Steam hammer in railyard facility. Note the lack of hardhats and the old style soft caps that were so prevalent prior to the baseball cap dominating everything.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Mid Week at Work: Steam Hammer
Steam hammer in railyard facility. Note the lack of hardhats and the old style soft caps that were so prevalent prior to the baseball cap dominating everything.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
When Sage Chickens Attack
Wound from a sage chicken, it wasn't quite dead, back during the season. They have impressive feet. It was almost gone, but kicked. It was a bit bloody, so I didn't notice the blood or the wound, at first.
Given the blood, it infected. That was easy enough to address, but it since has scarred. Seems to be permanent.
Sort of like a dueling scar from days of old. Except not as cool, which is okay as it isn't as visible.
Why am I posting this? Clearing out my Iphone photos.
Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Indian Wars In The West
Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Indian Wars In The West: In 1825 President James Monroe, after looking at reports from his top advisors, created, what was called, the Indian Frontier between the M...
New hotels with elements of the old and new.
I've posted here in the past about old hotels, and how small their rooms were. Here's a twist on that.
Single king bed room at the downtown J. W. Marriot in Houston, Texas.
These are photos of the room interior of the current JW Marriot in downtown Houston, which is a very nice hotel. It's located in a building built in 1909, at which time the sixteen story structure was the tallest building in Texas. It wasn't a hotel, however, it was an office building. The solid steel frame building housed banks and offices in its early history. It didn't become a hotel until last year, 2014. It's a nice one, but a careful eye can tell that it wasn't built as a hotel.
Interior (back room) view. The other views are no doubt much better.
The hotel is a very nice one, but what strikes me is how small the room noted above was. It was a fine room, but very small, just like the early 20th Century hotels I've stayed in elsewhere are, except that this didn't become a hotel until 2014.
Ipad, taking the place of a hotel services book and phone in some ways.
Which isn't to say that it wasn't updated with modern conveniences. It certainly was. Included in these are, of course, the perfunctory television, which I rarely turn on in a hotel room, and an Ipad, which could be used to check the hotel's services, or order that your car be brought around, etc.
Interesting incorporation of the old and new in a renovation.
A move afoot to end tipping?
According to The New Republic, there's a move afoot in some significant East Coast restaurants to raise waiters' wages and ban tipping.
If so, that would would be quite a change. It's apparently been tried once before, but waiters objected to it.
Interestingly, according to the article tipping originated in the United States as a means of paying freed blacks who had been slaves, and then found employment as waiters. low wages.
Monday, December 21, 2015
So what's a species anyway? New information on the Red Wolf.
Way back when I co-authored this article;
The article is really on Gray Wolves, the same species people call Timber Wolves. When researching it at the time I recall reading a fair amount of the literature of the species classification of wolves, and Gray Wolves were the big wolf group in North America, with there being in some people's minds a variety of subspecies of them. The local wolf was the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf, but that's really just a regular Gray Wolf. Some old literature maintained that there might have been a species they termed Buffalo Wolves, but the best evidence was that those wolves were just wolves that had grown large on buffalo carcasses, rather than some giant species of wolf that drug down buffalo, although some maintained the opposite.
Red Wolves, however, were thought by most to be a completely separate species. Some, however, argued that they were just a coyote wolf hybrid.
Indeed, canines don't fit the classic species definition well, as it's pretty clear that they'll readily produce viable offspring, which according to Linnean classification rules means that they're all one species. This seems ignored in regards to them, however, in no small part as various dogs have significantly different behaviors. Coyotes, for example, don't hunt in ordered packs like wolves do.
Well, with DNA studies advancing to rapidly it was only a matter of time until a DNA study was done of Red Wolves. And it turns out they have no identifiable separate genetic information. They really are a coyote wolf hybrid.
They like each other better than coyotes, it turns out, so they keep on keeping on. But this is really pretty significant in terms of our understanding of species, let alone wolves. For one thing, it means that a person now has to either question whether Red Wolves deserve the endangered species characterization they now have, as they might not be a species at all, or perhaps it means we should reconsider the definition of a species.
Or perhaps it brings back the old argument about lumpers vs. splitters in species classification, which has always been with us. Are there lots of species in any one genus, or just a few?
I think just a few, quite frankly.
Lex Anteinternet: Wolf Recovery Under the Endangered Species Act: A ...: From the Public Land Law Review: Wolf Recovery Under the Endangered Species Act: A Study In Contemporary Federalism . An article I work...I recall reading about Red Wolves.
The article is really on Gray Wolves, the same species people call Timber Wolves. When researching it at the time I recall reading a fair amount of the literature of the species classification of wolves, and Gray Wolves were the big wolf group in North America, with there being in some people's minds a variety of subspecies of them. The local wolf was the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf, but that's really just a regular Gray Wolf. Some old literature maintained that there might have been a species they termed Buffalo Wolves, but the best evidence was that those wolves were just wolves that had grown large on buffalo carcasses, rather than some giant species of wolf that drug down buffalo, although some maintained the opposite.
Red Wolves, however, were thought by most to be a completely separate species. Some, however, argued that they were just a coyote wolf hybrid.
Indeed, canines don't fit the classic species definition well, as it's pretty clear that they'll readily produce viable offspring, which according to Linnean classification rules means that they're all one species. This seems ignored in regards to them, however, in no small part as various dogs have significantly different behaviors. Coyotes, for example, don't hunt in ordered packs like wolves do.
Well, with DNA studies advancing to rapidly it was only a matter of time until a DNA study was done of Red Wolves. And it turns out they have no identifiable separate genetic information. They really are a coyote wolf hybrid.
They like each other better than coyotes, it turns out, so they keep on keeping on. But this is really pretty significant in terms of our understanding of species, let alone wolves. For one thing, it means that a person now has to either question whether Red Wolves deserve the endangered species characterization they now have, as they might not be a species at all, or perhaps it means we should reconsider the definition of a species.
Or perhaps it brings back the old argument about lumpers vs. splitters in species classification, which has always been with us. Are there lots of species in any one genus, or just a few?
I think just a few, quite frankly.
Courthouses of the West: Lahaina Banyan Courthouse, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii.
Courthouses of the West: Lahaina Banyan Courthouse, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii.:
This is the Lahaina Banyan Courthouse in Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii. The courthouse was built in 1859 to replace a courthouse that had been destroyed in a typhoon the prior year. The courthouse served the Kingdom of Hawaii until in U.S. annexation in 1898. It was renovated, while still being used as a courthouse in 1925. It is now a museum, visitors center and a community center.
This is the Lahaina Banyan Courthouse in Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii. The courthouse was built in 1859 to replace a courthouse that had been destroyed in a typhoon the prior year. The courthouse served the Kingdom of Hawaii until in U.S. annexation in 1898. It was renovated, while still being used as a courthouse in 1925. It is now a museum, visitors center and a community center.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
It'll turn around . . . or maybe it won't.
Just yesterday I was in a gathering where the price of oil and coal were discussed. The rosy "it'll turn around" comments were absent from the insiders. "Five to six years out" was the most optimistic comment. And I think that comment is likely truly optimistic. In today's paper there's an article about service industries that are struggling, and another one on the state's outmigration, something that was inevitable.
Interestingly, there was also an article about the last underground British coal mine closing, which occurred last week. Prior to World War Two 1,000,000 British were employed in coal mining, now its fading away. Britain, the article notes, still uses coal for about 1/5th of its power generation, but it is anticipated that this will end.
I've commented on this all before, but the best evidence is that we live in a new economic regime regarding energy and fuels. Perhaps the beginning of a new era.
Part of that era is fuel efficiency, on the fuels we are using. The new gasoline 3/4 ton trucks get 16 mpg in town and about 25 mpg on the highway. A truck, that is. My 2007 diesel, currently convalescing with a sick diesel particulate filter in the shop, gets 16 mpg to 20 mpg on the highway, which I always thought was good.
That may help explain why I saw diesel for sale in town yesterday for $2.13.
Interestingly, there was also an article about the last underground British coal mine closing, which occurred last week. Prior to World War Two 1,000,000 British were employed in coal mining, now its fading away. Britain, the article notes, still uses coal for about 1/5th of its power generation, but it is anticipated that this will end.
I've commented on this all before, but the best evidence is that we live in a new economic regime regarding energy and fuels. Perhaps the beginning of a new era.
Part of that era is fuel efficiency, on the fuels we are using. The new gasoline 3/4 ton trucks get 16 mpg in town and about 25 mpg on the highway. A truck, that is. My 2007 diesel, currently convalescing with a sick diesel particulate filter in the shop, gets 16 mpg to 20 mpg on the highway, which I always thought was good.
That may help explain why I saw diesel for sale in town yesterday for $2.13.
Lex Anteinternet: You can't do what you want
This was posted on Friday:
He works as a hired hand. Indeed, in that small gathering of young agriculturalist in this county, only three out of the five young men who wold be in that occupation were "on their own place", and they were family places. One wasn't working in the field at all.
Lex Anteinternet: You can't do what you want: In the film Lawrence of Arabia, Sharif Ali and T. E. Lawrence exchange these lines: Ali: A man can be what he wants, you said. Lawrence...Heard yesterday, from a young member of the demographic being discussed; "I want to die rich on my own place".
He works as a hired hand. Indeed, in that small gathering of young agriculturalist in this county, only three out of the five young men who wold be in that occupation were "on their own place", and they were family places. One wasn't working in the field at all.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
The Best Post of the Week of December 13, 2015.
We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.
I recently posted here regarding people undergoing medical treatment to ostensibly change their gender.
Of course, as we can't actually change our DNA, the degree to which we
really can change our gender is questionable. What we're really doing
is changing the perception of gender, not our genetic gender
assignment. And that lead me to think of this.
Chilean couple, 1940, no doubt a lot more natural than "all natural" folks today, in every sense.
Blog Mirror: This Cat Calendar Is Making the Russian Orthodox Church Go Viral
You’ve probably never seen cats and the Russian Orthodox church so up close and cuddly together. A group of Christian enthusiasts has released a photo calendar where the 12 months of the upcoming year are illustrated with images of Orthodox priests posing with their cats. The “Priest + Cat” calendar published by Artos, an association of Christian artists, is aimed at promoting “modern Orthodox culture” in Russia.
Denver continues in a boom in the midst of an oilfield recession.
Everyone knows that the oilfield is in a recession, if not a depression. But Denver is still booming and housing prices there are through the roof.
Why?
Nobody is certain, but it appears that marijuana may be the reason.
And according to the New Republic, the boom in LoDo and HiDo is so marijuana centric that space for that industry has crowded out the arts scene that was booming down there.
Why?
Nobody is certain, but it appears that marijuana may be the reason.
And according to the New Republic, the boom in LoDo and HiDo is so marijuana centric that space for that industry has crowded out the arts scene that was booming down there.
"They're fighting over which religion is the most peaceful". No, they aren't.
I saw this as a caption of a cartoon, but even if you haven't seen the cartoon, it's a fairly common flippant comment.
It's also wholly incorrect.
The concept that a lot of wars are religiously motivated is a fairly erroneous concept in general. Some are, but a lot of the ones people claim are, aren't. And the idea that all religions are fighting for "peace" is complete bunk, as not all religions espouse peace never do they contest each other for the title of most peaceful.
That's right, they don't.
Indeed, the entire concept of a religion of peace is pretty much uniquely Christian although some other religions do incorporate that to varying degrees. Some of the ones that people believe do, quite oddly, don't have that in the form we imagine. Peace as a central virtue is not necessarily incorporated into every religion the same way it is in Christianity.
Buddhism? Surely it's central virtue is peace, there's one, right?
Oh, you know of course that there were Japanese fighting Buddhist monks, Sōhei. They even ran schools on the use of their arms. You know that, right? That they killed people in that pursuit.
Hmmmm. . . .
This isn't easy to make light of. I don't know, for example, that we can compare them to Knights Templar, as they seem quite different indeed.
Islam has frequently been cited as a "religion of Peace" by non Muslims, and that has been picked up by some Muslims as well. But it certainly didn't originate that way. Islam was spread by the sword for almost all of its early history, with Judaism and Christianity being tolerated in the lands they captured, at the price of paying a special tax for belonging to either of those faiths, and with other faiths faring less well. Violence in the name of Islam has never left it. This doesn't mean all Muslims are violent, but stating that its a "religion of Peace" requires some examination.
Some will maintain, of course, that there have been violent Christians. And there has been. But violence has never been a tenant of Christianity. It has been of Islam and it doesn't do the faith justice to pretend otherwise.
What's the point of this? It's not a comment on any faith. But, the frequent claim that various faiths are fighting for the title of "most peaceful" are just flat out wrong. I"m not aware of that ever happening.
Friday, December 18, 2015
We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.
I recently posted here regarding people undergoing medical treatment to ostensibly change their gender. Of course, as we can't actually change our DNA, the degree to which we really can change our gender is questionable. What we're really doing is changing the perception of gender, not our genetic gender assignment. And that lead me to think of this.
Chilean couple, 1940, no doubt a lot more natural than "all natural" folks today, in every sense.
In our world today, westerners (residents of Europe and North America) are huge on things being "all natural". It's the rage, and it doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. And I'm not really criticizing it, as my agrarian leanings make me sympathetic, when its done in the messy, bloody, muddy way of actual nature. I'm not so sympathetic with the fanciful fake natural way that some who fear real nature would have it.
So, in this era of all natural, we have "natural" organic foods of all types. Natural organic oatmeal (maybe even better if from Ireland and cut with steel), organic vegetables, grass fed beef. You name it.
Indeed, entire sections of the European and North American populations are at war with any genetically altered foods of any kind, although it must be noted in fairness that nearly every food we eat was selectively bred that way so as to alter it from its original form, save for people who eat fairly primitive foods and hunt and fish. Indeed, ironically for some of these folks, our meat sources tend to be much less genetically altered by selective breeding than our plant foods. Cows, for example, differ little from aurochs.
Frequently satirical copied World War Two era poster. Presenting an idealistic image, the mother and daughter in fact represent Americans who were a lot more "natural" than nearly any living today.
People have taken this one step further and now, in some hip circles, want their foods to be produced all locally. Again, I'm not criticizing that. I have some sympathy for it, being a fan of systems and realizing how odd some of our food production chain actually is. I used to grow a big garden myself, and miss doing so, which sort of taps into this.
And we have all natural concerns expressing themselves in clothing. I know of people who will only wear "all natural fibers". Not liking synthetics much, I trend that way, although I do like the storm proof hoodies that are now out there, which make for great winter insulation.
Some folks, however, have gone even one step further there, and insist that their fibers, if plant derived, also be organic, out of an apparent concern for the environment.
All really big in Europe and North America, particularly with the upper class, the upper middle class, and the university crowd.
So why don't we apply it to ourselves?
It's really interesting. We are now the least "natural" and "organic" we have ever been, and this includes a lot of people in the "all natural" and "organic" crowed.
If nature is good, shouldn't it be good for us too? Why don't we go "organic"?
What do I mean, well consider this.
This Tlingit couple is a lot more natural than darned near any modern American, and in part for reason that we hardly even consider.
Let's go back to the story that proceeds this one on this blog, which I reference above. Nature determined your gender. The natural and organic thing to do is to go with that. That's natural. Surgery and chemicals to change that aren't natural, they're unnatural and in-organic.
So too, I might add, is the ingestion of chemical compounds designed to interrupt the natural byproducts of those genders and their interactions, i.e., stop the creation or, as they actually will sometimes apparently do, stop the implanting of tiny human beings that come about when two big human beings of opposite genders become, well. . . .. Indeed, it's becoming more and more evident that only is that not natural, but it's also dangerous for the women who take them. I have to wonder if those pharmaceuticals were being introduced for the first time today, if they'd long last the resulting lawsuits that came about over some of those questions. But, no matter, litigation isn't the point, nature is. Messing with that is counter to nature, and most things we do with our bodies that are artificial have some sort of bad psychical or psychological result.
And on that particular topic, the psychology of this works the way it always has, creating a mess of people's lives who have otherwise defeated the natural, which then works to make all of our lives more messy and less natural. And in terms of culture, the den of unnatural, Hollywood, doesn't even seemingly know what the purpose and results of two genders is, which is quite unnatural. By extension, a lot of people in society today don't either. Indeed, quite a few people have become confused enough about it that they now self identify based on their concept of their gender, which is really odd and not natural. That is, they don't identify by their culture, but by an attraction, which is not what nature would provide, no matter what their attraction.
Not to seem to leave men alone on the disruption of nature by physical or chemical means brought up above, having surgery to frustrate the same thing isn't very darned natural either.
Now, having surgery is something I'm not advocating against. We've learned how to address many illnesses and defects surgically, and that's a great blessing. No, what I'm talking about is surgery upon a healthy and functioning body. That is, to defeat the way the body is designed to work. That's not in keeping with nature.
Cosmetic surgery sure isn't natural either, when looked at this way. Or at least some of it isn't I understand, and certainly do not oppose, surgery that is designed to fix a physical defect, no matter how derived, but surgery merely to make a nose look different, or worse to make certain attributes artificially bigger is extremely unnatural. So is surgery to counter the effects of our appearance as we age. We all age, and not looking like we are doesn't actually make us look any better as a rule, just artificial.
Diets (which is where this conversation started out) designed around a social construct aren't natural either. So, vegans, you aren't natural. Not that I'm saying that the American diet is 100% good for you. I'm not. But what I am saying is that people who delude themselves into thinking that being a vegan, or a vegetarian, is a good thing for philosophical reasons are wildly off based. You weren't designed by nature to be a cow. And your body knows that which means you'll have to do a lot of effort to defeat the fact that you are an omnivore, not a plant eating mammal. That's just nature.
Young farm couple in town, 1930s. Yes, they're not hipsters. . . they they're a lot more natural that probably anyone reading this.
You can't do what you want
In the film Lawrence of Arabia, Sharif Ali and T. E. Lawrence exchange these lines:
Well, that's become the case with farming in this country. And that's something that should concern us.
Farming is the most basic, or elemental, of all occupations. Only hunting and fishing, which are not professions per se, are more elemental. The desire to own land to farm was one of the primary attractions to immigrants entering this country, and for some immigrant cultures, it was the single biggest enormous attractant. People like to cite things like "freedom to worship" and the like, but except for certain distinct cultures, such factors weren't the primary motivators. Land was a nearly universal one.
But now, you just can't get into it, or at least you nearly can't.
And this is not a good thing at all. It isn't good for our society, and it's bad for individuals.
Ali: A man can be what he wants, you said.The "this" in that statement, referred to Lawrence's skin, meaning that he couldn't desire to want things an Arab could want, only things an Englishman could want.
Lawrence: He can, but he can't want what he wants, this determines what he can want.
Well, that's become the case with farming in this country. And that's something that should concern us.
Farming is the most basic, or elemental, of all occupations. Only hunting and fishing, which are not professions per se, are more elemental. The desire to own land to farm was one of the primary attractions to immigrants entering this country, and for some immigrant cultures, it was the single biggest enormous attractant. People like to cite things like "freedom to worship" and the like, but except for certain distinct cultures, such factors weren't the primary motivators. Land was a nearly universal one.
But now, you just can't get into it, or at least you nearly can't.
And this is not a good thing at all. It isn't good for our society, and it's bad for individuals.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Washing machines
No machine goes more unsung, but does more to relieve domestic drudgery, than the washing machine.
Vermont, 1940.
New York, 1943.
Arizona, 1940
New Mexico, 1940.
1942.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Courthouses of the West: Big Horn County Courthouse, Basin Wyoming
Courthouses of the West: Big Horn County Courthouse, Basin Wyoming:
This is the classic courthouse of Big Horn County, Wyoming, another court in the state's 5th Judicial District. The court sits on enormous grounds. It was built in 1918.
But what if we are wrong?
The New York Times has an article about Jerná Nimmons, born Jerome Nimmons, who has become one of the first New Yorkers to undergo gender reassignment surgery via Medicaid. It's a sympathetic human interest story, riding a trend line on this topic, which essentially follows the very rapid, and massive, social developments in our culture following the Obergefell decision by a slim majority of the United States Supreme Court. That's a bit ironic, apparently, as according to at least some the population with same gender attraction is actually uncomfortable by the suggestion that they are in the same category as people who seek to change genders, and I guess I can see why they would regard that differently.
And of course the entire topic received a big boost after a former decathlete, whom I always thought fit into the Obergefell demographic (his marriage into a family of female celebrities always baffled me) decided he fit into this latter category.
So, now we find ourselves in an era when, suddenly, it's regarded as a medically valid procedure to undertake this radical surgery.
But here's a thought.
What if we're wrong?
Our track record on this sort of thing is absolutely abysmal. Sure, medical science has advanced enormously, and we're getting very good at postponing killer diseases and conditions, but we're not really all that great at conditions that have a social aspect to them. Indeed, we're still pretty good at getting some of these things completely wrong.
Over the past forty years for example, the evidence is now pretty good that we've routinely botched dietary information, leading to still ongoing popular beliefs that all sorts of foods are dangerous when the better evidence is that they are not. At one time the suggestion that aluminum cookware caused Alzheimer's caused all sorts of people to thrown out their stuff in that category. I was already using cast iron at that time, but my mother, a pretty bad cook, used a Teflon coated electric aluminum skillet that did make me nervous after that (to which there was the added concern that the Teflon was always stripping off her cookware). That turned out to be complete bunk. Following that, there was a very widespread belief that vaccinations were causing Downs Syndrome, for which there is no evidence really, but like the current situation on the topic at hand, a celebrity with a tragic personal interest in the story really helped boost the belief, which is still widespread.
On the topics immediately at hand, much more remains in the air, scientifically, than people seemingly believe or want to believe. On same gender attraction, the causal origin of the condition is now nearly taboo to talk about, although it should be. There remains no evidence that it's biologic in origin, and so it seems to arise due to early childhood conditions. That isn't saying anything against anyone, it just is the truth. That's where the science is basically at. Likewise, with people who perceive that their "identity" is another gender, there's no medical evidence at all that that perception is backed up by anything, so it's psychological.
Biologically, the basic information is that the overwhelming majority have DNA assignments that make them male or female. And in spite of the feminist pushed belief of some years ago that's still out there, that difference is huge. Biologically, we have one of the highest degrees of separate morphology by gender of any mammal. Even within simians we're very exceptional in that characteristic. Separate behavior by gender, as well as morphology, is common amongst mammals, but here too, across cultures and regions, there are very demonstrable behavioral differences between the genders in our species.
Much of post 1900 social science has sought to ignore or alter that, but because these things are in our DNA, they really can't be. And that's where my interest and concern comes in here.
I haven't, it should be noted, spoken about the morality or immorality of anything in this post. Not at all. I've commented only on biology. My interest in evolutionary biology goes back to my days as a geology student, part of which necessarily exposes you to a fair degree of evolutionary thought. And this is an area which, while it is only getting explored now, always seemed like a fairly apparent one, particularly for our own species.
Absent the the extraordinarily rare genetic abnormality, we're two genders and two only, true of all the other mammals and most animal life of any kind. That might not be determinative of the topics addressed above, but it certainly should inform a rational discussion of them.
We're also a species with a high social order everywhere, in no matter what kind of culture we live in. We take care of our own far beyond that of any other herd animal, and that's really what we are, loner and "lone wolves" aside. That's hugely significant in regard to the "human condition", as it means that our social order allows for us to endure in spite of any deviation from type that we may have. Bad eyesight, weakness, illness and any other number of things do not result in our early deaths, and never have, to the same degree that they would in any other species.
Likewise, it's well established that we, as a species, have or endure a fair amount of psychological deviation. That gets people's ire up, but it's true. Depression, severe anxiety, addictive behaviors, insanity, psychopathic behaviors, eating disorders, etc. etc. are not uncommon in our species. But that doesn't mean that they constitute an ideal, nor does it necessarily mean that these are the outer fringes of our normal and functional genetic behavioral range. Nor does it mean that the person who has such inclinations is morally bad for having them, which again is not the point of this post.
But what it may mean is that some conditions that exist in the human population, particularly when it is a very rare condition, which the conditions discussed in the main topic of the post are, may be aberrations. Again, having an aberration doesn't mean a person is a bad person.
I note this here as the entire concept now of a person's gender and their self identification regarding it would have been regarded as an absurdity not all that long ago. That there are two genders and two genders only is self evident. It's also self evident, however, that there have always been some people who have struggled with their gender. But we don't really know why.
We do know, however, that those undergoing surgery in regards to this have a massive level of post surgery discontent and psychological difficulty thereafter. So much so that as a surgery it probably out to never be allowed on a minor, and moreover a person electing for it, at a bare minimum, really ought to go through some stout psychological counselling first.
Indeed, this is apparently the norm in Europe, with the result that a high percentage of those who come in wishing for the surgery change their minds and do not pursue it. It's rapidly becoming the case in the United States, however, that people declare they wish to undergo such things and it's just assumed that it's all okay, and its done, subsequent consequences not withstanding.
Beyond that, and particularly when a person is about to be cut on, its highly questionable to what extent any of this is backed up by the science. I strongly suspect it isn't. We probably shouldn't be surprised in fifteen or twenty years, when the social aspect of this has dimmed, if we start learning that the origin of much of this is truly psychological and that we're doing more damage to the people holding the views by treating it as something to be changed.
Which gets on to another point.
Nature.
And "all natural".
We supposedly live in an era when we want to preserve nature. In the western world in particular, preservation of nature has taken on the status of a near religion. As a huge fan of nature, I"m hip with preserving nature.
And we worry about all natural, even in our foods, paying more for "organic" foods of all types.
But, the one thing we clearly don't like organic, or natural, in the world, is ourselves. We particularly don't like it if it has anything to do with our genders, and why there are two genders. We seemingly hate it, in the western world, in regards to our genders, and urge behavior contrary to our genders, and even medicate ourselves against the natural byproducts of our genetic differences. And now we're even pretending that, contrary to all evidence, that it's not part our natural natures that there are only two genders.
We really ought to rethink that. Generally, acting contrary to nature is dangerous.
And of course the entire topic received a big boost after a former decathlete, whom I always thought fit into the Obergefell demographic (his marriage into a family of female celebrities always baffled me) decided he fit into this latter category.
So, now we find ourselves in an era when, suddenly, it's regarded as a medically valid procedure to undertake this radical surgery.
But here's a thought.
What if we're wrong?
Our track record on this sort of thing is absolutely abysmal. Sure, medical science has advanced enormously, and we're getting very good at postponing killer diseases and conditions, but we're not really all that great at conditions that have a social aspect to them. Indeed, we're still pretty good at getting some of these things completely wrong.
Over the past forty years for example, the evidence is now pretty good that we've routinely botched dietary information, leading to still ongoing popular beliefs that all sorts of foods are dangerous when the better evidence is that they are not. At one time the suggestion that aluminum cookware caused Alzheimer's caused all sorts of people to thrown out their stuff in that category. I was already using cast iron at that time, but my mother, a pretty bad cook, used a Teflon coated electric aluminum skillet that did make me nervous after that (to which there was the added concern that the Teflon was always stripping off her cookware). That turned out to be complete bunk. Following that, there was a very widespread belief that vaccinations were causing Downs Syndrome, for which there is no evidence really, but like the current situation on the topic at hand, a celebrity with a tragic personal interest in the story really helped boost the belief, which is still widespread.
On the topics immediately at hand, much more remains in the air, scientifically, than people seemingly believe or want to believe. On same gender attraction, the causal origin of the condition is now nearly taboo to talk about, although it should be. There remains no evidence that it's biologic in origin, and so it seems to arise due to early childhood conditions. That isn't saying anything against anyone, it just is the truth. That's where the science is basically at. Likewise, with people who perceive that their "identity" is another gender, there's no medical evidence at all that that perception is backed up by anything, so it's psychological.
Biologically, the basic information is that the overwhelming majority have DNA assignments that make them male or female. And in spite of the feminist pushed belief of some years ago that's still out there, that difference is huge. Biologically, we have one of the highest degrees of separate morphology by gender of any mammal. Even within simians we're very exceptional in that characteristic. Separate behavior by gender, as well as morphology, is common amongst mammals, but here too, across cultures and regions, there are very demonstrable behavioral differences between the genders in our species.
Much of post 1900 social science has sought to ignore or alter that, but because these things are in our DNA, they really can't be. And that's where my interest and concern comes in here.
I haven't, it should be noted, spoken about the morality or immorality of anything in this post. Not at all. I've commented only on biology. My interest in evolutionary biology goes back to my days as a geology student, part of which necessarily exposes you to a fair degree of evolutionary thought. And this is an area which, while it is only getting explored now, always seemed like a fairly apparent one, particularly for our own species.
Absent the the extraordinarily rare genetic abnormality, we're two genders and two only, true of all the other mammals and most animal life of any kind. That might not be determinative of the topics addressed above, but it certainly should inform a rational discussion of them.
We're also a species with a high social order everywhere, in no matter what kind of culture we live in. We take care of our own far beyond that of any other herd animal, and that's really what we are, loner and "lone wolves" aside. That's hugely significant in regard to the "human condition", as it means that our social order allows for us to endure in spite of any deviation from type that we may have. Bad eyesight, weakness, illness and any other number of things do not result in our early deaths, and never have, to the same degree that they would in any other species.
Likewise, it's well established that we, as a species, have or endure a fair amount of psychological deviation. That gets people's ire up, but it's true. Depression, severe anxiety, addictive behaviors, insanity, psychopathic behaviors, eating disorders, etc. etc. are not uncommon in our species. But that doesn't mean that they constitute an ideal, nor does it necessarily mean that these are the outer fringes of our normal and functional genetic behavioral range. Nor does it mean that the person who has such inclinations is morally bad for having them, which again is not the point of this post.
But what it may mean is that some conditions that exist in the human population, particularly when it is a very rare condition, which the conditions discussed in the main topic of the post are, may be aberrations. Again, having an aberration doesn't mean a person is a bad person.
I note this here as the entire concept now of a person's gender and their self identification regarding it would have been regarded as an absurdity not all that long ago. That there are two genders and two genders only is self evident. It's also self evident, however, that there have always been some people who have struggled with their gender. But we don't really know why.
We do know, however, that those undergoing surgery in regards to this have a massive level of post surgery discontent and psychological difficulty thereafter. So much so that as a surgery it probably out to never be allowed on a minor, and moreover a person electing for it, at a bare minimum, really ought to go through some stout psychological counselling first.
Indeed, this is apparently the norm in Europe, with the result that a high percentage of those who come in wishing for the surgery change their minds and do not pursue it. It's rapidly becoming the case in the United States, however, that people declare they wish to undergo such things and it's just assumed that it's all okay, and its done, subsequent consequences not withstanding.
Beyond that, and particularly when a person is about to be cut on, its highly questionable to what extent any of this is backed up by the science. I strongly suspect it isn't. We probably shouldn't be surprised in fifteen or twenty years, when the social aspect of this has dimmed, if we start learning that the origin of much of this is truly psychological and that we're doing more damage to the people holding the views by treating it as something to be changed.
Which gets on to another point.
Nature.
And "all natural".
We supposedly live in an era when we want to preserve nature. In the western world in particular, preservation of nature has taken on the status of a near religion. As a huge fan of nature, I"m hip with preserving nature.
And we worry about all natural, even in our foods, paying more for "organic" foods of all types.
But, the one thing we clearly don't like organic, or natural, in the world, is ourselves. We particularly don't like it if it has anything to do with our genders, and why there are two genders. We seemingly hate it, in the western world, in regards to our genders, and urge behavior contrary to our genders, and even medicate ourselves against the natural byproducts of our genetic differences. And now we're even pretending that, contrary to all evidence, that it's not part our natural natures that there are only two genders.
We really ought to rethink that. Generally, acting contrary to nature is dangerous.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: The caged tiger isn't happy? Mixed news on the medical front.
Farmstead, Pennsylvania. The life many left for life in cities.
I sort of feel that this story;
Lex Anteinternet: The caged tiger isn't happy?: Heard in an interview of a doctor regarding depression: "Major depression is unheard of in hunter gatherer societies".
is related to this one:
As per a new study published online Dec. 11 in the Journal Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, high stress could increase risk factor for many cognitive functions that can lead to the Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Gayatri Devi, a neurologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said the latest study shows link between high stress levels and chances of developing diseases like Alzheimer’s.
From the Northern Californian.
Anyhow, I suspect modern high stress lifestyles are connected to the first item. Occupiers of "good jobs" beware. They may, I guess, be frying your brain.
Although that counters against stories I've otherwise read which claim that occupations that call for a lot of mental activity counter Alzheimer's. Somebody's wrong. This study found, however:
The study found that highly stressed participants were more than twice as likely to develop cognitive impairment become impaired than those who were not. Therefore, controlling stress in older people might help delay or prevent the development of Alzheimer's disease
From the University Herald.
Perhaps countering that, is this story:
Conclusions In this cohort of patients with mild AD, moderate alcohol consumption (2–3 units/day) was associated with a significantly lower mortality over a period of 36 months. Further studies are needed in this area. These may especially focus on the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive decline in patients with AD.From BMJ Open. It has been noted:
In the new study, Danish researchers found that moderate drinking was associated with a 77 percent lower risk of death among patients with mild Alzheimer’s (defined as a score of 20 or less on the Mini Mental State Exam) than those who consumed one or fewer drinks daily. While previous studies have linked moderate alcohol consumption to many health benefits, including a reduced risk of developing and dying from a chronic disease such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, drinking has also been linked to brain damage. Since Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder, researchers believed any amount of alcohol consumption would have an adverse effect on patients with the condition.Medical Daily.
Of course, that says mortality is lower. Not the incidents of Alzheimer's disease. Although one earlier report had noted:
A drink or two a day may help, according to a new report. But the key is moderation. Too much alcohol can damage the brain and lead to other health problems.
Newsweek. Moderate it is noted, is something like no more than two pints of beer per day in men. More than that is dangerous by any standard, we are told.
So what to make of all of this? I don't know. Maybe some of the old vices turn out not to be so bad, as we always new, in moderation. But stress, which is incident to many modern occupations, is a killer. We knew that, but it's a killer apparently in a new and more horrific fashion.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Should we Declare War?
Against the Islamic State.
And no, I'm not kidding.
And no, I don't mean authorize the use of force. I mean declare war, as in Congress acting under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
Woodrow Wilson addressing Congress to ask for a Declaration of War against Germany.
The United States Constitution provides, at Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
Congress does pretty much all that stuff, save for its power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water". Its forgotten how to do that. Indeed, at least arguably, the United States has fought at least one war illegally since World War Two, but fighting a true, in the legal sense, war without a declaration of war, that war being the first Gulf War.
The United States hasn't declared war since World War Two. In part that's because the conflicts we've been involved in since that time didn't really call for a Declaration of War, as not every conflict is a war. In part it's because it's just flat out easier not to do it, and Congress has taken advantage of that. And that should really end. Or, perhaps more bluntly, somebody should have taken the first US lead invasion or perhaps the second one on as an illegal act, which would have forced Congress to actually recall this part of the Constitution. And an illegal act it was, at least in the context of the second war against Iraq.
But in order to understand that, we have to understand what a war is.
I've written on this before. Congress has seemingly forgotten what a war is, and how to declare one, and why. So, perhaps a refresher is in order, before we explore the reason why Congress should declare war on the Islamic State.
A war, basically, is armed litigation between nations.
Sounds weird, but that's what it is. Indeed, in the English legal system, civil litigation itself is actually a substitute for private warfare, which was once used to settle disputes, and as a result, litigation bears many close resemblances to warfare. As I earlier noted on this blog:
Medieval jousting wasn't just a sport, it was also part of trial by combat, in which the contestants frequently hired champions to serve in their stead, just as modern litigants will hire lawyers to do the same.
Congress has pretty much either forgotten that it can declare war, or perhaps it lives in fear of doing so. To my surprise, at least the press doesn't, as during the last week reporters have asked the Presidential candidates this very question, which they've dodged, should we declare war on the Islamic State? The President has sort of been queried on this as well. The answer always is that "we are at war with ISIL" and then they move quickly on. Not wanting to address the real question, should we, or even must we, declare war on the Islamic State?
So, why declare war on the Islamic State? Put another way, must we declare war on the Islamic State if we intend to fight it? And, what arguments are there against declaring war against the Islamic State.
What would the effect of a declaration of war against the Islamic State do?
To start with, we must note again that wars can only occur between sovereigns.
That's why no declaration of war would have made sense during the Vietnam War. The National Liberation Front, the correct name of the Viet Cong, wasn't a sovereign entity. It was a guerrilla army. And it was backed by a sovereign, North Vietnam, but it wasn't a sovereign itself. Soldiers of the Viet Cong were rebels, and hence involved in an illegality.
Viet Cong prisoner of war, with soldiers of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam in the background (note the tiger stripe combat uniforms). Technically a solder of the National Liberation Front, so called as it had the pretext of being a nationalist rather than a communist movement, the communist guerrillas were rebels, and therefore did not fight in a legal war.
So too was the case for Confederates in the American Civil War. The Confederate States was never recognized by any nation as a sovereign, and therefore the Confederates legally were American citizens in rebellion against their government, technically traitors. Only the wise and good graces of the North kept them from being treated that way, and later the United States Supreme Court recognized what many of such wars tend to be, that it was an insurrection with characteristics of a belligerency. In other words, it was darned near a war, but not quite.
Confederate infantryman during the Civil War. Legally, he wasn't a soldier of a legitimate sovereign nation, but a rebel against his own nation. But the United States chose to treat Confederates differently, an act very rare for the legitimate and victorious sovereign.
What about, it should be asked, Continental forces during the Revolution? Well, the Continental Congress had a theory of sovereignty from the very onset, and we came to be recognized by two European nations during the war, but the fact that we are basically regarded as a sovereign in that war is, frankly, because we won, and because we won with a theory.
Anyhow, if we declared war against the Islamic State, we'd be according them sovereign status. That doesn't mean, however, that we'd be granting them state status. The United States has a long history of dealing with stateless sovereigns, as Indian tribes were accorded that status, and are still sovereigns today. But we have to be frank, we'd be according them the status of a legitimate sovereign.
Which frankly might just be recognizing reality. It basically is a state right now, occupying huge chunks of Iraq and Syria.
Now, that also would mean that it's fighting me would be regarded as legitimate soldiers of a sovereign, when in true combat, rather than in terrorist activities. Terrorism is illegal under any definition. But as an act of war, it's a war crime.
And the Islamic State is perpetrating a lot of activities that, if committed by a sovereign, are war crimes. The list is too disgusting to set out, but is well known. So, when (if?) it is defeated, its leaders would legitimately be subject to international war crimes trials.
What would be the advantage, if any, of declaring war on the Islamic State?
Well, for one thing, it makes it clear what we're really doing.
And right now we seemingly lack that clarity. We claim we're at war with ISIL but we don't really seem to know what that means. Maybe it means helping France, which also claims its at war with ISIL but doesn't quite seem to know what that means. Maybe that means contributing air assets only, at least if President Obama's views hold. Maybe it means muddling along for years until somebody else hopefully takes care of the problem. Indeed, that seems to be a fairly likely scenario.
Declaring war, however, leaves that declaration hanging over the nation's head, and that means something has to get done. Frankly, that probably would mean the commitment of ground troops, and that is probably the only way that this is going to get done in any sort of short order.
It also means that we would have to have real war aims, as during war the nation always seeks to define them. Indeed, simply asking for a declaration of war defines those aims in a way approving the use of the armed forces does not. We don't declare war in a mushy fashion.
A declaration of war would also likely invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which would require all the signatories to the treaty (you too, Justin Trudeau) to contribute to the war effort. This is only proper as so far at least seven signatories to that treaty have seen Islamic extremist violence in their nations and they're all bearing the brunt of the humanitarian crisis the war in Syria and Iraq is causing. At least three of those nations have already stated that they are at war with ISIL, and a collection of them are already engaged in combat, mostly in the air, but a little on the ground there. Declaring war, and invoking Article 5, brings this matter to a head, and rapidly. And it also would require the participation of reluctant NATO partners that need to be focused, including a nervous Turkey that is at least somewhat pursing its own goals.
And all that, that is boots on the ground, leaves a European influence, accepting that we are a European culture, in place when the war is over. Only a western influence is going to prevent this from reoccurring, particularly if we consider that what we're seeing is in some way the most recent flare up of something that's been occurring for 1400 years and for which their a sovereign incubator in the form of Saudi Arabia.
And, and perhaps most importantly, it gives the United States a legal vehicle to deal with ISIL sympathizers on out own soil, which right now we really lack. That may be the single biggest reason to declare war.
It isn't illegal, in any form, to wish ISIL on to global victory. We currently have a lot of focus on how the killers in San Bernadino became "radicalized" (as if that's all that difficult to figure out). But what seems to be missing is that it's no crime to be a radical Islamist. Indeed, a legal resident of the US may go along ways towards equipping themselves for a terrorist act perfectly legally.
Another reason to declare war would be so that the US could deal more easily with terrorists on our won shores. That may constitute the single biggest reason to issue a declaration of war.
With all the discussion about various groups who might be inclined to strike us, right here at home, next to no discussion has centered on the fact that it isn't illegal to hold bad feelings against the United States. Indeed, frankly, any person with unbridled patriotism ought to be suspect as "my country right or wrong" is not a morally defensible position. That isn't to defend Islamic extremist terrorist, but we must note that merely being an Islamic extremist isn't a crime. Being a Nazi isn't a crime. Being a Communist isn't a crime. Nor do we want any of these things to be criminal.
But committing an act of violence against your fellows is a crime, and it also isn't a legitimate act of war. So, by declaring war, we don't create a cover for domestic terrorist. We would, however, create a legal means to be more ably arrest potential terrorist prior to their striking.
Right now, we practically have to wait until they attack, unless they commit other crimes on their route to a strike. If they stockpile illegal arms or make bombs, yes, we can arrest them. But we really can't detain them simply for advocating armed aggression against the United States. Oh, I know, it's a crime to advocate that, but its one that's difficult to prove. War powers would allow greater leeway to the government to detain, with due process, those who seem to be strongly advocating armed action against the country.
Now, clearly a person has to careful about this, and note that I used the words "due process". We can't treat every Muslim as an enemy alien. But we might be able to better do something about those advocating bringing the Caliphate to the US by violence if we were armed with war powers. Or, on the other hand, that might just be a power that would get abused.
Before leaving that thought, however, here's also where the topic of firearms and terrorists is better addressed, perhaps. Even if we would arrest very few anticipated enemies, we would have broader powers to put certain people on a "no arms" list. Again, due process would be required, or more likely "some kind of process", but this would be a better approach than simply relying on the "no fly list". Advocate armed incursion on behalf of the Islamic State, no arms for you.
What would be the disadvantage of declaring war on the Islamic State?
The big disadvantage of declaring war on the Islamic State is that it accords it state status, and that goes a long ways towards legitimizing its position.
The Islamic State claims the right to exclusively speak for all Muslims, and it also holds that all Muslims owe it allegiance. If claims to be a restored caliphate. If we recognize it as a state, it's claim sounds a lot more credible.
And at that point, perhaps a nightmare turns into a bigger nightmare.
Right now, most Muslims everywhere don't recognize the Islamic State as anything, and no Shiia recognizes it. If it were granted state status, those on the fence in the Sunni worlds, where it has a fair amount of appeal with some, might leap. I.e., if the Western World is at war with the Caliphate, well which way must they go?
Indeed, a person can spin that out in some pretty scary directions. Say we declare war and that results in a flood of new recruits and an increase in terrorism in the Western World. That might tip the balance temporarily in the Middle East, and if they gained enough strength to push out the Shiia government in Baghdad and the Baathist regime in Damascus, they might have to spread the fight. Who wold be next ? Jordan, which would probably result in a war with Israel, or perhaps Saudi Arabia, with the US then having the nightmare scenario spread to a fight to keep the Islamic State out of Mecca. Imagine that.
Indeed, it's for that reason that declaring war is a bad idea, in spite of my long winded analysis of it, and my seeming advocacy for what otherwise looks like that dramatic step. At the end of the day, declaring war on the Islamic State is a bad idea, as it makes it into an Islamic state. And we don't want that.
But, it might become one, all on its own. Which is why we need to get our act together, in this "conflict" (not a war), right now. And that involves no easy steps.
Another reason to declare war would be so that the US could deal more easily with terrorists on our won shores. That may constitute the single biggest reason to issue a declaration of war.
With all the discussion about various groups who might be inclined to strike us, right here at home, next to no discussion has centered on the fact that it isn't illegal to hold bad feelings against the United States. Indeed, frankly, any person with unbridled patriotism ought to be suspect as "my country right or wrong" is not a morally defensible position. That isn't to defend Islamic extremist terrorist, but we must note that merely being an Islamic extremist isn't a crime. Being a Nazi isn't a crime. Being a Communist isn't a crime. Nor do we want any of these things to be criminal.
But committing an act of violence against your fellows is a crime, and it also isn't a legitimate act of war. So, by declaring war, we don't create a cover for domestic terrorist. We would, however, create a legal means to be more ably arrest potential terrorist prior to their striking.
Right now, we practically have to wait until they attack, unless they commit other crimes on their route to a strike. If they stockpile illegal arms or make bombs, yes, we can arrest them. But we really can't detain them simply for advocating armed aggression against the United States. Oh, I know, it's a crime to advocate that, but its one that's difficult to prove. War powers would allow greater leeway to the government to detain, with due process, those who seem to be strongly advocating armed action against the country.
Now, clearly a person has to careful about this, and note that I used the words "due process". We can't treat every Muslim as an enemy alien. But we might be able to better do something about those advocating bringing the Caliphate to the US by violence if we were armed with war powers. Or, on the other hand, that might just be a power that would get abused.
Before leaving that thought, however, here's also where the topic of firearms and terrorists is better addressed, perhaps. Even if we would arrest very few anticipated enemies, we would have broader powers to put certain people on a "no arms" list. Again, due process would be required, or more likely "some kind of process", but this would be a better approach than simply relying on the "no fly list". Advocate armed incursion on behalf of the Islamic State, no arms for you.
What would be the disadvantage of declaring war on the Islamic State?
The big disadvantage of declaring war on the Islamic State is that it accords it state status, and that goes a long ways towards legitimizing its position.
The Islamic State claims the right to exclusively speak for all Muslims, and it also holds that all Muslims owe it allegiance. If claims to be a restored caliphate. If we recognize it as a state, it's claim sounds a lot more credible.
And at that point, perhaps a nightmare turns into a bigger nightmare.
Right now, most Muslims everywhere don't recognize the Islamic State as anything, and no Shiia recognizes it. If it were granted state status, those on the fence in the Sunni worlds, where it has a fair amount of appeal with some, might leap. I.e., if the Western World is at war with the Caliphate, well which way must they go?
Indeed, a person can spin that out in some pretty scary directions. Say we declare war and that results in a flood of new recruits and an increase in terrorism in the Western World. That might tip the balance temporarily in the Middle East, and if they gained enough strength to push out the Shiia government in Baghdad and the Baathist regime in Damascus, they might have to spread the fight. Who wold be next ? Jordan, which would probably result in a war with Israel, or perhaps Saudi Arabia, with the US then having the nightmare scenario spread to a fight to keep the Islamic State out of Mecca. Imagine that.
Indeed, it's for that reason that declaring war is a bad idea, in spite of my long winded analysis of it, and my seeming advocacy for what otherwise looks like that dramatic step. At the end of the day, declaring war on the Islamic State is a bad idea, as it makes it into an Islamic state. And we don't want that.
But, it might become one, all on its own. Which is why we need to get our act together, in this "conflict" (not a war), right now. And that involves no easy steps.
Sunday (Saturday) Morning Scene. Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's tilma.
This week for our Sunday Morning Scene installment we again depart, as we did just recently, and include an image of something other than a church. As the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe is December 12, we're putting this up today, Saturday.
Our Lady of Guadalupe is a major Mexican holiday and, in those areas with a signficant Hispanic population, and indeed presently in many areas that do not have one, it's also a major Catholic feast day.
As a note, while it would be impossible to tell from an image of this type, the eyes in the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe depict the the reflection of thirteen people.
Friday, December 11, 2015
Blog Mirror: Matthew Wright: The old days weren't actually simpler -- not really
Matthew Wright: The old days weren't really simpler -- not really. I have never really understood the claim that the ‘old days’ were
somehow simpler or easier. Actually, they usually weren’t. We only think
they were.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
The President's Speech on the Terrorist attack in San Bernadino
Just yesterday, I published this item that followed the terrorist attack in San Bernadino.
The Speech
I haven't seen all that much commentary from the press and pols yet, but I did see this morning that the Today Show summarized the speech in a caption by noting that the President called ISIL "thugs" and called "for gun measures", or something like that.
What dimwitted captioning.
Sure, he may have called ISIL thugs but that was hardly the main point of the speech and the speech, while it touches on domestic gun policy (and I'll comment on that) only barely did.
An F for you Today Show. Back to grade school.
I don't know how many current candidates reacted to it either. Recently Democratic and Republican candidates have been reacting to distance themselves form the President on almost everything amazingly fast. But I do know that Donald Trump reacted with 90 seconds of the speech. Boo hiss.
I don't comment much on the current Presidential candidates, but I will here. This has been the singularly most disappointing Presidential election campaign of my entire life so far, and I can recall campaigns back to Nixon's. None of the front runners on either side are impressive and frankly things are beginning to get a bit scary. If things keep proceeding the way that they are, we're going to get a poor choice, in my view, no matter who wins.
A politician can't react with thoughtful consideration to something 90 seconds after it happened, and snippets about it being poor that quickly are not well thought out.
The Speech in General.
Okay, if The Today Show gets an F, the President gets the "where were you on that day in class" comment.
I'm not one of those individuals who thinks President Obama does everything wrong by any means. I often feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for him in part as I suspect he has a life size poster of Woodrow Wilson hanging in his chambers and that he's trying to channel the ineffective 28th President of the United States. Unlike Wilson, he doesn't have a creepy racist streak, but he is affiliated by an academic mindset that makes him stunningly ineffective.
And here he's been that. This speech doesn't come after a "turning point" like it proclaims. I guess I can't blame him for not admitting what hardly anyone else has been willing to admit, that this war has been running for a long time, will run for a long time, and part of it will be fought out here, but somebody ought to just flat out state it.
I will give him credit, however, for keeping it pretty focused on the actual topic, Islamic terrorism. If you read the social media sites people have taken this story and run off to fight about other things, often with poorly thought out comments. And politicians are often inclined to do that. He didn't.
Now, let's break the speech down.
The Speech in Particular
My comments appear below what I'm commenting on. In some places, parts of the President's speech are highlighted where a particular items is commented on.
We continue to only barely address the "Islamic", and by that we mean the extreme Islamic nature, of what we're facing, but that's been an element in both of the recent attacks, perhaps. The venue chosen in Paris appears to have been chosen in part because it was an area where secularized Muslims went. I.e., they were the "apostates" the terrorist were targeting. Here, we see a fellow targeting his co-workers while they were celebrating a holiday that has its origin as a Holy Day.
We hate the idea that we're in a religious war, as we don't fight those and we like to believe that those are remnants of some bad old days we grew out of. Well, we're in one.
Maybe. This movement somewhat has its roots in Wahhabi Sunnism. That movement was regarded as heretical by other Muslims when it first appeared on the Arabian Peninsula. But, the militant and puritanical movement obtained legitimacy when the House of Saud became allied to it.
Now, in fairness, the House of Saud isn't the Islamic State, but the repressive regime has preserved this extreme variant of Islam and out of it have come some fanatic movements, first Al Queda and now ISIL. The difference between the two has to do with their view of when and how the Caliphate will be restored, and here ISIL may truly be not only radical, but heretical. Hence, in part, the conflict that has existed between ISIL and Al Queda in some places, and ISIL and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Essentially, ISIL has taken the core of Wahhabi beliefs and them declared themselves to be the only legitimate standard bearers.
But that some would be drawn to them is not as odd as it may seem. Saudi Arabia funds a huge number of mosques in the United States and as a result its difficult for Muslims here not to be exposed to it. And in some ways, the radical nature of the appeal of this is perhaps no more radical than some of the most extreme movements during the Reformation, which would have looked equally bizarre and appalling from the outside, or from southern Catholic Europe, during that period.
That is to say, those drawn to this aren't necessarily falling into religious decay, but maybe something they view as the opposite, which makes this a much more difficult thing to confront. More on this is set out below.
This may be a bit of a minor point, perhaps akin to recalling that the US was really engaged in World War Two prior to December 7, 1941, but still, it's something worth recalling, as if we do not accurately recall such things, we are prone to make mistaken assumptions and judgments.
Long term, anyhow, we will win. But let's be honest now. We're loosing. And not only on the battlefield in the Middle East, where ISIL has gone from being a movement to a real state, but in the west, where the culture has become so anemic that the philosophy which ISIL espouses is attractive not only to members of the immigrant Muslim population but native born westerners as well.
Arming Syrian forces to take on the Islamic State is a proven failure and its not going to improve ever. There are no serious and capable pro western democratic forces in Syria, and darned few in Iraq either. The only really capable forces fighting the Islamic State on the ground are Kurdish militias and the Syrian army, neither of which is is pro western. The Kurds, as admirable as they are, are for an independent socialist, or even quasi communist, Kurdistan that none of their neighbors can see come into existence. The Syrian government is basically fascist. Our best hope, really, is to bolster a Kurdistan, probably federated within Iraq, that would make us a bit queasy, as at least it wouldn't be a theocracy, and to bolster the Syrian government, which is going to make us queasy but which at least as a recognizably western, albeit fascist, form of government.
Any other rebel force in the region is going to be Islamist. The Iraqi government is going to be an Iranian satellite. That's just the way it is.
Starting in 1958, we worked to squash initiative amongst our friends and allies like a bug, and we've been at that ever since. We were diligently against our ally France's effort in Algeria, and probably rightly, but we were against it. We opposed our allies and friend's intervention in the Suez in 1958 as well, and that stopped it from freely occurring at the same level ever since. Only France has really been active to any significant degree independent of the United States.
Okay, I"m fine with us saying "you guys take the lead", but that means unleashing independent goals that we can't control. For the Turks, that means squashing the Kurds, let's not be naive. And if that actually meant, and it won't, that France and the UK went into Syria on the ground, they're not going to let us tell them how to rebuilt the place thereafter. Nor should they. Nor would it be a good idea in that context.
Plenty of our friends and allies have independent goals in the world.
So, if France invokes Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and says its going to put together a European Expeditionary Force and cross over from ally Turkey's land, we're okay with that, right?
Right?
Um, right?
This is President Obama lecturing the students about the upcoming final. We've been looking towards this process for years now, and the alternative process, a civil war, is the one that's being used. Our "leadership" on this is anemic and making things worse.
Okay, I earlier posted an item on this blog called They're Not Dogs arguing that we should continue to take in Syrian refugees, and I still feel this way. But this item touches on immigration in general, and here we really need to rethink what we're doing in general, although not for reasons that have anything to do with terrorism at all.
American immigration policies in general really contemplate a much less populated continent. For most of our history, while we've had a policy, the policy was really geared towards taking in Europeans, for the most part, who could hopefully add to our economy. Under a reform of the system sponsored by Ted Kennedy, however, we opened the doors wide open to the sentiments expressed on the Statute of Liberty, i.e., "give me your poor".
That's nice as a sentiment, but it also naively assumes that cultures don't matter and that economics don't matter. They do. And a policy that takes in members of like cultures that are designed to add to our own economy is the sane policy for a nation. Taking in anyone else is the admirable policy of a charity, which the country isn't, and therefore must be carefully considered, just as any immigration policy must and should be. I'm not saying don't, I'm saying think.
The United States is pretty much "full up", whether those inside the beltway realize it or not. We are actually losing more Hispanic migrants to Mexico now than we are gaining. What's that say about us? Taking in refugees is one thing, but continuing to take in any immigrant up to 1M per year, in a country that has as many native poor as we do, is mean to the native poor and stupid. Until our own internal immigrants, mostly people of color, have actually achieved parity with the majority of Americans, we probably ought to really such routine immigration down.
All of which has nothing whatsoever with taking in refugees, which is a moral obligation, and thereby extension doesn't touch upon the few members of the distressed Syrian population we are set to take in.
There is a solution for that, however.
Declare war.
I have an upcoming post on that which will go into it in detail, but at htis point, the Islamic State is a state, and we might as well quit pretending. Declaring war would allow the government to regard those with probable traitorous intent to be regarded in that fashion, or allow the government to take other reasonable means to deprive these people of the ability to act.
But Congress and the President have lost this part of the Constitution and are afraid of it. They need to get over that. If President Obama asked for a Declaration of War now, he'd get it.
But then, he'd also have to get off his duff and actually commit to fighting ISIL, which means more than warm feelings towards our allies, an air commitment, and treating the entire thing as a large law enforcement action. He won't. Because at the end of the day, he feels that ISIL won't show up for the final exam and will get an F for the term.
No "powerful assault weapons" have been used in a crime in this country since the Great Depression. Indeed, for the banners, they ought to take a lesson in that in that the lat time "powerful assault weapons" were used it resulted in the National Firearms Act. The NFA, by the way, did not ban automatic weapons nor prohibit their ownership, but it does treat them differently under the law. Why don't these people actually look at a law that they passed htat worked?
Probably because they dimly believe that a semi automatic rifle is an "assault weapon". Not even close. And semi automatic weapons have been available on the commercial market for over a century. Indeed, they were available as civilian weapons before they were used as military ones.
So, the first task in addressing any topic like this would be to quit having people make laws based on their poor understanding of what they're addressing. Indeed, that's always the case. That's why people wouldn't want me writing laws on stock cars or football, as I don't like them and my law would be ignorant and oppressive.
Short of that, it should do what the President asks here, but what it really ought to do is to declare war.
Too late for this one.
Early on, I'd have agreed on Syria. I don't agree so much on Iraq, which we broke, and then left too early. We're paying the consequence on Iraq now. But in some ways, breaking Iraq broke Syria, and so both are our responsibility.
There are no competent ground forces in the region that can both topple the Islamic State and result in a regime we'd admire. Indeed, in Syria, the competent ground force that is now gaining ground is the Syrian army, and it's going to win thanks to the assistance of the Russians. And the sooner the better.
Otherwise, all that really exists are what amount to militias and the remnant of the Iraqi army, and that's not going to get the job done. The much celebrated Kurds are nothing more than a regional militia, or rather series of militias, and they control now most of what they'll fight for. Indeed, their task is to hold that from the Syrians, the Islamic State and as a practical matter, Turkey. The Iraqi army is a disaster, thanks to the Iraqi government we left in place too soon, which is Shiia dominated and which has alienated the Sunnis. The remaining militias tend to be Shiia militias which aren't going to gain popularity with Sunni populations. Indeed, the Sunnis being close in locality to Saudi Arabia, which is the fountain of Sunni radicalism, will likely at some point begin to look sympathetically towards it.
What is needed is a western army, or at least a western lead army. And that army is going to have to occupy at least Iraq for some time, or this will repeat.
We aren't going to win this by using aircraft and 50 SF troops. There's no earthly way that will occur.
Indeed, that's an element of this that will continue to perplex us. There is not one "Islam", but a variety of Islams. Within those groups there's no easy way for one group to proclaim its own members out of line, as long as those members can cite to the Koran. Muslims can, are, and should protest ISIL, but they can only really do so here because they are Shiia, and ISIL is a Sunni movement. Ironically, when Iran was the center of radicalism, it was really only the Sunnis, the second largest Islamic branch, which could complain about that.
Sunni Islam is a very large segment of Islam and therefore in order for what's noted above to be really effective, Sunnis themselves have to declare ISIL to be an anathema. But they really can't do so easily. They tend to be muted, and for a variety of reasons. The degree of sympathy towards theoretical, rather than actual, extreme Sunni actions also tends to be surprisingly high in western Sunni communities, although it does not represent the majority of their views.
Put another way, the problem we have here is that Islam doesn't resemble any of the large Christian denominations. While it likely had its origins as a Gnostic Christian heresy, it has not retained the early Church's structure the way that the Catholic, Orthodox, and those Protestant churches based on the Catholic Church, have. Therefore, there's no easy way for the faith itself to proclaim something improper. By way of an example, during the Irish Civil War, the Republicans, almost all Catholic to a man, found themselves facing excommunication for fighting the Irish Free State, essentially taking the wind out of their sales. There's no central Sunni authority that can do that.
Islam more closely resembles, in that fashion, what are called "free" or "non denominational" churches in the United States, although not purely so that either. Theologically, these types of Protestant denominations form around a pastor who holds his own views on the Bible, and the congregation can accept them or vote with their feet, but one non denominational church can't really proclaim another across town to be completely out of sink with Christianity and have that mean much to anyone. Likewise, it isn't very meaningful if one Mullah declares the Islamic State's views to be out of sink with the Koran.
This is all the more problematic as while the movement which gave rise to this extreme version of Sunnism was regarded as heretical at first, it no longer is and the Saudi's fund most mosque in the United States, thereby perpetuating this sort of theological view.
And to compound matters, for a long time, at least since the disappearance of the Hellenic branch of Islam, reforms of the faith have tended to be conservative, which is also often missed. They don't reform "forward", but "back". That puts their Muslim faithful in a difficult positions.
Which is likely why Islam has suffered a huge decline in numbers if the region where the fighting is occurring. But that as a solution is something that no western government can urge. Over time, chances are very high that most western Muslims will practice their faith in a fashion that most western Jews do. In a reformed fashion. But that will take time to come about, and while it's coming about, the hard core in their own community are targeting them and will continue to do so.
Lex Anteinternet: Playing Games with Names and Burying Heads in the ...: Quite some time ago I published this thread, and then later came in to update it: Lex Anteinternet: Peculiarized violence and American s...
To my surprise, the President chose to address the nation from the Oval Office regarding this terrible event, or what's inspiring it, yesterday. I'm going to set his entire speech out below in its entirety, as that's the fair thing to do. Then I"m going to make some comments regarding it, and thing surrounding it, below that.
Official portrait of a smiling President Obama. In actuality, the pressures of the job appear to make him look older every day, as they do for most Presidents.
The Speech
Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.
Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.
The F.B.I. is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.
Our nation has been at war with terrorists since Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating Al Qaeda’s leadership.
Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.
For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this office, I’ve authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.
Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.
Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations forces who can accelerate that offensive. We’ve stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we’ll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.
Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations — to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we’ve surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries — and with our Muslim communities here at home — to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.
Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.
This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That’s why I’ve ordered the departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.
Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.
To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.
Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones. And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.
Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.
My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do.
We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.
The strategy that we are using now — airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country — that is how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won’t require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.
Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity — that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.
Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges — whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks — by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.
Initial Commentary by the Press and Politicians.Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
I haven't seen all that much commentary from the press and pols yet, but I did see this morning that the Today Show summarized the speech in a caption by noting that the President called ISIL "thugs" and called "for gun measures", or something like that.
What dimwitted captioning.
Sure, he may have called ISIL thugs but that was hardly the main point of the speech and the speech, while it touches on domestic gun policy (and I'll comment on that) only barely did.
An F for you Today Show. Back to grade school.
I don't know how many current candidates reacted to it either. Recently Democratic and Republican candidates have been reacting to distance themselves form the President on almost everything amazingly fast. But I do know that Donald Trump reacted with 90 seconds of the speech. Boo hiss.
I don't comment much on the current Presidential candidates, but I will here. This has been the singularly most disappointing Presidential election campaign of my entire life so far, and I can recall campaigns back to Nixon's. None of the front runners on either side are impressive and frankly things are beginning to get a bit scary. If things keep proceeding the way that they are, we're going to get a poor choice, in my view, no matter who wins.
A politician can't react with thoughtful consideration to something 90 seconds after it happened, and snippets about it being poor that quickly are not well thought out.
The Speech in General.
Okay, if The Today Show gets an F, the President gets the "where were you on that day in class" comment.
I'm not one of those individuals who thinks President Obama does everything wrong by any means. I often feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for him in part as I suspect he has a life size poster of Woodrow Wilson hanging in his chambers and that he's trying to channel the ineffective 28th President of the United States. Unlike Wilson, he doesn't have a creepy racist streak, but he is affiliated by an academic mindset that makes him stunningly ineffective.
If President Obama is haunted by the ghost of Woodrow Wilson, he should be.
And here he's been that. This speech doesn't come after a "turning point" like it proclaims. I guess I can't blame him for not admitting what hardly anyone else has been willing to admit, that this war has been running for a long time, will run for a long time, and part of it will be fought out here, but somebody ought to just flat out state it.
I will give him credit, however, for keeping it pretty focused on the actual topic, Islamic terrorism. If you read the social media sites people have taken this story and run off to fight about other things, often with poorly thought out comments. And politicians are often inclined to do that. He didn't.
Now, let's break the speech down.
The Speech in Particular
My comments appear below what I'm commenting on. In some places, parts of the President's speech are highlighted where a particular items is commented on.
Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.It hadn't occurred to me before reading this, but the fact that this was a "Holiday" gathering may very well have something to do with why this place was attacked on this day, both in terms of his personal choice and its symbolic one.
We continue to only barely address the "Islamic", and by that we mean the extreme Islamic nature, of what we're facing, but that's been an element in both of the recent attacks, perhaps. The venue chosen in Paris appears to have been chosen in part because it was an area where secularized Muslims went. I.e., they were the "apostates" the terrorist were targeting. Here, we see a fellow targeting his co-workers while they were celebrating a holiday that has its origin as a Holy Day.
We hate the idea that we're in a religious war, as we don't fight those and we like to believe that those are remnants of some bad old days we grew out of. Well, we're in one.
Recognition of the fact that we're in a war with Islamic extremist is long over due. But is it a perversion of Islam?Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.
The F.B.I. is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.
The black flag of the Wahhabi combatants that brought the House of Saud to power. The Islamic State has its own black flag.
Maybe. This movement somewhat has its roots in Wahhabi Sunnism. That movement was regarded as heretical by other Muslims when it first appeared on the Arabian Peninsula. But, the militant and puritanical movement obtained legitimacy when the House of Saud became allied to it.
Now, in fairness, the House of Saud isn't the Islamic State, but the repressive regime has preserved this extreme variant of Islam and out of it have come some fanatic movements, first Al Queda and now ISIL. The difference between the two has to do with their view of when and how the Caliphate will be restored, and here ISIL may truly be not only radical, but heretical. Hence, in part, the conflict that has existed between ISIL and Al Queda in some places, and ISIL and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Essentially, ISIL has taken the core of Wahhabi beliefs and them declared themselves to be the only legitimate standard bearers.
The green flag of Saudi Arabia.
But that some would be drawn to them is not as odd as it may seem. Saudi Arabia funds a huge number of mosques in the United States and as a result its difficult for Muslims here not to be exposed to it. And in some ways, the radical nature of the appeal of this is perhaps no more radical than some of the most extreme movements during the Reformation, which would have looked equally bizarre and appalling from the outside, or from southern Catholic Europe, during that period.
That is to say, those drawn to this aren't necessarily falling into religious decay, but maybe something they view as the opposite, which makes this a much more difficult thing to confront. More on this is set out below.
Al Queda was at war with us well before September 11, 2001. We just woke up to it at that time. Prior to that, there had been the attack on the USS Cole and a prior Islamic extremist attempt on the Twin Towers.Our nation has been at war with terrorists since Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating Al Qaeda’s leadership.
This may be a bit of a minor point, perhaps akin to recalling that the US was really engaged in World War Two prior to December 7, 1941, but still, it's something worth recalling, as if we do not accurately recall such things, we are prone to make mistaken assumptions and judgments.
Long overdue recognition of this basic fact at last, and the first I've seen acknowledging the Ft. Hood attacks were a terrorist attack. The government previously categorized the attack at Ft. Hood as "work place violence", which it clearly is not in the meaningful sense.Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.
I suspect, long term, he's correct. But perhaps not so much for reasons he suspects as in that classic Western liberalism, as opposed to political liberalism as we currently define it, will win. And that will start to occur in Islamic societies with women first, but that's another topic really.For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this office, I’ve authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.
Long term, anyhow, we will win. But let's be honest now. We're loosing. And not only on the battlefield in the Middle East, where ISIL has gone from being a movement to a real state, but in the west, where the culture has become so anemic that the philosophy which ISIL espouses is attractive not only to members of the immigrant Muslim population but native born westerners as well.
Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.
And here's where the poor strategic analysis really begins.Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations forces who can accelerate that offensive. We’ve stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we’ll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.
Arming Syrian forces to take on the Islamic State is a proven failure and its not going to improve ever. There are no serious and capable pro western democratic forces in Syria, and darned few in Iraq either. The only really capable forces fighting the Islamic State on the ground are Kurdish militias and the Syrian army, neither of which is is pro western. The Kurds, as admirable as they are, are for an independent socialist, or even quasi communist, Kurdistan that none of their neighbors can see come into existence. The Syrian government is basically fascist. Our best hope, really, is to bolster a Kurdistan, probably federated within Iraq, that would make us a bit queasy, as at least it wouldn't be a theocracy, and to bolster the Syrian government, which is going to make us queasy but which at least as a recognizably western, albeit fascist, form of government.
Any other rebel force in the region is going to be Islamist. The Iraqi government is going to be an Iranian satellite. That's just the way it is.
Unless we're really willing to surrender initiative to our friends and allies, we better think about this.Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations — to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we’ve surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries — and with our Muslim communities here at home — to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.
Starting in 1958, we worked to squash initiative amongst our friends and allies like a bug, and we've been at that ever since. We were diligently against our ally France's effort in Algeria, and probably rightly, but we were against it. We opposed our allies and friend's intervention in the Suez in 1958 as well, and that stopped it from freely occurring at the same level ever since. Only France has really been active to any significant degree independent of the United States.
Okay, I"m fine with us saying "you guys take the lead", but that means unleashing independent goals that we can't control. For the Turks, that means squashing the Kurds, let's not be naive. And if that actually meant, and it won't, that France and the UK went into Syria on the ground, they're not going to let us tell them how to rebuilt the place thereafter. Nor should they. Nor would it be a good idea in that context.
Plenty of our friends and allies have independent goals in the world.
So, if France invokes Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and says its going to put together a European Expeditionary Force and cross over from ally Turkey's land, we're okay with that, right?
Right?
Um, right?
Oh what a bunch of naive slop.Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.
This is President Obama lecturing the students about the upcoming final. We've been looking towards this process for years now, and the alternative process, a civil war, is the one that's being used. Our "leadership" on this is anemic and making things worse.
This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That’s why I’ve ordered the departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.
Okay, I earlier posted an item on this blog called They're Not Dogs arguing that we should continue to take in Syrian refugees, and I still feel this way. But this item touches on immigration in general, and here we really need to rethink what we're doing in general, although not for reasons that have anything to do with terrorism at all.
American immigration policies in general really contemplate a much less populated continent. For most of our history, while we've had a policy, the policy was really geared towards taking in Europeans, for the most part, who could hopefully add to our economy. Under a reform of the system sponsored by Ted Kennedy, however, we opened the doors wide open to the sentiments expressed on the Statute of Liberty, i.e., "give me your poor".
That's nice as a sentiment, but it also naively assumes that cultures don't matter and that economics don't matter. They do. And a policy that takes in members of like cultures that are designed to add to our own economy is the sane policy for a nation. Taking in anyone else is the admirable policy of a charity, which the country isn't, and therefore must be carefully considered, just as any immigration policy must and should be. I'm not saying don't, I'm saying think.
The United States is pretty much "full up", whether those inside the beltway realize it or not. We are actually losing more Hispanic migrants to Mexico now than we are gaining. What's that say about us? Taking in refugees is one thing, but continuing to take in any immigrant up to 1M per year, in a country that has as many native poor as we do, is mean to the native poor and stupid. Until our own internal immigrants, mostly people of color, have actually achieved parity with the majority of Americans, we probably ought to really such routine immigration down.
All of which has nothing whatsoever with taking in refugees, which is a moral obligation, and thereby extension doesn't touch upon the few members of the distressed Syrian population we are set to take in.
Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.
People keep asking about the "no fly list" on gun control, but the list has a 40% error rate and this provision is probably unconstitutional. Even if we modified the list to make it much more accurate, given that holding highly negative views against the United States does not equate with depriving a person of a Constitutional right. A person can be a Muslim hard liner, or a Communist, or a Fascist, and still have the full range of constitutional rights.To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
There is a solution for that, however.
Declare war.
I have an upcoming post on that which will go into it in detail, but at htis point, the Islamic State is a state, and we might as well quit pretending. Declaring war would allow the government to regard those with probable traitorous intent to be regarded in that fashion, or allow the government to take other reasonable means to deprive these people of the ability to act.
But Congress and the President have lost this part of the Constitution and are afraid of it. They need to get over that. If President Obama asked for a Declaration of War now, he'd get it.
But then, he'd also have to get off his duff and actually commit to fighting ISIL, which means more than warm feelings towards our allies, an air commitment, and treating the entire thing as a large law enforcement action. He won't. Because at the end of the day, he feels that ISIL won't show up for the final exam and will get an F for the term.
I know that it may be pedantic, but one of the things that drives people who know something about guns nuts is the stupid stuff the ignorant say about them, particular ignorant policy makes.We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.
No "powerful assault weapons" have been used in a crime in this country since the Great Depression. Indeed, for the banners, they ought to take a lesson in that in that the lat time "powerful assault weapons" were used it resulted in the National Firearms Act. The NFA, by the way, did not ban automatic weapons nor prohibit their ownership, but it does treat them differently under the law. Why don't these people actually look at a law that they passed htat worked?
Probably because they dimly believe that a semi automatic rifle is an "assault weapon". Not even close. And semi automatic weapons have been available on the commercial market for over a century. Indeed, they were available as civilian weapons before they were used as military ones.
So, the first task in addressing any topic like this would be to quit having people make laws based on their poor understanding of what they're addressing. Indeed, that's always the case. That's why people wouldn't want me writing laws on stock cars or football, as I don't like them and my law would be ignorant and oppressive.
Indeed, as noted above, that's a good idea.Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones. And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.
No, Congress should Declare War.Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.
Short of that, it should do what the President asks here, but what it really ought to do is to declare war.
My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do.
We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.
The strategy that we are using now — airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country — that is how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won’t require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.
Too late for this one.
Early on, I'd have agreed on Syria. I don't agree so much on Iraq, which we broke, and then left too early. We're paying the consequence on Iraq now. But in some ways, breaking Iraq broke Syria, and so both are our responsibility.
There are no competent ground forces in the region that can both topple the Islamic State and result in a regime we'd admire. Indeed, in Syria, the competent ground force that is now gaining ground is the Syrian army, and it's going to win thanks to the assistance of the Russians. And the sooner the better.
Otherwise, all that really exists are what amount to militias and the remnant of the Iraqi army, and that's not going to get the job done. The much celebrated Kurds are nothing more than a regional militia, or rather series of militias, and they control now most of what they'll fight for. Indeed, their task is to hold that from the Syrians, the Islamic State and as a practical matter, Turkey. The Iraqi army is a disaster, thanks to the Iraqi government we left in place too soon, which is Shiia dominated and which has alienated the Sunnis. The remaining militias tend to be Shiia militias which aren't going to gain popularity with Sunni populations. Indeed, the Sunnis being close in locality to Saudi Arabia, which is the fountain of Sunni radicalism, will likely at some point begin to look sympathetically towards it.
What is needed is a western army, or at least a western lead army. And that army is going to have to occupy at least Iraq for some time, or this will repeat.
We aren't going to win this by using aircraft and 50 SF troops. There's no earthly way that will occur.
Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
On the three paragraphs above, while all of this is true, the problem is that the counter also tends to be true. Muslims are, as a rule, amazingly mute on this topic. Not all. Indeed, an organization of Muslim women in the United States started loudly protesting the capture of their faith by extremist earlier this week. Although notable in that is that they were Shiia women who were protesting against the exclusively Sunni ISIL.That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
Indeed, that's an element of this that will continue to perplex us. There is not one "Islam", but a variety of Islams. Within those groups there's no easy way for one group to proclaim its own members out of line, as long as those members can cite to the Koran. Muslims can, are, and should protest ISIL, but they can only really do so here because they are Shiia, and ISIL is a Sunni movement. Ironically, when Iran was the center of radicalism, it was really only the Sunnis, the second largest Islamic branch, which could complain about that.
Sunni Islam is a very large segment of Islam and therefore in order for what's noted above to be really effective, Sunnis themselves have to declare ISIL to be an anathema. But they really can't do so easily. They tend to be muted, and for a variety of reasons. The degree of sympathy towards theoretical, rather than actual, extreme Sunni actions also tends to be surprisingly high in western Sunni communities, although it does not represent the majority of their views.
Put another way, the problem we have here is that Islam doesn't resemble any of the large Christian denominations. While it likely had its origins as a Gnostic Christian heresy, it has not retained the early Church's structure the way that the Catholic, Orthodox, and those Protestant churches based on the Catholic Church, have. Therefore, there's no easy way for the faith itself to proclaim something improper. By way of an example, during the Irish Civil War, the Republicans, almost all Catholic to a man, found themselves facing excommunication for fighting the Irish Free State, essentially taking the wind out of their sales. There's no central Sunni authority that can do that.
Islam more closely resembles, in that fashion, what are called "free" or "non denominational" churches in the United States, although not purely so that either. Theologically, these types of Protestant denominations form around a pastor who holds his own views on the Bible, and the congregation can accept them or vote with their feet, but one non denominational church can't really proclaim another across town to be completely out of sink with Christianity and have that mean much to anyone. Likewise, it isn't very meaningful if one Mullah declares the Islamic State's views to be out of sink with the Koran.
This is all the more problematic as while the movement which gave rise to this extreme version of Sunnism was regarded as heretical at first, it no longer is and the Saudi's fund most mosque in the United States, thereby perpetuating this sort of theological view.
And to compound matters, for a long time, at least since the disappearance of the Hellenic branch of Islam, reforms of the faith have tended to be conservative, which is also often missed. They don't reform "forward", but "back". That puts their Muslim faithful in a difficult positions.
Which is likely why Islam has suffered a huge decline in numbers if the region where the fighting is occurring. But that as a solution is something that no western government can urge. Over time, chances are very high that most western Muslims will practice their faith in a fashion that most western Jews do. In a reformed fashion. But that will take time to come about, and while it's coming about, the hard core in their own community are targeting them and will continue to do so.
My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity — that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.
Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges — whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks — by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.
Interesting times.Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)