Flashback to the Old Hall

Continuing the recent tradition in which only the satirical news makes any real sense, "Nation Longs For More Civilized Age When Politicians Settled Disputes With Pistols."

That was an issue when Grim's Hall was young, way back in 2004. The Honorable Zell Miller had expressed regret that duels were no longer legal, which the media -- then as now dishonest -- chose to interpret as him having challenged a man to a duel.

There really is something to be said for a return to duelling [s.i.c. -- apparently in 2004 I didn't know how to spell a word I had nevertheless used many times. -Grim]. Even the reminder of the institution, though, is clarifying. Consider the "Go to Hell, Zell," John Kerry Infant creeper, for those who think that American life isn't sufficiently profane for children. This shirt allows those of a particularly cowardly persuasion to express obscenity without fear of retribution. No reasonable person would take the baby to task (the baby would be just as happy if the creeper said "Vote Bush, 2004," or said nothing and was decorated only with carrot stains). No decent man would engage the parent in front of the child, as anyone bent out of shape enough to dress an infant in such garb would surely cause a scene upsetting to the innocent....

The image of the crossed pistols reminds us that men used to take responsibility for their words -- that the things they said were things they would risk death to defend....

How many times have I had to hear people toss around the words "lie!" or "liar!" in this election? It seems to be the very first line of defense, when anyone says anything you'd rather not believe. Not only do these people hide behind children, they sound like children. They spit deadly insults freely, knowing that they can never be called to account.

The end of the duel may have brought some good effects, but it has also ended the culture of responsibility that went with it. No one is called to account for their slander. That John Kerry of the VVAW is a candidate for the highest office in the land says this as truly as anything.

I'm with Zell. It is a shame that duels are no longer legal. Duels were private wars, and like wars they could be just. Like wars, for all the harm they did, they often did more good. In a world fallen from hope of perfection, that may be the best you can ask.

Like all of us, I was 15 years younger when I wrote that. I am sure I was hotter of head in those days, but I believe the younger Grim was right. "Liar! Liar!" has been replaced with "Traitor! Traitor!," and the hiding behind children is as prominent a feature today as then.

We should return to the duel. It would restore some manners around here, and drive the loud-mouthed cowards out of the places of power and authority they have so long now occupied.

BB-Snopes Feud Continues

Headline: "Snopes Rates the Devil's Lies as 'Mostly True.'"

Satan claimed that eating a particular fruit would not cause anyone to die, but would instead grant them an improved understanding of moral issues. According to Snopes’ assessment, while consuming the fruit has been followed by billions and billions of deaths, those casualties were more of an indirect result, while the part about gaining knowledge of good and evil was generally accurate. They also checked all the lies Satan told Jesus while He was being tempted in the desert and pointed out that he did quote Scripture, albeit out of context, earning the Prince of Darkness another "Mostly True" rating.

From the Duffel

US Army to drop ‘US’ from name over past links to slavery

Acting Secretary of Army Ryan McCarthy told reporters that former NFL quarterback and Army historian Colin Kaepernick had recently found countless examples of troubling behavior engaged in by the United States, including racism, slavery, genocide, and inappropriate touching.

“After examining the evidence presented by Mister Kaepernick, we decided we cannot ask our soldiers of color to wear the name of a country which enslaved their ancestors or tell our LGBTTQQIAAP service members to display the flag of the place which enacted Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” McCarthy said.

Kaepernick is currently leading another internal Army investigation over historical links between the United States and a white supremacist group called The Confederate States of America.

Mom Of Four Goes To SERE School, Gets Amazing Sleep

That Doesn't Make Any Sense

The Sage of Knoxville runs some speculation on what's going on with this Ukraine business.

“Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire,” read the headline on the article by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern. “Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton,” said the subhead of the article, which was published shortly before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

The authors reported that Ukrainian government officials “helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers” with the goal of “advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.”

With the benefit of hindsight and the results of the Mueller investigation, it’s now clear that there was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. What is not clear and what demands further investigation is how this baseless claim managed to consume the first two years of an American presidency.

We need to get to the bottom of this — and the fear that we will is why the Democrats and their press enablers are getting so crazy.

If all the bodies are buried in Ukraine, why would they be impeaching Trump on a Ukraine question? Why not pick anything else, since apparently the facts aren't that important to the question of whether or not to impeach -- after all, Pelosi didn't want to wait one day for the transcript before announcing the launch of her inquiry. Impeach him on emoluments, let everyone argue about whether foreign diplomats electing to stay in his hotel provides some kind of illicit bribery. For goodness sake, don't lead the media's gaze over to Ukraine. Americans are pretty insular, and won't look at faraway nations with foreign languages if you don't make them look.

Yet they clearly chose to do so, and went to some trouble to do it.

Youths who need to turn their lives around

Minneapolis's city council openly blames police for any street violence that might be said to discourage taxpayers from coming downtown to spend money.

Even in the wake of the most recent homicides and other violent incidents, City Council members are clinging to their leftist illusions. Thus, one Council member says the Council is trying to do “a better job with our youth violence intervention strategies to support the youth who are in the downtown area between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m.” I don’t think most residents believe the problem is that criminals who are wandering the streets in the middle of the night lack “support.”

And they'll probably want federal tax money support when their downtown sports arenas fail because all those terrible racists refuses to drive in from the suburbs any more.

I worked with a woman who was sexually abused in youth by her brother.  Years later she summoned up the courage to upbraid her mother for turning a blind eye.  "Oh, that's awful," her mother agreed.  "I wish I had known about it at the time.  I could have gotten help for your brother."

No room for you in me

Gary Saul Morson is at it again, elucidating the peculiar evil that is Leninism. In a new essay, he notes that terrorist totalitarianism were not necessary evils to Lenin but laudable goals in their own right. He often punished underlings for coming up short in the article of ruthlessness. He held that all morals qualms must be eliminated in favor of effective force in aid of universal compliance. Though his soviet empire was toppled, the habit of thought endures:

The same logic applied to rights. On paper, the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed more rights than any other state in the world. I recall a Soviet citizen telling me that people in the ussr had absolute freedom of speech—so long as they did not lie. I recalled this curious concept of freedom when a student defended complete freedom of speech except for hate speech—and hate speech included anything he disagreed with. Whatever did not seem hateful was actually a “dog-whistle.”

I'm proofing a collection of arguments between Roger Williams and Cotton Mather from the early 17th century. Williams asserts that it's wrong to force a man's conscience. Mather replies serenely that he agrees, unless the erring citizen persists in error after repeated expostulations, at which point he is sinning against his own conscience and is fair game for torture and murder.

The eternal task of civilization is to find a way to honor other people's freedom without signing one's own death warrant. Lenin wasn't interested in any of that. As Maxim Gorky quipped, "Lenin 'in general' loved people but . . . his love looked far ahead, through the mists of hatred." He much preferred dead people to free ones, not just because they were safer but because they weren't entirely under his thumb:  because they were not himself. It's as if he were literally Milton's Satan. And he, of course, is what lies ahead for us whenever we can't bear making room in the world for anything but ourselves.

Recently Attorney General William Barr asked how his critics would have reacted had the FBI secretly interfered with the Obama campaign: “What if the shoe were on the other foot?” From a Leninist perspective, this question demonstrates befuddlement. In his book Terrorism and Communism, Trotsky imagines “the high priests of liberalism” asking how Bolshevik use of arbitrary power differs from tsarist practices. Trotsky sneers:

You do not understand this, holy men? We shall explain it to you. The terror of Tsarism was directed against the proletariat. . . . Our Extraordinary Commissions shoot landlords, capitalists, and generals . . . . Do you grasp this—distinction? For us Communists it is quite sufficient.

What is reprehensible for them is proper for us, and that’s all there is to it. For a Leninist, the shoe is never on the other foot because he has no other foot.

Common People

Accurate

Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Chip Roy (R-TX) spoke against gun control Wednesday on Capitol Hill and stressed that gun rights are God-given for the purpose of not simply defending self, but defending liberty.

Biggs said, “The Founders of this country…recognized the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.” He described their intention by saying, “You have a right to defend yourself against wrongdoers and also against a tyrannical government.”

He added, “That’s what the Second Amendment is about.”

Good to see someone in Congress knows that.

Gone Rogue

The Speaker of the House is a constitutional officer, as is the President. The Attorney General is not one; although the Attorney General is appointed under the Appointments Clause, there's no mention of this particular office in the Constitution. Nevertheless, it is one of the oldest offices, having been created in 1789. Every President has had an Attorney General, all the way back to George Washington. When the Speaker of the House accuses the Attorney General of having "gone rogue," we have a potentially serious problem.

“I do think the attorney general has gone rogue,” Ms. Pelosi said on CNN. “He has for a long time now. And since he was mentioned in all of this, it’s curious that he would be making decisions about how the complaint would be handled.”

One thing that we've seen a lot of is this move to force recusal by the Attorney General, who is a political appointee. Jeff Sessions recused during the whole RussiaRussiaRussia thing because he was 'named,' so that the matter ended up being handled by lesser officials (especially Deputy AG Rosenstein). Barr is refusing to play that game. His name came up because it ought to come up, and it ought to come up because he's the appropriate and lawful official to have handled a joint investigation with Ukraine under treaty law.

In a way this represents a weakening of norms, because the best case is one in which no one would serve as a judge in his own case. Recusals like Session's, where he was plainly in the clear but nevertheless was mentioned, represent a kind of extravagant adherence to this best case. To do that, of course, one has to trust that one's case will be handled fairly -- as the example of Mike Flynn suggests you no longer can do.

We are in a destabilizing political situation, in which constitutional officers are no longer even trying to prop up the legitimacy of inferior officers. I wonder if this can remain rhetorical, or if we aren't watching the beginning of a collapse.

By the way, I can't help but notice that this Ukraine thing is following a familiar script in other ways, too -- today we got the 'X number of former officials say this is awful' news story, which has become a standard feature of left-leaning attacks on Republican officials. It makes me wonder if this isn't going to turn out to be a Fusion GPS production, exactly like RussiaRussiaRussia only faster because they don't have a lot of time now.

Don't send children to college

Better yet, don't raise kids so that they're still infants at 18.

“Well, we had to get Kyle moved into to his dorm, register for classes, pick his schedule, tour the campus, find out where his classes are, get him linens and a dorm fridge, meet his roommate, and go to parent orientation.” Post after post making moving into a dorm and registering for classes sound like a Homeric poem. “Well first we had to get Kyle on a ship that would not be crushed on the rocks by the songs of the sirens and then we had to get him a sword and a shield so he could kill a cyclops. I read where this one guy used his shield as a mirror to cut off Medusa’s head, so we’re going to Costco later to see if they carry that one...”

My folks didn't do this kind of thing, to put it mildly. Even so, I was a child and a mess when I went off to college, putting myself in needless peril. It would have been a lot worse if I'd never earned any money or learned how to spend it.

Not that it was a time to act like a conservative 50-year-old:  I'm glad I got the chance to experiment before I was calcified. I was lucky that college was still a protected space where I could concentrate on learning and didn't have to worry much about room and board, let alone about supporting a family. The summers were a time to get a job and pay for an apartment, learn how to shop for groceries and cook, how to stretch a dollar.

By the time I graduated, I was still a child and a mess, but at least I could keep body and soul together using my own paycheck. There was no serious danger of my going back to live in my parents' basement until I was 35, nor did I know anyone caught in that trap. While we sorted ourselves out, we'd rent hovels together and share the expenses. The economy was rotten, but we never had that much trouble making it work.

Solomon on BIden

John Solomon at The Hill continues to publish some of the best investigative reporting out there. Suing for documents under the Freedom of Information Act has become an indispensable tool.

Is the Social Contract Dead?

Came across a pretty interesting argument on Twitter that I thought would make for rather interesting discussion in these parts.  I present it with no further commentary:

The social contract is dead.

Impeachment over a non-impeachable offense would have sealed that deal. But even worse a fake "inquiry" in name only that skirts the law. This isn't two-tiers. This is making it up as you go.

You have no obligation to this system. None at all.

— Jared A. Chambers 🇺🇸 (@C4CEO) September 24, 2019

(more below the fold)

Read It For Yourselves

If you somehow missed the transcript that is apparently going to lead to an impeachment inquiry, read it here.

For my money, the important thing is that every single reference to any sort of investigation he asks to be run through the Attorney General. Initial reports that he tried to have 'his private lawyer' handling the investigation from the US side were wrong; actually, a lot of the early reports were wrong as usual. Rudy is mentioned because he's brought up by the Ukrainian side. Trump says some nice things about him, but then brings it back around to the need to work also with the Attorney General. He's not asking for assistance with his campaign, but for law enforcement cooperation on some scandals involving highly placed American public officials. He's not going to run it out of the White House, but is passing it off to the appropriate authorities.

Other people clearly read it differently.

Reblogging Satire is the Only Thing that Makes Sense Now

The Bee.

Bee Stings

Tex inspired me to check out the Bee again today, so, here y'all are:

L, G, T, Q and + Publicly Execute B for Implying There Are Only Two Genders

Man Outed As Dark Lord Of The Sith After Revealing He Believes In Absolute Truth

Swarm Of Locusts In Book Of Revelation Revealed To Be Twitter

Tragically, the following might qualify as "real news" instead of satire:

Republicans Excited To Have Supreme Court Majority Like They Had When 'Roe V. Wade' Decided

Media slowly heal themselves

The Babylon Bee is inspiring similar sites. Some good headlines from The Derringer:

NYT Accused of Whipping Out New Kavanaugh Allegation, Thrusting It in Nation’s Face

Experts Agree Restructuring World Economy Best Way to Treat Child’s Anxiety

Whether or Not Trump Committed a Crime, Can’t We All Agree That He is Guilty of It?

To Be At All Times Armed

An essay on the right of revolution at Human Events, which begins happily with a story from the Heimskringla's account of Sweden's abortive war against Norway's St. Olav.

Ukraine Shuffle

So, the latest thing that is definitely going to lead to impeachment according to Twitter is this story that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden’s son. I am pretty sure the real corruption is the way Biden used his position and US money to derail the investigation in the first place. Am I missing something? It’s wrong to try to undo a corrupt act of a prior administration if it might benefit you politically?

Stripping Words

The Oxford English Dictionary, compiled in part by Tolkien, is asked to strip out offensive words. Offensive to whom? Guess.

Probably Wasn't Going to Vote for Her Anyway

Elizabeth Warren doesn't like men?

Elizabeth Warren made the political calculation this week that she doesn’t need men to win the presidency.

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men,” she told a rally in Washington Square Park Monday night.

“In fact, we’re not here because of men at all,” she said, emphasizing the “m” word like an expletive....

Immediately before saying “we’re not here because of men,” she dissed George Washington and the beautiful Tuckahoe marble arch that bears his name.

“I wanted to give this speech right here and not because of the arch behind me or the president that this square is named for — nope.”

I mean, I can half get why she thinks it's fine to run down Washington, him having been a slave-owner and all. It's dumb, running for the office he dignified and for which he set the terms. Still, in the current moment, it makes a kind of perverse sense.

Why expand the complaint from 'slave-owner' to 'man,' though? That's alienating to a lot of your potential voters.