The human flaw - signandsight

An Old Song:

Sign And Sight is the online magazine that translates European, and particularly German, intellectual writing into English so that it will be available to all Europeans. The experience is new, but the thinking is not always new or exciting. Consider this article on beauty:

According to ancient Tao wisdom, it is in movement that a person attains beauty, in Tai-Chi for example. The Chinese syllable 'mei' (literally: fat sheep) means beauty. It is used to describe good food, a sense of well-being, a pleasant bodily feeling. And, ironically enough, also the United States (literally: beautiful land). So it is possible to have beauty without burdening it with ideals of physical self-improvement and abstinence. Why not just enjoy life?

The argument is not different from ten thousand pieces of multiculturalist inquiry. The West suffers from some pathology, usually caused by capitalism (in this case, the piece attacks both the modelling industry and the competition encouraged by the larger museums). By comparison with the purer cultures, less corrupted by evil capitalism, one can return to the enlightened state of consciousness destroyed by modern society. By comparison, however, "globalization" is rapidly destroying those purer, better states of consciousness by corrupting these innocent societies with the evils of the West:

What Schiller really meant - and what the Chinese believe today - has largely been forgotten: superior intellect, wise politics, expert craftmanship, human prowess. For the Chinese, only what is true and good is also beautiful, says Jullien. Essayist Dave Hickey goes a step further. In his book "The Invisible Dragon", he describes how this "classical" stance is about to be driven out of the Chinese. They too are subject to the influence of academies, museums and universities. As in Europe, these institutions search for beauty in constructs and systems. But the Chinese no more believe in concepts than they do in making sacrifices to achieve an end. Their traditional view of beauty is a celebration of change, eternal circulation and transformation. And according to Hickey, this is precisely the opposite of everything rigid and statutory embodied by institutions.

But this culture of the transformative is in retreat, and it is disappearing faster than people are aware of. As Chinese choreographer Jin Xing puts it: "Chinese bodies look weak in comparison with beautiful African bodies. And the Chinese don't have the overriding sense of envy and justice that makes bodies hard and people rich in the West."

Let us summarize before we rebut. "Classical" Chinese attitudes toward beauty are under attack by the corrupting influence of Western "institutionalism," i.e., universities, academies, museums, etc. Those attitudes, far healthier than our own, hold that only "superior intellect, wise politics, expert craftsmanship, human prowess" are beautiful, things that are "true and good." But this is being lost, lost, as Western influence and globalization destroy the ancient Chinese wisdoms.

Now to rebut.

1) Institutionalism is not new to China. Far from it. Modern Western culture, however, driven by "institutionalism," does not approach the Chinese love for the corporate and social construct. There is no institution in the West like the Chinese Communist Party, and the CCP embraces all aspects of life.

2) It is not true that the Chinese embrace only "what is true and good." In fact, the Chinese relationship to truth is this: social harmony is more important than truth. The truth is always to be avoided when it would create social discord. This, in personal relationships as in State affairs, is considered polite and proper, and is why I could never find out just when my next paycheck was coming when I lived there.

3) As for the beauty of "human prowess" and "excellent craftsmanship," academics are referred to the practice of foot-binding. "Fat sheep," indeed: both plump and helpless.

As always, I'll make my home and take my stand in the West.

New York City: Man Tries to Steal Gun to 'Rescue Schiavo'

On Thinking Things Through

The headline reads, "Man Tries to Steal Gun to 'Rescue Schiavo.'"

A man was arrested after trying to steal a weapon from a gun shop so he could "take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo," authorities said.

I thought the National Guard thing was the limit of the madness that was going to erupt around this. Just what did this guy think he was going to do, having stolen a gun and captured the hospital room? Re-insert the tube himself? Even if he could, where was the water and food going to come from? And what threat was going to keep the police at bay? You can't hold as hostage someone the government has already decided should die.

Not that good planning seems to be the fellow's strong suit. There's an old saying about bringing a knife to a gunfight, but this guy didn't even bring a knife:

Michael W. Mitchell, of Rockford, Ill., entered Randall's Firearms Inc. in Seminole just before 6 p.m. Thursday with a box cutter and tried to steal a gun, said Marianne Pasha, a spokeswoman for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.... [The store owner] said he then pointed his own gun at Mitchell and ordered him to lie on the ground. But Mitchell fled out the store's back door before police arrived, he said.

One wonders if he'd have thought to steal any ammunition.

Davids Medienkritik: Stern's Gallery of Stereotypes: USA: The Divided Land

America, As Seen From Germany:

Kim du Toit has a link to this story, which sorts German sterotypes of Americans by how evil they think we are. "Gun-Toting Southerners" don't fare well in the German press, apparently. "Conservative Cowboy" is also not well liked by the German press. But the "Anarchist Vagabonds..."

Duty, shirking thereof.

I saw at this and immediately thought: "Ok, send him back so he can be shot." AND, I suppose that's glib. But I have no patience with this sort of behavior whatsoever.

He volunteered. He took an oath. He volunteered again to be airborne.

At least the Canadian immigration authorities recognize as much:

'Hinzman also testified he had been willing to fulfill his full four-year obligation to the Army, but not to participate in combat.

"I find Mr. Hinzman's position to be inherently contradictory," Goodman said in the ruling. "Surely an intelligent young man like Mr. Hinzman, who believes the
war in Iraq to be illegal, unjust and waged for economic reasons, would be
unwilling to participate in any capacity, whether as combatant or noncombatant."

I really hope the Army doesn't let him off easy.

New Scientist 13 things that do not make sense - Features

Wow, Indeed:

It's a banner day for Southern Appeal, which is also the source of this link. From The New Scientist, it's called "13 things that do not make sense."

Read it and marvel.

Serenity

Serenity:

We have a tradition in my family of naming vehicles, in the same way that you would name a ship or a horse. I recently came to own a 4x4 Chevrolet Blazer (which is twelve years old, making it the oldest new car I've ever had). I decided to name her "Serenity."

Why? If you haven't previously been aware of the movie Serenity, which is due out in September, allow me to introduce you.

This is going to be one of those movies that comes from a television series, Firefly. Those with highspeed connections who want a sample can download episodes here, apparently with the approval of the studio. Watch one or two, and see if you don't go buy the DVDs so that you can see them without the wait, and in a full-size form. I assume that's why the studio has been letting them post these things.

Firefly was a Western set in space. It's not the first of that ilk (I remember watching as a teenager Sean Connery's Outland, which was just a remake of High Noon, this time set on a space station). They're usually not very good.

This one was. I think it's because it isn't a genre piece. It's a space western, but it didn't have to be. These characters are very close to real, which means they could have fit in anywhere. They just happen to be on a spaceship, in the way that I happen to be in Virginia.

I'm not the only one of the Nation of Riflemen who thinks highly of it. I have seen people suggesting it over at Kim's place in the forums, and at Doc's place in his comments. But it isn't just gunfighters and Red Americans who like it. The thing was introduced to me by arch-liberal Sovay, who adores it, and has a whole host of friends who do likewise.

Give it a try. Start with the pilot, also called "Serenity," which is listed as 1x00 parts 1 and 2 on the download page.

See if it doesn't grab you. I'll bet it will.

Southern Appeal

What About Federalism?

There's been a lot of talk about this whole Congressional intervention. I was rather surprised by it, but assumed it was Constitutional and legal under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of federal review of civil rights cases, plus Congress' Constitutional authority to define court jurisdiction. Now, longtime readers know I am one of those, trained in the discipline of history, who point to the fact that the 14th was never properly ratified. In theory, then, this was only the latest in a long series of abuses by the Federal gov't, and one that was at least kindly intentioned and explicitly limited against providing legal precedent.

William over at Southern Appeal has an excellent post explaining why I was wrong about the bill's place in American constitutional law. His post is short and clear, and lays out some background issues that he understands as a lawyer but which I did not, not having any formal legal training. I believe that it is important that we who are not lawyers, policemen, judges or the like, still yet take time and trouble to understand the law. The law is too important to leave to lawyers, and so pieces like William's -- which inform the general public of the issues and traditions at stake -- are greatly valuable. Thank you, William, for taking the trouble.

t r u t h o u t - Niall Ferguson | Sinking Globalization

Ok, I'll Bite:

Niall Ferguson asks, "Could Globalization Collapse?"

It may seem unlikely today. Yet despite many warnings, people were shocked the last time globalization crumbled, with the onslaught of World War I.

Long time Grim's Hall source The Agonist has thoughts, and links to others by Brad DeLong. Sean Paul has this to say (and in the original, there are links to all these assertions):

China is aggresively trying to secure energy supplies. They are also making kissy-kissy with the Iranians. They were engaged in a crash course for an aircraft carrier but seem to have settled on rapidly ramping up their ASW capacity (anti-submarine warfare) for now. (I wonder who the target is?) They forked over several billion dollars to help the Putin steal Yukos. And they're going to hold joint-exercises with the Russkis. (My wife still can't believe this!)

Throw in the Taiwanese and you have an explosive mix.

Yeah, that's all true. Many of us believed before 9/11 -- I lived in China in 2000 -- that China would be the next big war. We've had a break since then, as China's been letting us spend our resources while building its own.

I'm with Sean Paul on this one. China absolutely will go to war over Taiwan if it feels it has to do so. He saw it from Taiwan, but I saw it from China. Even people who were otherwise skeptical of "Marxist" tendencies in their gov't were sure of their nationalist right to Taiwan.

That's not to say we can't win. But with the need to contain the DPRK nuclear programs from becoming a feeder to terrorists and other groups, we need China. It's a delicate situation, to say the least. The best bet is to let Japan take the forward position, if they will, and they may -- the next Prime Minister in Japan is expected to be Shinzo Abe, a rough and ready fighter by Japanese standards.

But even that presents dangers. China is spoiling for a fight with Japan for historic reasons. World War II is generally understood by Chinese students, in my experience teaching them, as 'the war of Japanese aggression.' They are only vaguely aware that any part of the rest of the world was involved.

All this explains the talks between Dr. Rice and China this week, in which she offered major concessions on the DPRK (calling it a "sovereign state" for the first time). All attention remains on Iraq. The game is afoot, however, in Asia.

Question

A Question for Soldiers:

On the train home tonight, I saw but did not have a chance to talk with a Major of the Special Operations Command. He was in his BDUs, with both the "AIRBORNE" shoulder sleeve insignia and wings. But he was wearing a black beret.

Now, I don't claim to understand this whole "beret" thing you guys do anyway (though I do get the Smokey Bear, A.K.A. the "Campaign Cover," A.K.A. a "Montana Bash" hat), but I thought I knew that Airborne soldiers wore maroon berets. I didn't see a Ranger or SF tab on the guy's uniform, but I thought he would still get the Airborne beret. Or are these things issued only to units designated as Airborne (e.g., 18th Airborne Corps, 101st Airborne Div), without regard to the individual soldier's accomplishments?

I ask because heraldry is a hobby of mine; and I remember the furor when they went to issuing black berets, which had been the symbol of the Rangers before. Now I'm wondering if even Special Operators are being told to wear the "standard" beret, or if I just don't understand the rules the Army plays by with regard to its headgear.

BLACKFIVE

Training:

BlackFive has a story to tell about a fellow soldier who died right in front of him. He's also got some links.

Training is dangerous. There have been years in which we have lost no fighting men to hostile fire, but I doubt there's ever been a year that we haven't lost people to training accidents. Marches are conducted in the heat. "Confidence" courses involve obstacles that are sometimes genuinely dangerous. I remember very clearly the first time I negotiated one such: I was eighteen, a great distance from the ground, without a rope or harness, and leaping into the air to catch the next rung of a giant-sized "ladder" that went up into nothing. Get to the top, climb over the top rung, climb back down. You could have died; you didn't, and you never forget that you managed to do something that seemed outrageous.

Training in jujitsu with a Marine named Ken Caton -- who was a genuine master of the art, but it's a contact sport -- I was nearly hurt, and was rendered unconscious for (I'm told) quite a while. The geography of the hold he was applying at the time is hard to put into words, but it was a leglock around my neck, with him in such a position that neither he nor the witnesses could see my precise reaction, or be sure of how tight the hold was. I lost consciousness before I could tap out, and he held on thinking I might be bluffing.

(Actually, I have a clear memory of tapping out, but all the witnesses agree that I never did. The mind plays tricks when there's no oxygen left.)

Was all this stuff dangerous? You bet.

However, we were young men, full of fire. The stuff we did when we weren't under "adult supervision" was way more dangerous. A lot of training accidents involve machinery -- helicopters, APCs. These are being handled by professionals in a professional, if high-speed and precision, manner.

When we weren't being watched, we were handling other machines (say, automobiles) in a high-speed and precision manner that wasn't the least bit professional. I can remember one little drag race on I-575 (coming back from running the O-course at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins AFB, in fact) where we passed a guy in the emergency lane at a speed I won't bother to record, returning to the road in time to miss the concrete pillars of a bridge that rose out of said emergency lane. By, maybe, six inches.

And that wasn't the worst thing I can remember doing. Not at all. I remember my father telling me many times as a boy that he could never understand how he hadn't gotten himself killed when he was younger. I never understood -- he was always so upright, so responsible! -- until I got to be about twenty-eight. It was only then that the fire faded enough that I could look back on the train wreck of youth with clear, amazed eyes.

The military involves training and honing that natural madness. It is put to a positive rather than a destructive use, to protect the Republic, her citizens and traditions. Just remember that when you read about these things. Sometimes young men get killed doing this stuff... but some of them would have gotten themselves killed anyway, maybe faster, and with less chance of any good coming out of it.

That's what it's like to be a young man. One of any account, at least.

TheStar.com - Spreading the message

Come On, Dean:

You've got to be kidding:

'Keep it simple' is the key to the White House, failed Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean told members of his party from around the world last night.

One major reason his party lost the 2004 race to the 'brain-dead' Republicans is that it has a 'tendency to explain every issue in half an hour of detail,' Dean told the semi-annual meeting of Democrats Abroad, which brought about 150 members from Canada and 30 other countries to the Toronto for two days.

He really said that? On the day that the nation is wrapped up watching Congress, the courts, and so forth and so on fight over the life of Mrs. Schiavo, he said Republicans represent the "brain-dead"?

Well, he did say this, too...

The Vermont's former governor cut short a campaign swing on Friday to return home after his son was picked up by police along with a group of his friends.... Dean was asked how he would win support of Democratic Party leaders given his frequent criticism of them and he responded that the leaders would come around once they got to know him.

"It is a bit of a club down there," he said. "The Democratic Party, all the candidates from Washington, they all know each other, they all move in the same circles, and what I'm doing is breaking into the country club."

On Monday, Dean winced when he heard his own words.

"That was an incredibly unfortunate phrase," he said.

"Why do I say these things?" Dean asked a press aide.

What really makes this latest comment so awful, though, is the fact that it doesn't contribute anything to the debate. The "country club" remark at least presents a coherent image that is accurate as far as it goes. It's only the timing that was unfortunate. The "brain dead" remark adds nothing, though, even if there were no such timing issues: calling your opponents "brain dead" is juvenile and unhelpful even if there are no external events that make the remarks seem so ghoulish.

Dean's not an idiot; he just sometimes plays one on TV. I recall he had some good ideas about Social Security reform. Maybe he should be talking about that. Go ahead: take an hour or two and tell us what you think. If these are your best soundbites, "keeping it simple" is just going to make it worse.

News & Features | Vice in a vise (continued)

On Vice:

It's not every day you see an article in a serious publication approvingly cite Modern Drunkard magazine:

When you look back at history, all the major movers and shakers, these artists, these writers, they were all heavy drinkers. And they were totally fine. They were fully functional drunks! Look at Churchill! Look at FDR! They freed the world from tyranny, and they were drunk all the time.

Well, indeed they were, though there were a few other people involved who were perfectly sober. Not as many as you might think, as European armies of the day got liquor rations. The US Navy & Marine Corps were early adopters of Prohibition. Though they had provided a daily liquor ration from the 1700s, in 1899 they put on the breaks, and by 1914 consuption was banned totally. By 1918, federal law banned alcohol within five miles of a naval station. The situation was similar in the Army during WWI, and so it was the case that our military fought the first two World Wars officially sober.

Officially, but under protest. As Bill Mauldin's Up Front reminds us in several of his collected cartoons, the first "strategic" target on liberating any French village was often the wine cellars. One I remember shows a hogshead that was broken up by the Germans before they retreated. The GIs coming in are shocked. "Them rats! Them dirty, cold-blooded, sore-headed, stinkin' Huns! Them atrocity-committin' skunks..." Another buries his face in his hands. Mr. Mauldin had a long bit of writing on the topic, as well. If any of you out there still haven't read Up Front, you should.

If drinking was an acceptable part of life in the European armies, it was a plain vice in the American forces. Yet, as Bill Mauldin and Modern Drunkard point out, the pursuit of vice didn't preclude the pursuit of virtue. It just helped to fill the long, cold spaces in between.

Blogger

Blogger:

Both Blogger and HaloScan are acting up. As soon as I can force them to let me, I'll have more.

Bolton

Bolton and the UN:

Joe Conason has a piece this week called "Bolton's Nomination an Insult to the U.N.: Latest in Bush Pattern of Appointing People Who Hate The Institutions They Are To Serve."

Not quite.

Twenty years ago, the then Secretary of State George Schultz used to welcome the Reagan administration's ambassadorial appointments to his office and invite each chap to identify his country on the map. The guy who'd just landed the embassy in Chad would invariably point to Chad. 'No,' Schultz would say, 'this is your country' -- and point to the United States. Nobody would expect a US ambassador to the Soviet Union to be a big booster for the Soviets. And, given that in a unipolar world the most plausible challenger to the US is transnationalism, these days the Schultz test is even more pertinent for the UN ambassador: his country is the United States, not the ersatz jurisdiction of Kofi Annan's embryo world government.

Bolton's nomination is an affront to the UN, but it's not an insult. The UN has no dignity to insult.

Sending John Bolton to be UN ambassador is like ...putting Sudan and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission. Or letting Saddam's Iraq chair the UN conference on disarmament. Or...

The challenge posed by Bolton may be bracing, or it may destroy the organization. I'm rooting for the latter, myself. The world would be better off without the United Nations. I join with The New Republic in holding that the UN "performs the magic of evil."

The destruction of the UN isn't the point, however. The point is this: Bolton understands what Conason does not. The ambassador's job is to serve the US, not the UN. This is his country. It's permitted for an ambassador to be of service to his host if it does not interfere with the interests of his country. It is not permitted to go native.

The Background of Edsall Road

On the 17th of March:

I went by my favorite pub north of Savannah, Molly's of Warrenton, for a pint or two today. Edsall Road was playing from two o'clock, and I stayed until the crowd got too loud to hear them -- which was about four. I therefore went home well before sunset.

I'm a semi-regular at Molly's; nobody there knows my name, but they all know my two-year-old son's name, and everybody asks me after him when I stop in. The sign they put out front today promised I'd have my ID checked both at the door and at the bar, but in fact nobody asked at all. While other folks were having their credit cards taken up before they'd see a pint, my credit was assumed valid the moment I sat down. It's a nice way to live.

Normally it's a quiet place. In fact, they've quit opening before four on most days, having run into the Southern gentleman's general prohibition against drinking before five (or at least one, if it's a very bad day, or you just really want to). St. Patrick's Day is an exception, though, as all the amateurs come out.

I don't quite know what to do with these folks.

The worst of them consort around Boston, Chicago and Savannah, Georgia. Savannah contains America's greatest Irish pub, and a large contingent of Irish citizens. St. Patrick's Day in these cities -- I've been in Chicago and Savannah on them, and assume it's not different in Boston -- is like Mardi Gras in New Orleans. The city becomes unlivable. One-day Irishmen riot through the place. Sane people stay hell and gone from what are otherwise very nice places.

Well, fun's fun. Good luck to the crazies. Everyone deserves their day, I suppose.

Happy St. Patrick's Day to the rest of you. For those of you who believe in saints, Southern Appeal has a prayer.

Samizdata.net

Matters Abroad:

Our honorable brethren across the sea, Samizdata, have two interesting posts today. One is on what they call a "counterrevolution" in British constitutionalism, which is worth considering in light of Scalia's comments on US constitutionalism. That can be read here.

The other is about the current Blair government's attempts to impose global gun control. In this matter, the government in the UK has its principles all wrong. The UN, also cited in the piece, knows exactly what it is doing: it is using its pseudo-democratic mechanisms to pursue the defense of human tyranny, like always.

My wife and I were discussing gun control principles the other day. She began with the assertion that gun control was foolish because it wasn't practical; since it wasn't possible to really remove guns from the hands of criminals (as the British surely ought to understand by now), it was unwise to remove them from the hands of good citizens. People should be allowed to protect themselves.

I'm glad to say that I convinced her completely to reconsider this principle. Firearms, and particularly handguns, represent a positive good in society. The small, handy, concealable firearm is unique in that it makes equals of thuggish brutes and the elderly; or the brutes and young women, who may have children or their own bodies to protect. A rifle makes it practical for such a person to defend their home. In those places where roving gangs control the streets -- say, the Congo or Philadelphia -- that can make all the difference.

If gun control were practical, we would be thrown back into a situation in which the strong had more force to bear than the weak, and crime would simply be easier for the brutal.

We've seen this in Rwanda, as Samizdata mentions, but also the Congo. I assume you saw the piece about African victims cooked on spits and boiled alive? Didn't need guns for that -- just strong men of no character, fire and oil. Didn't need guns for the raping or mutilations either -- nature provided the necessities for the one, and a machete works fine for the other.

A firearm would have been useful for the mother wanting to protect those children. Life would be better if the villagers of the Congo kept rifles handy, instead of merely the "militias." It is a slander to use that word, as the above article does; these are merely gangs of thugs. If there were real militias, militias of the people that trained together and could rise to protect their common peace against these thugs, Africa would be a happier place.

Those are the principles we ought to use when considering the issue.

Scalia

Scalia Is Right:

I had time this afternoon to read this transcript of Scalia's remarks. I think he's right, from first to last.

The "Living Constitution" points to the end of Constitutionalism. It is not the only trend in that direction. Consider the question of Declarations of War, which are now done by simple Congressional votes that aren't, in fact, a Declaration of War. Thus you get what we had in the last election: a Congress that had "authorized military force" but not declared war, and thus a Presidential candidate who had voted 'to authorize force' but claimed to be an antiwar candidate. If Congress were keeping up its Constitutional duties, there would be no such wiggle room: Your Senator would be on record, for or against.

The Supreme Court's abandonment of genuine Constitutionalism is even more dangerous, because the USSC is unacountable, and because the USSC has become the "final word" on what the Constitution is and says. If Congress does something unConstitutional, you can turn to the court; but the USSC claims authority to be the last word.

You don't have to agree with Scalia on any particular case to find his reasoning compelling. He points to some real problems with the system. Unlike many who do that, he has a solution. We need more like him on the Court.

Sharp Knife

Heroism's Alternative:

Noel picks up on an interesting fact:

In 1996, when Canadians were asked to name both the greatest living and the all-time greatest Canadian, 76 percent said "no one comes to mind."

Americans, asked the same question, would have a knock-down, drag-out fight over who belonged on the list -- and who was a Nazi/Socialist/Commie who ought to just be shot. We wouldn't have a shortage of candidates, though, either for hero or scoundrel.

Yeah, I like it that way too.

The Ides of March

Today was my grandfather's birthday. Had he not died at the age of eighty, he would have been ninety-three today. I will shortly raise a glass of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer in his honor -- it was his favorite.

He was a welder, and eventually the owner of a body shop and service station catering to long-haul trucks down in Knoxville. He was the kind of man who would, and more than once did, disarm a man of a knife or a gun with his own bare hands. Oh, he had a gun -- never until he was very old was he without one. He just didn't feel the need to resort to it.

His given names were "Jackson Theodore," which tells you enough to know that my politics are honestly inherited. He didn't go by that mouthful. The world knew him as "Jack T." My father, even when he was fifty years old, still called him "Daddy" when he talked about him. He called him "Sir" when he talked to him.

You all know by now that I wear his Stetson a great deal of the time. It's a big old thing, in a color called "Silver belly" by the folks at JB Stetson Hats. [UPDATE: Yeah, that hat.] Almost everything I know about being a man I learned from him. Much of that was filtered through the stories of my father.

It's a fine day, the ides of March. Once it saw the end of a tyrant; once, the birth of a brave, free man. I hear a few other things have happened too: but surely that is enough for any day.

Grim's Hall

Notice:

While pondering Joel's comments to the TR post this morning, I decided to switch the comments section to "oldest to most recent" form. Newer comments will be located at the bottom instead of the top, as is the standard for blogs.

When I first started blogging, there wasn't a standard yet, and I liked the other way better. However, I bow to the common wisdom, and hopefully will cease confusing new readers.