People work from a general paradigm, a view of how the world works. If you share their worldview, then you can get somewhere through reason. However, if you do not, if your worldview is quite different, they will write off your arguments as violations of how the world works. They won't even really consider them; they can't and still hold on to their identity.

Reading Tex's experiences with Obamacare is gut-wrenching. But when I've talked to Progressives about the problems with the law, in the end, it comes down to their sense of identity: Progressives care about other people and they are generous. Obamacare, then, is a good-hearted law designed to help the needy, and it has some flaws that should be fixed. In the end, neither the problems the program has caused nor the hazards of increased government control over our lives has made any difference to Progressives because they believe it's a generous law that will (when corrected) really help the disadvantaged. These things take time, you know. Evolution is a messy process.

Progressives are also humble. They are more than willing to admit mistakes. Sometimes their hearts overrule their heads and, overcome with a tremendous desire to help others, they don't think everything through and just rush to help. But we can fix those mistakes and make things better. Just watch.

You see, no matter what the Conservative's argument is, until it gets to the heart, it doesn't really matter. Progressive thought always ends up in the heart as its last defense: We care about others; we're generous; we're open-minded; in the end, through messy evolutionary processes, this will all work out for the better. This is the inner fortress of Progressive identity.

To really change a Progressive's mind, then, we need to challenge this identity. We have to show not just that their policies are harmful, but that they are heartless. We have to indict them as selfish and close-minded, more concerned with power than actually helping anyone. We have to show them that evolution is blind.

I think if we do that, we can create real openings.

The second part is one of of Khun's rules: No matter how problematic one's worldview is, no one abandons it until they can see a new, better paradigm to replace it with. We need to have a clear replacement to offer them, one that focuses on selflessness, service, generosity, genuine charity (in the old caritas / love they neighbor sense) and making the world a better place. I think Conservatives in general need to have a much better understanding of their own ideals and their own moral values, and they need to be able to articulate them clearly and succinctly. We each need our elevator speech, and we need to be able to back it up with in-depth discussions at the coffee house and pub.

Of course, this is just a hunch.

95 Is The Dividing Line

If you're experiencing any existential crises, your motorcycle may lead you out of them. Your motorcycle will guide you past them, but only once you gear it up over 95. That's for a bike without windshield or fairing. I assume those things raise the point at which you have no choice but to focus your attention on the bike and nothing else.

At some point I am going to have a talk with the Good Lord about why He built the world in such a way that these things are necessary. But maybe He did it just so we could ride motorcycles like this in something like good conscience. Not all the time. Mostly it's a sin that I've ridden this way, and Lord knows I've ridden like this a lot.

Maybe this time it's all right.

Or just as possibly, it may... be... not.

Well, I confess my sins to you.