Even as activity inside the Beltway bogged down, the markets have been on an almost nonstop rally since the election....but sometimes you've got to suspect it.
Correlation and Causation
The one does not equal the other...
Understatement
At least half of this statement is certainly true.
"I don't think Donald Trump has figured out that he chained himself to the Apostle Paul," Drollinger laughed.This is a White House that could use a little more church.
The Universe Doesn't Care About Your "Purpose"
This is the title of an article in the NYT by a philosopher I've met. He's a Marxist, and the conclusion really follows from Marxism's scientific atheism.
Except maybe it doesn't. Perhaps entropy itself is a kind of purpose: one that gives rise to life and intelligence. So argues a new theory from physics on the origin of life. Metaphysically, the physical theory is like Neoplatonism. Instead of the One 'unfolding' or 'unraveling' through creation, there's a unified purpose (seeking entropy) that is spinning out through the whole universe, resulting in the creation of many forms of life to rush along the entropy. Entropy could be said to be a kind of unraveling, and there is a kind of One in the unified purpose. So a unified font of intelligence arising from this single purpose makes sense too.
Then the Universe really does care about your purpose: your purpose is a way of hastening along entropy, which is a part of the single purpose. Your intelligence is a way of hastening entropy. Your life, and all life, arises from and for the purpose of hastening entropy.
There are significant philosophical consequences from redefining the purpose of the universe from the Aristotelian "seeking to emulate the perfect order of the highest things" to "seeking entropy." That means there are significant practical consequences, too, since basic changes in philosophy work themselves out practically in a myriad of hidden ways.
But it's still better than Marxism, if you must be a scientific atheist. At least it offers a ground for a philosophy that values life, too, which so far the Marxist left hasn't managed to do. "It's kind of good because it feels good, but it isn't really important" is no way to go through life. Thus, why go through life at all, especially if it stops feeling good?
Except maybe it doesn't. Perhaps entropy itself is a kind of purpose: one that gives rise to life and intelligence. So argues a new theory from physics on the origin of life. Metaphysically, the physical theory is like Neoplatonism. Instead of the One 'unfolding' or 'unraveling' through creation, there's a unified purpose (seeking entropy) that is spinning out through the whole universe, resulting in the creation of many forms of life to rush along the entropy. Entropy could be said to be a kind of unraveling, and there is a kind of One in the unified purpose. So a unified font of intelligence arising from this single purpose makes sense too.
Then the Universe really does care about your purpose: your purpose is a way of hastening along entropy, which is a part of the single purpose. Your intelligence is a way of hastening entropy. Your life, and all life, arises from and for the purpose of hastening entropy.
There are significant philosophical consequences from redefining the purpose of the universe from the Aristotelian "seeking to emulate the perfect order of the highest things" to "seeking entropy." That means there are significant practical consequences, too, since basic changes in philosophy work themselves out practically in a myriad of hidden ways.
But it's still better than Marxism, if you must be a scientific atheist. At least it offers a ground for a philosophy that values life, too, which so far the Marxist left hasn't managed to do. "It's kind of good because it feels good, but it isn't really important" is no way to go through life. Thus, why go through life at all, especially if it stops feeling good?
The Police Threat to the 2nd Amendment
David French at National Review.
One officer opened fire on the dog, the other officer fired on the man allegedly holding a gun in the doorway, pointing it at the men approaching his home. As the Washington Post reported on July 26, it was only after the smoke cleared that the officers made their “heart-dropping discovery: They were at the wrong home.”He has some suggestions for repairs to both law and practice.
Lopez died that night. Just like Andrew Scott died in his entrance hall, gun in hand, when the police pounded on the wrong door late one night, Scott opened it, saw shadowy figures outside, and started to retreat back into his house. Police opened fire, and he died in seconds.
Angel Mendez was more fortunate. He “only” lost his leg...
If past precedent holds, it’s likely that the officers who killed Ismael Lopez will be treated exactly like the officers in the Scott and Mendez cases. They won’t be prosecuted for crimes, and they’ll probably even be immune from civil suit, with the court following precedents holding that the officers didn’t violate Lopez’s “clearly established” constitutional rights when they approached the wrong house. After all, officers have their own rights of self-defense. What, exactly, are they supposed to do when a gun is pointed at their face?
In other words, the law typically allows officers to shoot innocent homeowners who are lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights and then provides these same innocent victims with no compensation for the deaths and injuries that result. This is unacceptable, it’s unjust, and it undermines the Second Amendment.
Racism and Thought Police
On the one hand, this guy has a great point -- and he's quite right about Twain's work.
On the other hand, just yesterday I saw a residence here in Georgia openly flying a Ku Klux Klan flag. You may not know what a Ku Klux Klan flag looks like, as it's been decades since anyone openly flew them except while wearing hoods to mask their identity. It looks like this.
Now, I don't want to suggest that the state should enforce laws against such display -- laws that would be unconstitutional, as well as a form of thought policing. I only want to say that I liked it better when Klansmen were ashamed to broadcast their affiliation. We don't need the Klan back. It has nothing to offer us that we're going to want in any conceivable future.
On the other hand, just yesterday I saw a residence here in Georgia openly flying a Ku Klux Klan flag. You may not know what a Ku Klux Klan flag looks like, as it's been decades since anyone openly flew them except while wearing hoods to mask their identity. It looks like this.
Now, I don't want to suggest that the state should enforce laws against such display -- laws that would be unconstitutional, as well as a form of thought policing. I only want to say that I liked it better when Klansmen were ashamed to broadcast their affiliation. We don't need the Klan back. It has nothing to offer us that we're going to want in any conceivable future.
Health Care Hurts
Most people who aren’t in the individual market, which is the one most affected by ACA, have no idea what the plans look like. It is a market where the costs of the bill’s mandates are more visible, even when subsidized. When I cite exorbitant deductibles, folks tell me to suck it up and pay $3,000. I laugh at a $3,000 deductible. What in the old system was considered a very high deductible is now among the lower available, and premiums for any kind of deductible are high, even with subsidies. Many families have to hit $12,700, and they’re paying a mortgage-sized premium. For many, the purchase becomes hard to justify or supplants an actual mortgage or similar outlays…By coincidence, I just today worked out next year's health care insurance -- since I'm losing last year's plan again this year, and yet again need a new one. This one has premiums of only a thousand dollars a month more than my pre-ACA plan, for roughly similar coverage except that the out of pocket max is now around ten grand a year.
My family may be the trade-off that was worth it for you to implement ACA. And I’m actually fine with you thinking that, as long as you don’t pretend we and the rest of the people like us don’t exist. We’re probably never going to stop arguing about this, but arguing responsibly and empathetically is better.
Good times, good times. I love to see these Democratic politicians cheering and celebrating on TV. It lets me know how much people like me matter to them.
John McCain, Statesman
Plato's vision of the statesman was of someone who knew better than the common rabble. He had the virtues to know what was best, such as the expertise to make judgments that the inexpert could never make rightly even though the inexpert might be the 'equal' of the expert before the law. The best thing possible would be for such men to be in the positions of power, Plato argued in the Laws:
That is, I suspect, the story that John McCain believes himself to be in right now. It may even be the true story, perhaps. The American people gave the whole Congress and the Presidency to the Republican Party on constant and many-times-repeated promises to unmake Obamacare. McCain stepped in and saved it, against the wishes of the majority, trusting his own judgment and expertise more than the will of the people. Alternatively, he could look as a member of a detached elite that is refusing to keep the very promises that raised it to power, betraying the people's trust.
I tend to differ with McCain where the Constitution is concerned. From my perspective he is prone to setting his own judgment above it, as in Campaign Finance Reform, and as now. The Constitution is silent on the Federal provision of health care; that being the case, under the 10th Amendment, it should be left to the states or to the people. We would be happier if we did not have to fight so hard about these matters where we Americans differ so greatly on what right looks like. Still, like others I can only make an assumption about my expertise on these matters. Certainly the vast majority of Americans do not care very much about the Constitution being upheld with any sort of exactness. They're happy to have some welfare, some Social Security, some Medicare, some Medicaid, some Federal regulations on what kind of crops you grow in your own yard within a single state, or... well, they have endured many things, and some minority of Americans are devoted to voting for ever more such things.
So did he do right or wrong? It depends on how good his judgment is, and what his virtues are. But if he is the statesman resisting the mob it is odd that the mob's judgment has been so steady. Mobs are supposed to be dangerous because they are swayed by passion, but Republican voters have wanted this law killed for seven full years. It may very well be that the considered and stable judgment of the many means that, in this case at least, the many is not merely a mob in need of correction by the wise.
All the same a man has to act on his judgment and live with his conscience, of course.
The old saying, that "equality makes friendship," is happy and also true; but there is obscurity and confusion as to what sort of equality is meant. For there are two equalities which are called by the same name, but are in reality in many ways almost the opposite of one another; one of them may be introduced without difficulty, by any state or any legislator in the distribution of honours: this is the rule of measure, weight, and number, which regulates and apportions them. But there is another equality, of a better and higher kind, which is not so easily recognized. This is the judgment of Zeus; among men it avails but little; that little, however, is the source of the greatest good to individuals and states. For it gives to the greater more, and to the inferior less and in proportion to the nature of each; and, above all, greater honour always to the greater virtue, and to the less less; and to either in proportion to their respective measure of virtue and education. And this is justice, and is ever the true principle of states, at which we ought to aim....The problem, of course, is that it can be quite difficult to know if you are an expert in political matters. Everyone knows whether or not he or she is an expert at fluid mechanics; but no one thinks they are inexpert at recognizing justice and injustice. Nevertheless, some are, and it is to be hoped that the experts are to be in positions of power to overrule the many.
That is, I suspect, the story that John McCain believes himself to be in right now. It may even be the true story, perhaps. The American people gave the whole Congress and the Presidency to the Republican Party on constant and many-times-repeated promises to unmake Obamacare. McCain stepped in and saved it, against the wishes of the majority, trusting his own judgment and expertise more than the will of the people. Alternatively, he could look as a member of a detached elite that is refusing to keep the very promises that raised it to power, betraying the people's trust.
I tend to differ with McCain where the Constitution is concerned. From my perspective he is prone to setting his own judgment above it, as in Campaign Finance Reform, and as now. The Constitution is silent on the Federal provision of health care; that being the case, under the 10th Amendment, it should be left to the states or to the people. We would be happier if we did not have to fight so hard about these matters where we Americans differ so greatly on what right looks like. Still, like others I can only make an assumption about my expertise on these matters. Certainly the vast majority of Americans do not care very much about the Constitution being upheld with any sort of exactness. They're happy to have some welfare, some Social Security, some Medicare, some Medicaid, some Federal regulations on what kind of crops you grow in your own yard within a single state, or... well, they have endured many things, and some minority of Americans are devoted to voting for ever more such things.
So did he do right or wrong? It depends on how good his judgment is, and what his virtues are. But if he is the statesman resisting the mob it is odd that the mob's judgment has been so steady. Mobs are supposed to be dangerous because they are swayed by passion, but Republican voters have wanted this law killed for seven full years. It may very well be that the considered and stable judgment of the many means that, in this case at least, the many is not merely a mob in need of correction by the wise.
All the same a man has to act on his judgment and live with his conscience, of course.
We Don't Task By Email
There is some misunderstanding of General Dunford's answers to questions about the transgender policy change. What he said was:
Once in Iraq the Divison's commanding general had a Kuwaiti CULAD -- 'cultural advisor' -- who wanted to mandate that everyone from Brigade come up to be personally instructed by him in how to deal with Iraqi local leaders. Brigade was not buying it, as they already dealt with those leaders every day and had for months. So they just ignored the instructions to report, until finally the CULAD got the G-7 to call down to the Brigade XO and demand to know why they hadn't reported as instructed.
"I'm sorry," the XO said. "We must have missed that order. What FRAGO was it in?"
Er, um, that is, well... we just sent emails about it.
"You're going to have to put that in an order," the XO replied sweetly.
They never did, and so the "mandatory" cultural classes never happened. That was because they never had gotten the commanding general on board with the idea of pulling one of his subordinate units off the battlefield for touchy-feely training on something they were already doing every day. I expect there will be an order here, since the Commander in Chief has stated openly what he intends the policy to be.
Until then, though, this isn't a refusal to obey orders. It's just an acknowledgement that formal orders will be necessary in order to carry this out.
UPDATE: Apparently this is the day for confusion about whether and how the military follows orders.
I know there are questions about yesterday’s announcement on the transgender policy by the president. There will be no modifications to the current policy until the president’s direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance.What that means is that a Twitter announcement is not a formal military order, and so no military units will be taking action until a formal order has been issued.
Once in Iraq the Divison's commanding general had a Kuwaiti CULAD -- 'cultural advisor' -- who wanted to mandate that everyone from Brigade come up to be personally instructed by him in how to deal with Iraqi local leaders. Brigade was not buying it, as they already dealt with those leaders every day and had for months. So they just ignored the instructions to report, until finally the CULAD got the G-7 to call down to the Brigade XO and demand to know why they hadn't reported as instructed.
"I'm sorry," the XO said. "We must have missed that order. What FRAGO was it in?"
Er, um, that is, well... we just sent emails about it.
"You're going to have to put that in an order," the XO replied sweetly.
They never did, and so the "mandatory" cultural classes never happened. That was because they never had gotten the commanding general on board with the idea of pulling one of his subordinate units off the battlefield for touchy-feely training on something they were already doing every day. I expect there will be an order here, since the Commander in Chief has stated openly what he intends the policy to be.
Until then, though, this isn't a refusal to obey orders. It's just an acknowledgement that formal orders will be necessary in order to carry this out.
UPDATE: Apparently this is the day for confusion about whether and how the military follows orders.
Responding to a question on whether he would initiate a nuclear strike against China at President Donald Trump's orders “next week,” the admiral bluntly said: “The answer would be: Yes.”
Swift, who has led the Pacific Fleet since 2015, explained: “Every member of the US military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the officers and the president of the United States as commander and chief appointed over us.”
He then struck a conciliatory tone, saying: “This is core to the American democracy and any time you have a military that is moving away from a focus and an allegiance to civilian control, then we really have a significant problem.”
No Transgender Military
Another good decision on military matters today. The military's sole purpose is the defense of a space in the world for which America to be realized. Otherwise, all our rights are just ideas -- ideas in the mind of God, perhaps, but still ideas rather than actual rights.
That means that the military's mission has a kind of priority, which is why sometimes rights are curtailed for military necessity -- think of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus as an example. I don't oppose dignity for transgender individuals, but the President is right about the massive disruption and expense they would entail in the military service. The military's contribution to transgender dignity is that it enables a society to exist in which they can be treated well, as other societies do not always do. That's a very significant contribution, and all that can reasonably be asked.
UPDATE: It wasn't that long ago that I posted on "rethinking gays in the military," opposition to which made one of these two arguments -- the cultural one. Transgenders are similar to gays in that there aren't very many of them, which means that the military may be able to absorb them with a similarly small degree of shock.
Gays in the military didn't hit at the gender fault line, though. It's already a real issue that women in the service have much lower physical standards to meet than men, and are thus promoted more easily insofar as fitness is taken into account in promotions (which it is). Allowing an underperforming man to slide into that easier-to-pass class is not going to go over well at all. You can imagine a Bradley Manning deciding to get himself promoted ahead of his fellow soldiers by transitioning to a Chelsea Manning. The kind of hard-charging combat soldiers you need to actually win wars will be undercut by that, and they'd notice.
So it's not just women-with-penises in the female showers. It's not just the introduction of sexuality into a professional environment characterized by very little privacy and austere conditions.
Uncited by the President, but something Uncle Jimbo is talking about this morning, is that there is also a potential issue with hormone treatments and combat effectiveness. I'm not aware of the research on this, but I'll take his word pending research that it's a concern.
UPDATE: The Duffel Blog is on the case.
UPDATE: A former trans-woman speaks out in favor of this policy.
UPDATE: More DB.
That means that the military's mission has a kind of priority, which is why sometimes rights are curtailed for military necessity -- think of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus as an example. I don't oppose dignity for transgender individuals, but the President is right about the massive disruption and expense they would entail in the military service. The military's contribution to transgender dignity is that it enables a society to exist in which they can be treated well, as other societies do not always do. That's a very significant contribution, and all that can reasonably be asked.
UPDATE: It wasn't that long ago that I posted on "rethinking gays in the military," opposition to which made one of these two arguments -- the cultural one. Transgenders are similar to gays in that there aren't very many of them, which means that the military may be able to absorb them with a similarly small degree of shock.
Gays in the military didn't hit at the gender fault line, though. It's already a real issue that women in the service have much lower physical standards to meet than men, and are thus promoted more easily insofar as fitness is taken into account in promotions (which it is). Allowing an underperforming man to slide into that easier-to-pass class is not going to go over well at all. You can imagine a Bradley Manning deciding to get himself promoted ahead of his fellow soldiers by transitioning to a Chelsea Manning. The kind of hard-charging combat soldiers you need to actually win wars will be undercut by that, and they'd notice.
So it's not just women-with-penises in the female showers. It's not just the introduction of sexuality into a professional environment characterized by very little privacy and austere conditions.
Uncited by the President, but something Uncle Jimbo is talking about this morning, is that there is also a potential issue with hormone treatments and combat effectiveness. I'm not aware of the research on this, but I'll take his word pending research that it's a concern.
UPDATE: The Duffel Blog is on the case.
UPDATE: A former trans-woman speaks out in favor of this policy.
UPDATE: More DB.
Divisions in Islam
Syrian refugees in Germany don't much go to mosque, because the only Arabic-speaking mosques they can find are too affiliated with Wahhabi and Salafi traditions. Most of the mosques, though, are inaccessible because they only speak Turkish. The Turks don't speak Arabic at all, and would also be too hardline if they did.
It'd be interesting if the Syrian refugees turned out to be a part of the cure for the radical Islamic movements in Europe.
It'd be interesting if the Syrian refugees turned out to be a part of the cure for the radical Islamic movements in Europe.
Old Ironsides
The United States's oldest commissioned warship is afloat again after two years of drydock repairs.
Classic Army Bulls***
This comes from a friend who is actually enlisted USAF, but you know how this stuff works.
I'm not sure if my favorite part is the bad punctuation, the GIANT FONT that presents the independent clause as if it were a clearly ridiculous statement of fact, the tiny font trying to hide the subordinate clause, or the fact that even with the subordinate clause this statement is obviously false. Nobody follows "the low risk guidelines" set forth in doctrine. They just handle their business so it doesn't end up on somebody else's desk. Everyone knows this, because everyone is a member of the community you're describing. You're not fooling anybody with this nonsense, but that doesn't stop the bureaucracy from saying it anyway.
Follow these links for more accurate pictures of drinking in the Army and Marine Corps. It's not that there isn't sometimes a problem. It's that you can't solve a problem like this with bulls***.
I'm not sure if my favorite part is the bad punctuation, the GIANT FONT that presents the independent clause as if it were a clearly ridiculous statement of fact, the tiny font trying to hide the subordinate clause, or the fact that even with the subordinate clause this statement is obviously false. Nobody follows "the low risk guidelines" set forth in doctrine. They just handle their business so it doesn't end up on somebody else's desk. Everyone knows this, because everyone is a member of the community you're describing. You're not fooling anybody with this nonsense, but that doesn't stop the bureaucracy from saying it anyway.
Follow these links for more accurate pictures of drinking in the Army and Marine Corps. It's not that there isn't sometimes a problem. It's that you can't solve a problem like this with bulls***.
New Sheriff in Town
Iran plays its usual games with US Navy ships in what is variously called the Persian or the Arabian Gulf. This time, they are met with warning shots.
There are lots of things about Donald Trump I don't care for, but there are definitely some things I'm glad to see too.
There are lots of things about Donald Trump I don't care for, but there are definitely some things I'm glad to see too.
Vice: Turkey's Islamic Feminist Cult
The guy is more normal than not, for a cultist.
I saw the video because I was reading this article on a German woman who joined ISIS, and now wants to come back.
A Heroic Philosopher
It's not impossible. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for her, but you have to respect her devotion to reasoned moral duty in the face of danger.
Anne Dufourmantelle entered the water at Pampelonne beach near St Tropez on 21 July after the children got into difficulty.Good for you, ma'am. It's not the worst thing to die for your principles.
Witnesses say she immediately tried to reach them but was swept away by a strong current. Attempts to resusciate her after she was recovered failed, according to local media reports.
The children were later rescued by lifeguards, unharmed. It was unclear whether Dufourmantelle knew them.
She wrote several essays on the importance of risk-taking, as well as a book titled Praise of Risk, which was published in 2011.
Earning that Citizenship Merit Badge
President Donald Trump apparently feels at home among the Boy Scouts of America. But why not? They're future voters, and in an organization whose mandate takes both citizenship and America seriously.
CNN was not amused, but they rarely are where the President is concerned. I mean, he told an assembled crowd of 35-45,000 boys and their parents, "I said, who the hell wants to speak about politics when I'm in front of the Boy Scouts?" Can you imagine the fun the boys had when he said that? See mom??? You know they loved it.
And, along the way, they've got the opportunity to learn a thing.
CNN was not amused, but they rarely are where the President is concerned. I mean, he told an assembled crowd of 35-45,000 boys and their parents, "I said, who the hell wants to speak about politics when I'm in front of the Boy Scouts?" Can you imagine the fun the boys had when he said that? See mom??? You know they loved it.
And, along the way, they've got the opportunity to learn a thing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)