Assumed Arms

On treating heraldic arms as intellectual property.

The British are known to take matters of heraldry seriously, and Mr. Trump’s American coat of arms belongs to another family. It was granted by British authorities in 1939 to Joseph Edward Davies, the third husband of Marjorie Merriweather Post, the socialite who built the Mar-a-Lago resort that is now Mr. Trump’s cherished getaway.

In the United States, the Trump Organization took Mr. Davies’s coat of arms for its own, making one small adjustment — replacing the word “Integritas,” Latin for integrity, with “Trump.”

The United States has no law governing the assumption of arms, and no authority for granting arms. I interpret the Second Amendment as recognizing the right of Americans to "keep and bear" heraldic arms as well as practical ones; after all, the heraldic arms symbolize what was originally a real right to keep and bear armor and weapons as a defender of the state. American citizens (but not British ones, anymore) continue to exercise that real underlying function. There is a very real sense in which we are much more properly entitled to heraldic arms than the British national whose countrymen have allowed his "right to bear arms" to become purely symbolic.

On the other hand, this assumption does not adequately difference Trump's assumed arms from those from whom they were assumed. A change to the arms themselves (and not just the motto) should be made to make them distinct from those that were inherited (at least under British law) by some descendant of the man to whom they were granted. Under American law that isn't necessary, and I assume it will not be done, but it would be the respectful thing to do.

Fellow travelers

Holman Jenkins makes the case that the clearest sign of Russian manipulation in the 2016 election was its skillful goading of "semi-witting" members of the deep state into engaging in criminal leaks.

Blind Peer Review

If it works, it's really blind. That can lead to stories like this.

This week, the prestigious Journal of Political Philosophy published a series of articles under the heading “Black Lives Matter.” One problem: All the authors published in the series are white.... The editors of the Journal of Political Philosophy have also not deigned to feature a single black philosopher in its pages. As Lebron (who is moving to John Hopkins this summer) wrote: “So far as I can tell, not one black philosopher has seen her or his work appear in the pages of your respected journal, on race or any other topic.”

Naturally, they apologized and are taking steps to make sure that blind peer review ceases to be the standard at their journal.

Our SecDef

CBS' John Dickerson asked SecDef General James Mattis a question, and the general answered him.

Right on, General.

Eric Hines

Taliesin

Taliesin was one of the five worthy poets according to the Historia Brittonum; as of the time of Culhwch and Olwen, he was supposed to have been of the court of King Arthur. As such he is a righteous companion of ours.

This Memorial Day weekend a young man bearing his name (and the Welsh form of Merlin's, as a middle name) walked into a knife for a good reason. A Bernie Sanders supporter who turned towards Jill Stein killed him, and another man, after he stood up to protect others that the knifeman was harassing.

His mother gave him a good name, indeed a pair of them. He did his best to live up to those names, which does him honor. But Arthur's court, and Arthur's peace, was won with good swords. The good names followed the work of those swords.

Too often that is forgotten, and this weekend of all weekends it ought not to be forgotten. It is wise to give a name that remembers, but it only counts if you also teach their hands the skill that can effect anew what is remembered.

And though skies alter and empires melt,
This word shall still be true:
If we would have the horse of old,
Scour ye the horse anew.

Memorial Day Weekend

Martial Law in the RP

I'm sure that the Filipino troops charged with exercising these extraordinary powers will be measured and responsible.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte joked Friday that soldiers could rape up to three women, as he reassured them of his full support under his newly imposed regional martial law.

Duterte, who often peppers his language with man-on-the-street curses, made the comments in jest during a speech at a military base to lift the spirits of troops tasked with quelling what he says is a fast-growing threat of Islamist terrorism.

"For this martial law and the consequences of martial law and the ramifications of martial law, I and I alone would be responsible. Just do your work. I will handle the rest," he said.

"I will be imprisoned for you. If you rape three (women), I will say that I did it."

That sounds less like a joke, and more like encouragement.

Well, a Lot of the Votes were In Early

So, today we're hearing theories about why the loss of a cowboy poet in Montana to a man charged with assault on election day is great news for Democrats or, alternatively, horrible news for the republic.

Normally politicians aren't supposed to physically assault journalists, but there are exceptions. Rep. Duncan Hunter said of the alleged assault, “It’s not appropriate behavior. Unless the reporter deserved it.”

One might be tempted to think (as the Washington Post piece suggests) that we are near a Preston Brooks vs. Charles Sumner moment. But that isn't necessary. Montana has early voting, and a number of partisan votes that might have been embarrassed by the assault were already in. There's no reason to think that the vote represents either 'great news for Democrats' (as they likely outperformed on the actual election day what they would have done absent an assault) or 'rising tribalism' (as many votes were cast in ignorance of the forthcoming assault).

I'm not sure how much to read into the thing. On the one hand, the cowboy poet did greatly outperform Hillary Clinton in losing by six points instead of twenty. On the other hand, he was a far better fit culturally for Montana than Hillary Clinton. He ought to have outperformed her substantially simply by being a native, a cowboy, a cultural icon, and not on record as despising the majority of the population of Montana as deplorable. All else being equal, I'm not sure how different last night looked from any given night. If anything, I'd guess the assault helped Democrats a bit; but not enough, given the early votes.

A Leaking Ship

This is a good point. (H/t Insty)

Trump is plausibly guilty of some very bad judgment in his sharing of American secrets -- the deployment and precise number of American nuclear submarines near Korea, for example. It was the press, however, that shared that information with the world. Perhaps the President shouldn't have shared with the Russians information that might lead them to a sensitive source belonging to an allied government. It was the press, however, that made sure that everyone in the world knew just which government.

And, as the author points out, it was the press who made sure that the Manchester bombing cell knew everything the US had been informed by our British allies. Before the cell had been rolled up. While it was still a threat to England's eight-year-old girls.

These aren't ordinary citizens, these leakers, but people who have passed security clearance investigations at high levels. Everything we think we know about how to find the people who will loyally protect crucial secrets has to be called into question in light of this continual bad behavior. If it comes to the point that an American president cannot trust anyone who is not from his own political faction, American presidents will make it a habit to purge these security institutions at every election. That will greatly harm everyone, not only by removing the people with experience from these positions but also by dangerously politicizing these institutions.

There is much to criticize where the President is concerned, but he is not doing the lion's share of the damage right now. People who think of themselves as security and intelligence professionals are. Our systems for ensuring that such professionals exist are being badly undermined, and with them, the existence of reliable security and intelligence institutions at all.

Rio Lobo

Just the introductory guitar, which is lovely.

Ethics & Leadership

These questions are posed in a military context, but they have broader application. Indeed, most of them are drawn from the broader debate about human ethics -- only some of them have their origin in explicitly military concepts.

1. What are the ethical dimensions of power and authority in the military? This includes formal command authority, giving rewards and punishments, informal power/influence and personal power (friendship, loyalty, and expertise.) What is the ethical power or temptation of self-interest? Does power magnify moral characteristics that are already there? Or does it corrupt moral character?

2. Is the morality of the leader a matter of what they do in their public role or also their private life when not in that role? Is it possible for these to be separate or different, or must they be in harmony and alignment? Can a good leader have immoral or bad private morality? Is it important that the leader serve as an ethical role model?

3. What are the duties of the leader to her followers? Is it permissible to use followers merely as a means to another end, or must they always be viewed as ends in themselves? Are the duties of leaders and followers two sides of the same coin or are they fundamentally different? Do followers have ethical duties to the leader beyond obedience?

4. How should leaders think about the Big Picture (Mission) or the Greater Good? How does a leader decide what is best for the Greater Good (Mission)? What if some of their followers (or others) must suffer for this to be achieved? Is that ethically permissible? What are the leader's obligations to those who suffer? What happens if these actions lead to guilt and/or moral injury in leaders and followers?

5. How important is charisma or personal power (The Great Man/Woman) in contemporary military leadership? What are the ethical implications of charisma in leading? Do leaders need an emotional connection or appeal with followers to be effective? What kinds of connections make good, ethical leaders? Trust? Servant Leaders? Transformative Leaders? Relational Leadership?

6. How do cultural and moral differences (ethical relativism) impact the intersection of leadership and ethics? How ought a good leader navigate moral disagreements, tensions and conflicts? Ought the leader's view of what is 'right' prevail? Must one have ethical agreement to work together and achieve the mission?

Those are important questions.

UPDATE: Related: The Army Chief of Staff wants to remind junior officers that they are empowered to disobey direct orders, but they had better be "morally and ethically correct."

Milley then made news headlines by calling for “disciplined disobedience.” This idea undoubtedly caused jaws to drop among many Army leaders, but it actually echoes back to the idea of “selective disobedience” one of his predecessors endorsed in the late 1970s. In Milley’s formulation, disobeying orders can be justified to achieve the larger purpose of the mission. According to Milley,

[A] subordinate needs to understand that they have the freedom and they are empowered to disobey a specific order, a specified task, in order to accomplish a purpose. Now, that takes a lot of judgment … it can’t just be willy-nilly disobedience. This has got to be disciplined disobedience to achieve the higher purpose.

He added, “disobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.”

Being morally and ethically correct will often mean answering these questions "correctly." Are there correct answers to all of them? That would make it a lot simpler.

American Geography

Trump to a roomful of Israelis: "We just got back from the Middle East." Slate's correspondent is extremely dismissive.

In fairness to the President, though, American geography is really confused where Israel is concerned. Officially Israel is in EUCOM, not in CENTCOM with all the countries that surround it. That's so the CENTCOM commander never has to meet with any Jews, making it easier for him to work with Arab leaders. So officially, according to the US military, Israel is in Europe.

The State Department, meanwhile, considers Israel to be part of the "Near East." (Although Saudi Arabia also qualifies as "Near East" rather than "Middle East" on this model; and, even more confusingly, "Middle East Peace" is one of the things that the "Near Eastern Affairs" bureau is tasked with handling.)

And apparently nobody is sure if the Western Wall is in Israel, though it is definitely in Jerusalem, which may or may not be in Israel depending on which American you ask.

An Unlikely Charge

Donald Trump may be a lot of things, but a Crusader is not plausibly one of them.

That's not to say there aren't Crusaders on staff.

A Truly Oppressed Religious Community

On ex-Muslims, who must meet in secrecy even in Portland, Oregon.

Wolf Time

Mentioned in the comments to the "American Gods" post below, Lars Walker pointed out that he wrote another book featuring Odin as a character at about the same time. I picked up a copy yesterday. I'm only about a fifth of the way through it, but it's an interesting read that some of you might like to join me in discussing later. Mr. Walker accurately predicted some things back in 1999.

The book is called Wolf Time, and it is available in Kindle format for those of you who might like to join me.

The Cowboy Hávamál

(Thanks for noticing this, Douglas.)

Is It Time to Get Angry?

Spiked Online argues that the Manchester attack marks the right moment to "get angry."

After the terror, the platitudes. And the hashtags. And the candlelit vigils. And they always have the same message: ‘Be unified. Feel love. Don’t give in to hate.’ The banalities roll off the national tongue. Vapidity abounds. A shallow fetishisation of ‘togetherness’ takes the place of any articulation of what we should be together for – and against. And so it has been after the barbarism in Manchester. In response to the deaths of more than 20 people at an Ariana Grande gig, in response to the massacre of children enjoying pop music, people effectively say: ‘All you need is love.’ The disparity between these horrors and our response to them, between what happened and what we say, is vast. This has to change.

Compare and contrast the response to the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. Those also targeted young British girls; they were permitted to go on for a very long time, even though the authorities were repeatedly informed about them. Here, too, the perpetrator of this suicide bombing was well known to police authorities, as seems to be usually the case. Nothing was done.

Will this get a bigger response because, this time, the young girls were killed instead of repeatedly raped? Will it get a bigger response because, this time, the girls were the daughters of richer families who could afford expensive concert tickets, and not the daughters of the working class?

Or is it the case, instead, that nothing will change? The institutional inertia in Western governments is very great. We can't build a bridge anymore because of all the regulations that exist to govern the building of bridges. We know -- it seems we always know -- who is likely to conduct a mass murder like this, but we can't do anything to stop it. We aren't allowed. We won't allow ourselves.

I don't know that getting angry will fix that. What needs to change, whether to repair our infrastructure or to secure our nations, is to peel off whole layers of institutional regulation and control. These are simple problems in need of simple solutions.

MacLeod

"MacLeod," for your information, means "Son of Ugly."

It's a Small World After All

Not to make light of a tragedy, which will be devastating to the families who lost daughters tonight.  I just happen to notice that the artist canceled her "World Tour," which included "England, Belgium, Poland, Germany and Switzerland."

So, you know, a World Tour from Tennessee to Texas.

The World We Live in Now

Police: Denver man arrested after removing transgender woman's testicles

...A police affidavit says James Lowell Pennington, 57, removed the testicles and sutured the opening while the woman's wife witnessed the 90-minute procedure.

I could have explained this story to my grandparents, but not without using language that would today get me sued, arrested, or barred from productive employment.