MLK Day

One of Dr. King's remarks was addressed against what he called "white moderates," the progressives of his day. This is from the "Letter from the Birmingham Jail."

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.'

I have an obvious sympathy for the sentiment. Sometimes it is necessary to do radical things when you find the government, or indeed power of any human kind, resolutely on the side of injustice.

How radical? MLK's niece declares that she voted for Trump. That's a deep cleaving cut from the party of the "white moderates," of whom Hillary Clinton was the most recent and most iconic avatar.

UPDATE: MLK's son meets with Trump at Trump Tower, says good things about both Trump and Lewis. Radical days indeed.

This Was An Insult?

I mean, you know, he could use a bigger beard.

No Snakes in Iceland

Lars Walker's review of this book is quite complementary, and suggests that many of us might enjoy it.

Burning Up the Stage

Apparently our boy Sturgill decided to throw down on SNL this weekend.

Well, won't we all....

These guys are just toooo cute, by half.

The Non-Stick Axe

You will want to get yours today.

The Government as Vandal

Stonehenge is an irreplacable archaeological treasure. One of the known facts about it is that much of its meaning has to do with the things that were underneath it. In addition, of course, over time even structures that were originally on the surface pass underground -- that is why we speak of archaeological "digs."

So why not build a subway under it?

Light pollution at one end of the tunnel will obscure the view of sunset on the winter solstice -- one of the most important dates at Stonehenge -- when thousands gather to celebrate the shortest day of the year.

And experts believe major archaeological treasures hidden beneath the surrounding landscape could be lost forever.

"Recent finds show this place is the birthplace of Britain, and its origins go back to the resettlement of this island after the Ice Age," historian and author Tom Holland, who opposes the plan, told CNN....

The government, though, is determined to press ahead with the scheme.

"Therefore your end is on you,
Is on you and your kings,
Not for a fire in Ely fen,
Not that your gods are nine or ten,
But because it is only Christian men
Guard even heathen things."

Launch

SpaceX suffered a disappointing setback with last fall's pad explosion, but yesterday it successfully completed a launch that put 10 new Iridium satellites into orbit.

Comey under fire

Around my neighborhood lately, we've been discussing whether James Comey can be fired as director of the FBI.  I gather this may not be crystal clear, but there's reason to think he can:

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The statutory basis for the present nomination and confirmation process was developed in 1968 and 1976, and has been used since the death of J. Edgar Hoover in 1972. Over this time, seven nominations have been confirmed and two have been withdrawn by the President before confirmation. The position of FBI Director has a fixed 10-year term, and the officeholder cannot be reappointed, unless Congress acts to allow a second appointment of the incumbent. There are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI Director. Since 1972, one Director has been removed by the President.

President Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions, who had been appointed by President Reagan. It seems that the post-J. Edgar Hoover arrangements for a fixed 10-year term were aimed at preventing unreasonably long tenures. Congress must consent, as it did in the case of Director Mueller in 2011, to any extension of a term. There is no equivalent Congressional veto over a presidential firing, nor can Congress get rid of an FBI director other than by impeachment.

Good guy from Samaria

A "Good Samaritan" is one of those back-handed compliments, like saying "He's a good guy for trailer trash."  People from Samaria weren't expected to amount to anything.  Anyway, here's an inspiring Good Samaritan story that sounds like the people involved are all being awfully discrete, um, that is, of course I mean to say "discreet."  A state trooper trying to come to the aid of a woman ejected from a car in a highway accident comes under deadly attack from a guy who may have been behind the wheel.  A passing motorist stops and, hearing confirmation from the trooper that, yes, he sure does need help, shoots and kills the attacker, then promptly and correctly uses the trooper's radio to bring help to an accurate location.  The trooper's boss expresses his appreciation while carefully avoiding the release of any information about the hero, who sounds like a man who's been around the block a few times and is instantly being treated like a real or honorary insider.  Good on him, and on the state troopers, too.

On the Deep, Deep Wrongness of Buzzfeed

You probably think I want to talk about that Trump dossier, but I don't want to talk about that at all. I want to talk about their list of Best Irish Pubs in Each State. An outlet that goes this wrong on such a simple topic can't be trusted to get anything else correct.

“Great food, service and atmosphere. The sausage crack dip and the fish and chips were amazing.”
“We split the fried grouper sandwich, and their version of a club sandwich — and both were incredible.”

In Georgia, they named Shenanigan's Irish Pub in Dahlonega (home of Georgia's military college, the University of North Georgia, as well as the first gold rush in the United States). As it happens, I've eaten at Shenanigan's several times, most recently last night. It's a perfectly fine college bar with a few Irish pub trappings. The food is good. The beer selection is not horrible. Still, there's no dart board. The music is not Irish. The food is almost entirely non-Irish, too, mostly just American pub grub with a couple of 'Irish Pub' standby options.

I mean, it's fine. You can go there, you'll have a good time, you'll enjoy your meal, and there's a dog-friendly area on the patio so you can bring your pup along with you. There's nothing wrong with it.

However.

In the city of Savannah stands Kevin Barry's Pub. Kevin Barry was a teenager executed by the British in 1920 for Republican activities. There's a picture of him on the second floor in Liberty Hall, along with other major figures of the Irish revolution. The rest of the second floor is taken up with the Hall of Heroes, dedicated to the United States military to which Irish families have contributed so much, where portraits of fallen servicemen (and at least one woman) line the walls along with flags and unit memorabilia. By the portraits of the fallen are wire hooks designed to hold glasses of whiskey, which their comrades often buy for them and hang there until they evaporate.

On the first floor is a large music hall, in which one of the best Irish musicians in the American South plays every night. My favorite of them, Harry O'Donoghue, will be there next on 20 February.

One of these places is the real thing. The other got some nice reviews on Yelp. Buzzfeed can't tell the difference, and that's a huge problem with the kind of journalism that they represent.

Tab Dump Before Pizza

Interesting tabs I have open but don't have time to write much about ... and pizza is calling.

This is long, so I'll put most of this below the fold. Here's a preview:

Michael Wolff's "The Trump Establishment's Cultural Significance, Explained"

Kurt Schlichter's "Sorry but Our Fight against Liberal Fascism Has Only Just Begun"

Robert McReynolds, "Empire, American Style,"

Plus, Princess Leia, vintage air travel maps, and a huge trove of declassified CIA maps.

ESR on Soviet Ideological Warfare against the US

In 2006, Eric S. Raymond discussed "ideological warfare" used against the United States by her enemies. I ran across this recently and it's an interesting article.

I disagree with his claim that Americans don't expect ideas to matter because what really matters is material prosperity. That is, we think crime, terrorism, etc., are the effects of economic problems, not ideology. That probably is the view of secularists, who became increasingly numerous from the late 19th century on, but not of all Americans. However, his point is to debunk the view that ideology and ideas don't have consequences, so I am happy he's on my side (ideas have consequences) overall.

The interesting part begins with:

By contrast, ideological and memetic warfare has been a favored tactic for all of America’s three great adversaries of the last hundred years — Nazis, Communists, and Islamists. All three put substantial effort into cultivating American proxies to influence U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy in favorable directions. Yes, the Nazis did this, through organizations like the “German-American Bund” that was outlawed when World War II went hot. Today, the Islamists are having some success at manipulating our politics through fairly transparent front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

But it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against “the main adversary”, the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs.


...

On a different level, in the 1930s members of CPUSA (the Communist Party of the USA) got instructions from Moscow to promote non-representational art so that the US’s public spaces would become arid and ugly.

Americans hearing that last one tend to laugh. But the Soviets, following the lead of Marxist theoreticians like Antonio Gramsci, took very seriously the idea that by blighting the U.S.’s intellectual and esthetic life, they could sap Americans’ will to resist Communist ideology and an eventual Communist takeover. The explicit goal was to erode the confidence of America’s ruling class and create an ideological vacuum to be filled by Marxism-Leninism.

And they've been very successful. Below are some of the ideas Raymond identifies as promoted by Soviet disinformation programs.

Fight Like a 6-Year-Old Girl

A lesson from a Marine.

I think Ace or someone said this was relevant to Trump's treatment of the media recently. I forget. But good advice. I've probably avoided some butt-kickings by aggressive displays of excessive optimism myself.

What Happened to Civics Education?

Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, recently had an article in Minding the Campus which explains in some detail how civics classes have been hijacked to undermine American-style democracy. Going under names like "the New Civics" and "service learning," it makes civics classes in particular and, wherever the SJWs can, any and every class from K-Ph.D. into courses in progressive propaganda and activism.

I've seen this myself, and agree that it is ubiquitous, though the power the SJWs have varies greatly from school to school and department to department. Schools of education are eaten up with it.

I highly recommend the whole article if you are interested in American education today. If you do, remember the name Paulo Freire; I'll come back to him in a future post.

Here's an excerpt from the report Wood discusses:

National Findings: Traditional civic literacy is in deep decay in America. The New Civics, a movement devoted to progressive activism, has taken over civics education. “Service-learning” and “civic engagement” are the most common labels this movement uses, but it also calls itself global civics, deliberative democracy, and intercultural learning. The New Civics movement is national, and it extends far beyond the universities. The New Civics redefines “civic activity” as “progressive activism.” The New Civics redefines “civic activity” as channeling government funds toward progressive nonprofits. The New Civics has worked to divert government funds to progressive causes since its founding in the 1960s.

The New Civics redefines “volunteerism” as labor for progressive organizations and administration of the welfare state. The new measures to require “civic engagement” will make this volunteerism compulsory.  The New Civics replaces traditional liberal arts education with vocational training for community activists. The New Civics shifts authority within the university from the faculty to administrators, especially in offices of civic engagement, diversity, and sustainability, as well as among student affairs professionals. The New Civics also shifts the emphasis of a university education from curricula, drafted by faculty, to “co-curricular activities,” run by non-academic administrators. The New Civics movement aims to take over the entire university. The New Civics advocates want to make “civic engagement” part of every class, every tenure decision, and every extracurricular activity.

Trump Does Counter-Intelligence against the IC?

From And Still I Persist:

After Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States, he began to interview many different individuals for possible Cabinet and Administration positions. Immediately, there were nearly daily leaks as to whom was being considered for what position, and whether a given individual’s stock was rising or falling. After this had gone on for a few weeks — with sometimes wildly differing information coming out of Trump Tower and its environs — I talked with my close friend and co-blogger, Bruce Henderson, and wondered if Trump was carrying out a classic information security exercise: giving specific bits of information to specific individuals and then seeing if that information showed up in the press the next day or so. If it did, then the source of that leak was unmistakable identified. Henderson thought it plausible, but there was no way to prove that this was going on.

However, a recent letter (reproduced at the post above) from the Director of National Intelligence suggests Trump actually did this and showed a leak within the Intelligence Community.

Something we may find out during Trump's administration is the extent of partisanship in each part of the bureaucracy. What if we find out the IC in general is partisan? How could a problem like that be solved? These are the folks who have permission to hide information from us and lie to us for our own good, whose job is ideally proper management of information, but who could easily manipulate it for their own purposes, all protected from scrutiny by law.

Some time ago we talked about Trump requesting private security guards. Maybe he needs them. Maybe he also needs his own private intelligence team. And now that I'm thinking about this, didn't some people in the Bush administration feel they needed a team that went around the normal IC channels?

Obama DOD Just Trolling Us Now

Headline: "US Army Wants Biodegradable Bullets That Sprout Plants."

Of course we'd need to make different bullets for every conflict in order to avoid the environmental hazard of invasive species.

Universal Surveillance in 2 Easy Steps!

Step one was just taken by the Obama administration.

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

Step two is just to get your corporate allies in the telecoms to make sure that all information bounces off at least one satellite and/or 'network switch abroad' so that the NSA can legally collect on them.

Actually, you know what? I'll bet that was step one.

This sounds like one of Glenn Reynolds' regular riffs: "They said if we elected Trump, the government would dodge search warrant requirements in order to spy on us like never before.... and they were right!"

Fusion GPS

A report from the Weekly Standard -- I wonder whether or not they're on the enemies list, but if they are this is a good way to start working to get off of it -- on the firm behind the disinformation about Trump. These aren't Russians, they're hired gunslingers for outfits like Planned Parenthood.

Shame is Good for You, Isn't It?

So argues Plato, a new article explains.

Shame presupposes that we ought to know better but flout the rules regardless. This is precisely Plato’s point about moral knowledge: we already possess it, we already know the right way to live a just and fulfilling life, but are constantly diverted from that noble aim. For Plato, then, shame is a force that helps us resist the urge to conform when we know it’s wrong to do so. Shame helps us be true to ourselves, to endure Socrates’ needling, and to heed the moral knowledge within. A man without shame, Plato says, is a slave to desire – for material goods, power, fame, respect. Such desire is tyrannical because, by its nature, it cannot be satisfied.

That isn't the end of it, the author argues, as an apparently shameless society -- he is thinking of our own -- is really wrapped up in self-censorship instead.

Visibility is a trap,’ wrote the French philosopher Michel Foucault... What he meant was that allowing oneself to be watched, and learning to watch others, is both seductive and dangerous. He drew upon Jeremy Bentham’s 18th-century plans for a ‘Panopticon’, a prison in which inmates are observed from a central tower manned by an invisible occupant, his watchful eye seeing but unseen. The idea was that the prisoners would internalise the presence of the spectral watchman, whether or not anyone was actually inside, and behave of their own accord. ‘Morals reformed – health preserved – industry invigorated – instruction diffused – public burthens lightened,’ Bentham enthused.

According to Foucault, the dynamics of the Panopticon bore an uncanny resemblance to how people self-monitor in society at large. In the presence of ever-watchful witnesses, he said, physical coercion is no longer necessary. People police themselves. They do not know what the observers are registering at any given moment, what they are looking for, exactly, or what the punishments are for disobedience. But the imagination keeps them pliant....

So what would Foucault make of the current digital media landscape? In many ways, the modern surveillance state – enabled and expanded thanks to new technologies – is a shining example of the Panopticon.... Foucault’s central claim is that such monitoring is worrisome, not just because of what corporations and states might do with our data, but because the act of watching is itself a devastating exercise of power. It has the capacity to influence behaviour and compel conformity and complicity, without our fully realising it.

If that is right, it's noteworthy that the self-censorship tends to run exactly counter to what Bentham thought would happen (which is generally true with Bentham). People participating on Twitter and Facebook and elsewhere certainly do try to present a prettier version of their lives than they really live. But they don't try to hide their sexual longings, say, or their unpopular political opinions.

But perhaps -- the author suggests -- they are engaged in confession. By confessing themselves of the things they would once have been ashamed of, they find online a community of people who endorse their views and desires. Shame is a social process, and discovering that there is a community that will approve of the things you were ashamed of really is liberating in the sense that it destroys the reason for feeling ashamed. The desires will be endorsed, they will be approved, if not by everyone by a large enough community that you can feel like you've found 'your people.'

That leaves one genuinely shameless. Does it also, then, leave one a slave to desire -- as Plato feared? Liberation from one thing means slavery to another, is that it? Or is there a road of genuine freedom to be found here?