Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

I Hate Cars

 

It has come to my attention that many a man returns fondly later in life to the things he hated in his youth. My grandfather was an avid gardener, and in his teen-aged years my father was forced to endure many a weeding expedition. He swore he would never be like his father, gardening, tending to roses. A lawn was quite enough to take care of. It was better with many shade trees so the lawn wouldn’t grow as fast. Of course, I heard all of this while I was weeding said lawn, but I was assured that my task was nowhere near as arduous as his had been. Late in my teens, Dad (supervised as I) planted some chrysanthemums beside the house. He still insisted that he would never plant roses. I grew up, got a college degree, got a job, and moved away. Dad retired down to rural Missouri, where he could experience the small-town atmosphere he had grown up in. Within a few years, we were talking on the phone when he told me what he had been doing that week. He had been planting roses, of course.

That job I had gotten was for a computer company, and for awhile my boss’ boss was a character originally from West by-God Virginia. He had grown up poor in a hard-scrabble existence. Back then, nobody would take charity if they could help it. They just grew their own food as best they could up in the thin and poor soil of the mountains. They grew and ate a lot of beans and corn. He hated that growing up. He swore he would get a job where he could afford to just buy food from a store, where he didn’t have to raise crops, and he would never do it again. Well he got a good job, became a manager with decent pay, and bought a house. Before long, he was looking out at his back yard thinking, “I could grow some corn in that corner yonder.” After a few more years, he was buying a new house with a bigger yard so he could have a larger garden.

In both cases, the things these men hated in their youth became what they treasured as they got older.

Not me, though. I have never come close to being infected by the thing that bored me most in my youth. You see, my father was a caraholic. He loved to go to car lots and look at the new cars. When he bought a new car, which was probably a bit more frequently than he could afford, the next day he would be stopping by the other dealerships to see what they had. This would not have bothered me, except for the number of times I was dragged along on these expeditions. Say that he took us out for pizza or maybe for ice cream after dinner. After whatever treat we were getting, on the way home, we would end up in car lots. These stops seemed interminable. He would carefully look at anything that he might not have seen on the lot before. I remember listening to Mac Davis’ song, “It’s Hard to be Humble,” while sitting in the car in a car lot while my dad looked at the offerings on display. Occasionally, he would make the excuse that as a policeman, he had to keep up with all the makes and models so he could easily identify them in an emergency situation. We knew the truth, though. Dad just loved cars and wanted all of them. If he could have had a new one to drive every day, he would have done that.

At a fairly young age, I came to the conclusion that a car was just transportation. That was all it would ever be for me. That doesn’t mean that I go out of my way to find ugly cars. I happen to think that the four cars I have bought in my lifetime have been fairly good-looking, for the class they were in. All were sub-compacts. I could have afforded larger and more luxurious vehicles at times, but what is the point? My only use for a car is as transportation. My first only lasted three years before it was murdered on the road by a woman who was digging in her purse while driving. I stopped for a red light signaling a bridge was going up. She didn’t see me or the bridge until it was too late for my car. The second one lasted past the car payments. The third I kept for about thirteen years. The fourth I bought used from my brother. Always a mistake, in my brother’s case, but it was only a mild one this time. I had to replace the clutch, which my brother didn’t even know was burned out. (Never let him drive your manual transmission car. He has owned at least three, and has no idea how to tell if a clutch is smoked.) I bought it for about $1,400 ten years ago, and it still serves me well. A few repairs? Sure, but only about $4,000 in total over ten years. It’s a good car. By model year, it’s now 24 years old. Next year, it’s officially a classic car. I’ve never owned a classic car before. I will not care if I still own it when it’s an antique. I have no desire to go car shopping. Ever. This trend does not seem to be reversing itself, and I am far older than my father or that boss of mine were when they started reversing their hates into loves.

Whoa! Whoa! That bridge is going up!

So, you want to talk about cars? Have fun. I’d rather talk about just about anything else. Differential equations? Sure, better subject than cars. The armor used by cuirassiers through the ages? Why not? Military formations and how Napoleon improved them? I’ll bite. Varieties of roses and the climate zones where each does best? I’ll give the subject a listen. Chariotry and how it led to tanks? Eh, too close to cars for me. Seeya, Tank Boy. I’ll go talk with the ladies about something less boring, like make-up or television shows or how that girl said such-and-such to so-and-so and her word choice just seemed so catty. Or maybe I’ll go read a book. But not a book about cars.

How about you? What horribly boring activities are the memories of your youth engraved with? Have you later come to appreciate whatever you hated then?

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

“Hold the Line”

 

Trump’s selection of Secretary of Defense James Mattis was by far Trump’s best action so far. Peggy Noonan’s column today speaks mostly about the Texas flood, but in the middle is the following:

A week or so ago, probably in Jordan, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had an impromptu meeting with what looked like a few dozen U.S. troops. Someone taped it. This is what Mr. Mattis said: “Hold the line.”

“For those of you I haven’t met, my name’s Mattis,” he began. “Thanks for being out here, OK? I know at times you wonder if any of us know . . . but believe me, I know you’re far from home every one of you, I know you could all be going to college you young people, or you could be back on the block. [We’re] just grateful. . . .

“The only way this great big experiment you and I call America is gonna survive is if we’ve got tough hombres like you. . . . We don’t frickin’ scare, that’s the bottom line.

“You’re a great example for our country right now. It’s got some problems—you know it and I know it. It’s got problems that we don’t have in the military. And you just hold the line, my fine young soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines. You just hold the line until our country gets back to understanding and respecting each other and showing it, of being friendly to one another. That’s what Americans owe to one another—we’re so doggone lucky to be Americans.”

He ended: “I flunked retirement, OK? Only reason I came back was to serve alongside young people like you, who are so selfless and frankly so rambunctious.”

This was the voice of true moral authority, authority earned through personal sacrifice. Speeches like that come only from love.

But it was particularly poignant that Mattis’s speech, with its refrain—“Hold the line”—spread so far and fast this week.

Where can we find more people like James Mattis? Peggy Noonan’s response is that many of them have shown up in Texas this last week. Again, he is Trump’s best decision as President.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Weekend Argument: The Best Worst Movies

 

Years ago I put up a post asking about the worst movies you all had seen. John Kluge’s post on Saving Private Ryan put me in mind of something else — what are the best of the worst movies you have seen? We’re talking not necessarily outright clunkers or films where you want to remove your own fingernails with a spork rather than endure another minute (those were covered pretty well in the 2012 post, though I’m sure we’ve got some additions). No, I’m talking the films that are just plain awful while still being hilarious, quotable, or just fun to put on for the sheer madness of them. You might cite Big Trouble In Little China, for instance, which is truly a film I can’t stand but many others enjoy greatly.

A few of my own include:

Beavis and Butthead Do America — The film is, in many respects, terribly dated by now (it’s 20 years old — feel old yet?), but I still crack up every time.

Barbarella — There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this film. And yet Jane Fonda is a beauty. And the film itself is total camp (a fur-clad spaceship interior?). Plus it gave us the name of a great New Wave band of the ’80s (Duran Duran).

Judge Dredd — A tacky adaptation of a comic book series that is mostly worthwhile for Rob Schneider.

The Fifth Element — High budget sci-fi flop with Bruce Willis, Chris Tucker, and Mila Jovovich. Very campy story, but funny in spite of itself.

What are yours? What hokey films do you watch just for fun?

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Just How Corrupt Is the FBI?

 

It has come to light that James Comey was already drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton, prior to the conclusion of the FBI investigation and prior to Ms. Clinton and other key witnesses being interviewed. Former Congressman Jason Chaffetz has warned that Mr. Comey may have committed perjury in his testimony before Congress on the Clinton matter investigation. Someone needs to go through Comey’s congressional testimony on this. I’ll alert the media.

Three days ago, the FBI refused to honor a FOIA request on documents pertaining to the Clinton investigation and her misuse of classified information and state secrets, which she and many of her staff engaged in on the quite laughable grounds – wait for it – that there is not enough public interest to warrant the release of the documents.

Yes, the story that dominated the news for the past two plus years, that contributed to the rupture within the Democratic Party resulting in the emergence of ardent socialist Bernie-You-All-Deserve-Free-Stuff-Sanders to oppose her, that probably more than any other factor apart from Ms. Clinton’s general incompetence as a candidate, her imperious attitude to Americans in general and the “basket of deplorables” in particular, her constant lies and fabrications, her questionable health, the revelations of operating a multimillion dollar pay-for-play criminal enterprise from Foggy Bottom, the cover-up and repeated lies, and the lies about lying of the Benghazi massacre — of course, the Russians, Vladimir Putin, Macedonian fake news sites, and you know, misogyny notwithstanding.

Yes, that story that ran rampant through those things called newspapers and on television and on new sites and that overwhelmed social media. That story that indicated to the Deep Staters at the FBI that there isn’t enough public interest.

I mean, even Obama apologist Mika Brezenski got all hot and bothered about the constant lies spewing forth from Hillary’s mouth and her campaign operatives (of course, trying to have a truth-based, coherent discussion with the likes of James Carville is enough to get anyone hot and bothered).

This was the story that had more legs than a barrel full of millipedes. So, someone, or several someones, at the FBI are deliberately covering up the extent of Ms. Clinton’s and her cronies’ pathetically obvious criminality. What else is being covered up? The FBI’s collusion with Clinton to keep her from serving time? Not that there were any Clinton presidential campaign supporters within the ranks of the Bureau who were paying to see her become President. I know, I’m a crazy person.

Meanwhile, Special Prosecutor Counsel Mueller continues to pursue the nebulous allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Some believe that Mr. Mueller should have recused himself from the investigation given his personal friendship with star witness/informer Comey, former disgraced FBI Director. And never mind that Mueller and his bloodhounds may be barking up the wrong tree since there is a stronger scent of possible collusion between Hillary and Bill Clinton which Mr. Mueller and his crack team of former Clinton supporters are apparently unable to tease out even with the aid of a Geiger counter (that’s a hint).

Enter Attorney General Sessions who has already recused himself on the Russian matter. AG Sessions is in the unenviable and quite impossible position of having to root out bad apples from the Federal Bureau of Investigation which likely won’t happen. There’s only so much time in a day and the Deep State doesn’t give up its own easily or without a fight.

Of course, we must assume that there are still numerous dedicated FBI agents who uphold the law. But, even I was under the impression at the outset of the Clinton matter investigation that Mr. Comey was one such upstanding and forthright G-man. Little did I know he was possible of subterfuge, weasel-wording, misleading Congress, re-interpreting standing law, leaking of government documents, apparent cowardice (by his own admittance) and general aiding and abetting of a career criminal politician. So much for all those nights I spent at a Holiday Inn.

It seems likely, given the FBI’s refusal to let historians or the American people discover just how criminal Ms. Clinton and her cronies were that Mr. Comey is not an isolated case. Mr. Comey’s legacy and others currently at the FBI will continue to tarnish the reputation of the Bureau and unfortunately, it seems that there’s not much that can be done about it.

Expecting the black SUVs to arrive momentarily. I kid. No, really. It was a joke. I’d like to make a phone call to my attorney.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Hot Winds from Washington, the Press, the Imperial Presidency, and You

 

I’d like to speak to you today about how you are contributing to the fall of the republic. Yes, I do mean you. Oh, I don’t think that it’s intentional on your part. I’m certain you mean well and would like to see our republic strong and healthy for years to come. But, I’ve been watching you, and actions speak louder than words. Quite frankly, your words are also much too loud and supporting the demolition of the republic, but your actions are even worse. You act as if you have forgotten what it is to be a free and sovereign citizen of a republic.

In a republic, the sovereignty rests with the citizens. They are the deciders. They elect people to represent them in governments at various levels, but these representatives are merely citizens hired to do the business of their constituents. They are not elevated above their fellow citizens, they are selected and paid to serve, like you might hire a maid or a gardener or a plumber. Monarchy means the rule of one, and in a monarchy, the sovereignty rests in the monarch. A monarchy does not have citizens, the monarch has subjects. So, why are so many of you free and sovereign citizens acting as if you were subjects of a monarch?

“I’m doing no such thing!” you shout.

First, it’s useless to shout. We’re probably not even in the same state. You’re going to wear out your vocal cords. Second, it’s all this shouting that is the trouble in the first place. That’s especially true with what y’all are usually shouting about.

Shall we have some examples?

The President of the United States is asked about a local riot by the press. This is the first problem. Remember a few paragraphs ago where I mentioned how in a republic the officials are only elected and appointed for limited things, that they are our servants? If the maid you hire to clean your house holds the opinion that zebu are better than western cattle, do you care? Is this within the scope of her duties? I mean, if she is constantly spouting off on the greatness of zebu meat, all unsolicited, you might ask her to stop talking about it, especially if you’re a vegetarian. But are you going to ask her about it and give her opinion great weight on the matter just because you hired her to clean your house? I mean, she’s not even the cook. Who in Harry’s sweet acre cares what she thinks about cattle?

The President of the United States is hired by the people to defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws that are properly passed. The Constitution restricts the Federal Government to a very limited list of things that they are supposed to do. Commenting on local riots is not on that list. Suppressing local riots is not on the list unless said locale happens to be on federal land. The President’s opinion on a local riot is no more important than my opinion or your opinion or, assuming your maid is a citizen, your maid’s opinion on the aforementioned local riot. The President is usually not even from the same state where the riot occurs. President Trump is certainly not from Virginia, for instance. Giving what the President says more weight than deserved on a subject outside of his jurisdiction is one step towards the fall of the republic.

Partially, this is the press not doing their job. Even a press in opposition is being sycophantic when they give our hired employee’s opinion on specific events more credence than is earned or associated with the position. You are understanding me correctly if you are reading this as calling out even the most Progressive elements of our press corps as Donald Trump’s sycophants. You should call them this, too. It feels good and brings a smile. “Hey, Jim Acosta! Why are you Donald Trump’s sycophant?”

Now you may question my use of the word. Doesn’t sycophant mean someone who is servile and a flatterer? But isn’t it servile, self-seeking flattery to act as if someone in power’s every word on every subject matters? They may be trying to tear him down, but they are in reality building him up to be much more important, much more monarchical, much more imperial than the position warrants.

So, what about you? Are you upset about how the President answered the question? Are you pleased over what he said? Have you been yelling either at the president or cheering for him as things unfolded? If you’ve been feeling those emotions, you, too, are supporting the imperial presidency and the fall of the republic.

On the other hand, if you think, “Who in Harry’s sweet acre cares what he thinks about that? We hired him to protect the Constitution and execute the properly-passed federal laws,” and are disgusted with the press for being sycophants, congratulations. You are one of the few still acting like the sovereign citizen of a republic.

No, I am not trying to tell you what to think. Think whatever you please. I am merely pointing out the consequences of your actions. Don’t look at me that way. Instead, let’s look at some other recent events in the news.

Mrs. Trump was seen boarding an aircraft wearing stiletto heels on her way to the flood zone in Texas. Again, the press acted as if this mattered. She is a private citizen. Yes, she is married to the guy we hired to protect the Constitution and blah-de-blah-de-blah-de, but so what? Most of the press are married to or siblings of or children of some official or another in Washington. Do they report on what they wear and how out-of-touch it means they are? They demonstrate it, they show it, but they never have to actually tell us. Again, although they are trying to tear down the President and everyone associated with him, this is elevating the couple up to imperial status. As a citizen of the United States, my footwear is just as important as Mrs. Trump’s, yet the press has never reported on the subject. I’ll have you know my shoes are much more interesting. They have character. And the right one is developing a hole in the sole.

Members of Congress, still the opposite of progress, are talking about a disaster relief funding bill. The press says there is a great controversy because Senator Cruz opposed the Sandy disaster relief bill, but now that his state is hit, it’s important to get funding. Therefore, they tell us, Cruz is a hypocrite. But the senator says that the Sandy bill was filled with ridiculous amounts of pork, and that was why he voted against it. He says he wants a clean bill with no pork for Hurricane Harvey disaster relief.

But why are we talking about federal disaster relief? I can’t find that as one of the enumerated powers within the Constitution. Seriously, it’s not in there. Look for yourself. That should be taken care of by the people, or if necessary the local government, or if and only if necessary, the state. So, how come we have FEMA and federal disaster relief? Well, it’s because our Federal Government has expanded in the fashion of an imperial bureaucracy. In systems terms, we call it “shifting the burden to the intervener.” It’s like having that guy constantly watching over your shoulder and telling you, “No, you’re not doing it right. This is what you ought to be doing.” After awhile, you shout, “Fine, if you’re so smart, you do it!” And so he does. Not as well as you were doing it, of course. But now he’s in charge and can do it however he wants to do it, even if it’s the wrong way. Federal disaster relief shows that the Federal Government is taxing you too much to do things it’s not supposed to be doing.

Let’s look at one more instance of what passes for news recently. Donald Trump told the North Korean dictator that his sending missiles over towards Guam would be a bad idea. President Trump used what some might call a strong formulation in what he said would happen. Guess what? These are foreign affairs and military matters. It’s covered by the Constitution. What President Trump says on this matters. It’s consequential. It’s like what your maid says about vacuuming. Guess what else? Despite the number of members of the press who set their hair on fire about how President Trump worded his warning, the President was right. Kim backed down. Sure, he later tossed a missile over Japan, but he hasn’t shot one near Guam as he had said he would. Maybe President Trump understands the psychology of Kim better than members of the press do. Thank goodness we didn’t elect Jim Acosta to anything…other than chief Presidential sycophant from CNN.

Being much more serious than the earlier tone of this article, if we wish the republic to continue and not fall into monarchy, we need to be vigilant in how we treat our elected servants. We need to insist that our members of the press also be vigilant in how they treat the servants. We do not need a sycophantic press building up an imperial presidency. George III exercised far less power than every president of the last eighty years has exercised over our lives. George III also exercised far less attention in the lives of his people than our modern presidents do. Please be careful as you are watching the news. For those in the admirable position of reporting the news, please use good judgment and do not contribute to the fall of the republic.

Finally, if by some chance this gets before the eyes of President Trump, Mr. President, you are wonderful at pushing back against the press. When they ask questions that are outside the bounds of your Constitutional authority, please push back and tell them your opinion on that issue is no more important than their opinion or the maid’s opinion.

Thank you.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Nurse Lives Matter

 

So this just happened:

A nurse caring for a burn patient involved in a car crash in July refused to draw blood on her intubated, sedated patient for a police officer investigating the crash. Per hospital policy agreed upon with the Salt Lake City PD, patients must have a warrant for their arrest, be under arrest, or give consent in order to have blood drawn — this patient had none of the above.

When this nurse, with hospital administration on the phone, refused the blood draw the detective became unhinged. She was dragged out of the hospital and handcuffed for “interfering” in the investigation. U. of Utah and Public Safety officers were present at the time of the incident and did not intervene. After the arrest, the detective wonders aloud to another officer how this event will affect his off-duty job transporting patients for an ambulance company.

“I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere,” he says. The detective continues to be on duty for the police department while an internal investigation is conducted.

Y’all. Wow. I’m at a loss, truly. Healthcare professionals expect abuse from patients and the occasional administrator, but never police. There has long been an understanding between police officers and nurses, one of mutual respect. That’s how I’ve gotten out of ever getting a ticket. I realize this is an isolated incident, but it’s still terrifying to think that I could be arrested by some hothead officer for following hospital policy and advocating for my patient.

What makes it extra scary is the lack of intervention by hospital police. Working in the ED, I interact closely with our public safety officers and feel as though they support me 100 percent. I cannot imagine the guys I work with letting something like this happen, but who knows. I pray I’m never in the position to find out.

Any nurses out there ever experienced anything like this?

Nursing is one of the hardest professions I know of. We are verbally and physically abused by patients and their families; we are expected to provide flawless care with high patient ratios and often times little auxiliary support; we stand up to doctors when they enter incorrect orders or make poor decisions for our patients; we don’t have time to eat, pee, or complete the mountains of CYA charting we are expected to complete. It is a tough road to travel. If you know a nurse, tell them how much you appreciate all that they do to care for our society.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Antifa and the Tea Party: Compare and Contrast

 

I have a number of friends and acquaintances that believe in the Antifa movement. They strongly believe that it is peaceful, not Marxist or Communist or anarchist, and that it is simply a matter of keeping Neo-Nazis out of the US.

As a kindness, let’s grant that point. Antifa is a loose term defining these people who have no central tenet other than prevent fascism in the world. There are democrats, there are socialists, there are anarchists. There are the Black Bloc and others than prepare for violence and instigate it. Okay.

This sounds oddly familiar to what the political right was saying with the Tea Party. It was a loose term defining people who felt they were Taxed Enough Already and wanted less government interference. There were people of all colors and stripes, only gathered under the one point. They went out to demonstrate (mostly peacefully). If that is the case, then the Antifa folks should be completely okay with the Tea Party. When they argue the violence is not a tenet of the movement, they should also be willing to accept similar on the Tea Party side.

Let’s see how many do.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Los Angeles Says, “Goodbye, Columbus”

 

Today the Los Angeles City Council voted 14-1 to replace the celebration of Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day. Thus, Los Angeles joins a number of other progressive cities including Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz in kicking Christopher Columbus to the curb in favor of indigenous peoples. The Los Angeles effort was led by Councilman Mitch O’Farrell who is a proud member of the Wyandotte tribe.

I must admit I don’t fully understand the infantile fascination and celebration by progressives of societies and peoples described variously as Native American, Indigenous Peoples, Indians (politically incorrect) or Pre-Columbian Americans (PCA’s) as some sort of numinous people. Mr O’Farrell in making the case for this change stated the following;

“Christopher Columbus’ legacy of extreme violence, enslavement, and brutality is not in dispute. Nor is the suffering, destruction of cultures, and subjugation of Los Angeles’ original indigenous people, who were here thousands of years before anyone else”.

Well, ok then. Christopher Columbus did commit many brutal acts against native peoples in his explorations of the New World, as would many other Europeans in its exploration, settling, and conquering. That, though, is neither a new nor unique story, and it’s not the reason Columbus Day was originally celebrated. The permanent linking of the Old World and the New World is a major event in human history worthy of acknowledgement. A large portion of world history is no more than the story of one group conquering another group. In fact, most of the Europeans who would settle in the New World had ancestors who many centuries earlier had themselves been conquered (and eventually civilized) by a more modern and advanced civilization — the Romans. In any event, the native Americans didn’t need any lessons in extreme violence, enslavement or brutality from Europeans. They had been engaging in these behaviors long before their initial contact with Europeans.

The most highly developed of the pre-Columbian peoples were the Maya, Aztec, and Inca. These three civilizations had much in common; well developed and elaborate irrigation and agriculture with a wide variety of domesticated animals and plants, complex social and cultural organization, advanced and intricate calendar and astronomical knowledge, highly developed religions of the pagan variety, and fierce ideologies of conquest and imperial expansion.

Like the Old World, the Maya had a hierarchical society based on wealth, prestige, and family lineage, and slavery was an integral part of society. The Maya built great stone cities and pyramids with no beasts of burden and only stone tools. This was the case for the other two as well, as these societies along with every other people throughout the New World had little or no knowledge of metallurgy or metal-working and beasts of burden (horses, oxen, et al.) did not exist in the Americas. In addition, no people in the New World had any knowledge of the wheel. The building of these pyramids and other structures must have taken an awful toll on the people compelled into this work.

The Aztecs also engaged in slavery and had a religion which required them to continually offer fresh human blood to their war god, Huitzilopochtli. This involved regular and continuous human sacrifice with most of the victims obtained in their conquering of nearby peoples and a constantly expanding empire. It is estimated that in the dedication of their most impressive pyramid in Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs may have slaughtered as many as 20,000 people, according to historian Marshall C Eakin. It is true that the Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortes was able to eventually conquer the Aztecs in 1521, killing as many as 100,000 in the process, with a force of 1,000 Spaniards, 80 horses, and 16 artillery pieces. However, it is also true that Cortes would never have succeeded if not for the tens of thousands of native Indian allies who fought alongside him only because of the brutal treatment they had received at the hands of the Aztecs.

The Incas built the most extensive empire in the Pre-Columbian Americas, imposing their language and religion on those they conquered in a society in which all property was in the hands of the small band of Inca rulers and everyone else was essentially a slave.

So, I wonder if Mr O’Farrell wants to celebrate these peoples and civilizations. Maybe, he just wants to celebrate native peoples in North America, like the Iroquois. Many Native American activists contend that the Iroquois and their Confederacy inspired our founders in the creation of our republic (although this is doubtful since the Iroquois, like the Inca, had no written language). Then again, Mr O’Farrell may not wish to celebrate the Iroquois, who were a militant and aggressive group, constantly making war against others. This was usually done in pursuit of wealth, such as the Beaver Wars, in which, among other things, the Iroquois decimated the Huron (also known as the Wyandotte — Mr. O’Farrell’s tribe) all just to gain control of the fur market.

Hmmm … possibly Mr. O’Farrell wishes to celebrate those Pacific tribes along the west coast. After all, he does mention Los Angeles in the above quote. Maybe tribes such as the Twana of northern Washington state, the Yurok of coastal California, the Pawnee of Oregon, or the Klamath of Southern Oregon. Then again, maybe not. Each of these tribes engaged in slavery, according to Harvard Sociology Professor Orlando Patterson in his work Slavery and Social Death.

So, maybe O’Farrell meant the Indian tribes of the plains and the east. Then again, maybe not. After all, the Creek of Georgia, Comanche of central Texas, and the Cherokee, among others, engaged in slavery. It is true, as this article discusses, that the form of slavery among these Native Americans was different than the chattel slavery employed by the European colonists. But that is small comfort to those so enslaved.

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. O’Farrell wishes to celebrate the fact that Native Americans lived closer to and in harmony with the earth. Then again, maybe not. Many Native Americans, especially in Central and South America engaged in slash and burn agriculture — hardly the most environmentally friendly activity.

The purpose of this essay is not to denigrate Native American people. They were and are an honorable and decent people. But they are no more moral than or superior to any other people, just as they are not any less moral or inferior to any other people. Each and every one of the Native Americans who first came into contact with Europeans and who would fight a losing battle to preserve their way of life against modernity was part of a tribal society of one sort or another. By my lights, tribal society is one of the worst forms of social organization. In the tribe, the individual is everywhere and always subsumed to the wishes and needs of the tribe. This tends to lead to perpetual misery and poverty and minimal technological progress.

In the Americas, especially North America, modernity in the form of Western Civilization won the battle against tribal society, and I, for one, am glad. Western Civilization, with its moral basis of a Judeo-Christian ethic, in which every human life has value and each individual is imbued with free will, has done more for human happiness and progress than other culture in human history.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

I Feel Pretty

 

Rush Limbaugh just mentioned an interesting story he gleaned from Zero Hedge that makes me want to get a mani-pedi and dream about new, luxurious bedding for my en suite:

A group of researchers from Germany and the United States have published a study which concludes that doping ‘xenophobic’ populations with massive quantities of the estrogen-linked hormone Oxytocin will cure nationalism – making native citizens more accepting and generous towards migrants who simply want free handouts from Western taxpayers while Islamic extremists peacefully rape and murder infidels.

Normally I’d be enraged by such a headline, but now I just feel the urge to sit around in a circle with my besties and inhale lavender lava lamp fumes.

So pretty.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Snowflakes Triggered by “Racist” Banana

 

A threadline that only makes sense in the Idiocratic America of 2017.

A Greek Life leader accidentally sparked mass hysteria after he placed a banana peel on a tree in the woods — because he could not find a trash can.

The Daily Mississippian reports that three black students found the banana peel — and were apparently triggered by what they saw.

“To be clear, many members of our community were hurt, frightened, and upset,” the interim director of fraternity and sorority life wrote in a letter obtained by the newspaper.

The president of one sorority told the newspaper that “bananas have historically been used to demean black people.”

“The massive discussion session wrapped up as more and more students stood and left the room – some in tears, some in frustration. NPHC members began texting friends to come and pick them up from the camp since no one had been allowed to drive his or her car up to the retreat. The remainder of the retreat was canceled later that night,” the newspaper reported.

Do these people breakdown in tears when they walk into the produce section of a supermarket and see watermelons?

And the university asylum is treating their hysteria as though it is legitimate.

“We are aware of the situation and are working to address it through appropriate channels,” the spokesman told me. “Since we became aware of what occurred at the fraternity and sorority community’s retreat, UM staff acted quickly in an effort to engage in discussion with students.”

What a stupid, stupid, stupid time to be alive.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

I Can’t Get to You from Here

 

As I was driving through the Texas Hill Country earlier this afternoon, my mind was overwhelmed with melancholy thoughts. Driving though such beautiful pastoral scenery does not normally produce that type of mood, but today is the tenth anniversary of my brother Richard’s untimely death at the age of forty. Michael Johnson sums up my disposition thusly:

I last saw Richard at his home in Yakima, Washington less than a month before he passed away. On the day I left, I promised him that I would go back to graduate school and earn my Ph.D. And on the day he died, I made another promise: from that point forward I would forever take up his fallen banner as a fan of the Seattle Seahawks.

Seven years later, I earned my Ph.D. That same year, the Seahawks won the Super Bowl.

God is good all of the time. And all of the time, God is good.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Why I Hate Saving Private Ryan

 

I am a bit of a connoisseur of war movies. I spent a large part of my youth staying up late on Saturday nights watching all the classic World War II movies on broadcast television. Being a fan of war movies, one would think that I was also a fan of Saving Private Ryan. Saving Private Ryan is considered many the gold standard by which all war movies that have come after are to be judged. I, however, disagree and more so as time goes on.

Understand upfront that Saving Private Ryan has many redeeming features. The initial scene of the storming of Normandy beach is a masterpiece of filmmaking. It is one of those scenes that makes Hollywood great and makes you stand in awe of what a genius Steven Spielberg really is.

The acting in the movie is also very good. And much the dialog is well written. Saving Private Ryan in many ways should be the classic that it is considered by many to be. The movie ultimately fails because of fundamental flaws in the plot and overall message of the movie that cannot be overcome by the many virtues of the film’s directing and acting.

Ironically for a film famous for its realism, all of Saving Private Ryan’s flaws relate in some way to realism. Despite all of the realistic filming and action, the movie fails to portray war and armies in a realistic way. Some of the flaws could be forgiven in a movie that made fewer pretensions about realism. They are unforgivable in a film that claims realism to be one of its prime virtues. And Private Ryan’s overall message about the nature of war cannot be forgiven in any movie.

After the initial storming of Normandy beach, which other than involving Tom Hanks really has no connection to the rest of the plot, the movie rests on an absurdly unrealistic premise; that General Marshall, the Chief of Staff of the Army, would take the time to order a special mission to find the last surviving son of a grieving mother. The US was losing around a thousand lives a day in June of 1944. Yes, there was a soul surviving son rule. And yes, being the last surviving son was a ticket home. But no way on earth would a staff officer at the Pentagon much less the Chief of Staff, taken the time to stop everything and send a mission to find such a son. There were lots of such sons and more important things to do than find them immediately, much less use valuable assets like Rangers to do so.

After getting the mission, Hanks and crew are somehow able to saunter off into the hedgerows of Normandy for a good days hike. The US 1st and 29th and the German 352nd Infantry Divisions were in death struggle in front of Omaha Beach in June of 1945. There was a continuous line of contact between Allied and German units. If it were possible could just walk out and link up with the 101st Airborne, they would have done that and the battle would have turned into a mop up operation. Yet, somehow Hanks and company wander about Normandy with impunity.

Then there is the storming of the German bunker. This is, without doubt, one of the most annoyingly unrealistic and contrived scenes in movie history. The entire scene is nothing but a transparent excuse to have the German prisoner scene that follows, which has its own problems which I will get to in a moment. The movie never explains why there would be this lonely German machine gun nest totally isolated from the rest of the German army. The Germans, the people who more or less invented modern warfare, somehow just decided to put a machine gun nest totally isolated for no apparent reason or advantage. And didn’t bother to camouflage it at all. And the men manning it don’t notice Hanks and crew approaching even though Hanks spots them. No, they were just sitting out there with a big “we are here to create a moral dilemma scene and kill off a beloved character” sign.

And of course, Hanks decides to attack it for no apparent reason. The idea that he could report its position and actually accomplish something useful during this mission never occurs to him. No, according to Hanks, his entire team must risk their lives to take out a single, isolated machine gun nest because “someone else my come along and have to do it if we don’t’. Well, sure they will. Someone else with air support and maybe artillery and better ways of doing it than charging over open ground in broad daylight.

Once Hanks decides that the machine gun nest must be eliminated for the greater good, he attacks it in the dumbest way possible. Hanks has this incredible sniper on his team. He knows where the machine gun nest is. It is pretty out in the open. Hey, why not let the 1940s Carlos Hathcock over here take a shot at killing a few of the people manning the bunker before we charge out there? Hey how about we wait until nightfall when we might have a chance of getting close to it before they see us? Nope. Hanks, against the entire collective wisdom and doctrine of modern infantry, decides that the position must be taken in daylight, without any element of surprise, and by frontal assault over open ground. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Captain Hanks would not have been very beloved by his men. The whole scene is absurd and infuriating, especially when occurring in the “most realistic war movie ever” as Saving Private Ryan is sometimes called.

Then there is the German prisoner scene that follows. This scene is by far the worst of the movie. It is totally contrived and unrealistic. The scene only exists at all because of the ridiculous existence and attack on the German machine gun nest. Moreover, even if those events had occurred, there would have never been any prisoners or moral dilemmas. And that is not because American soldiers made a habit of shooting German prisoners. They didn’t. It would never have occurred because while soldiers do not shoot prisoners they also don’t always go out of their way to allow the enemy the opportunity to surrender or judge other soldiers’ split second decisions in combat. Everyone in Hanks’ team would have known they had no way to take and hold a prisoner. And when they took that bunker, they would have killed everyone inside it before they ever had a chance to surrender or quickly enough they could plausibly say they didn’t realize that before they shot them and that would have been it. Oh, that guy had his hands up? I didn’t see that. What they would never have done was capture some poor guy and then sit around for 30 minutes arguing about whether to shoot him.

And the ensuing argument is some of the worst dialog ever put to film. Why can’t we just take his rifle and leave him behind? Because he might hurt someone. Yeah because one disarmed German private wondering around in the middle of the Battle of Normandy is going to do so much damage. Every time I watch that scene I want to jump through the screen and grab a rifle and shoot the poor German just so the rest of them will shut up and get on with the rest of the movie.

The most unrealistic aspect of Saving Private Ryan and what makes it so irredeemably awful despite the virtues of the direction and acting is how it portrays war in general. The premise of the movie is as I explained above absurd. But an absurd premise doesn’t necessarily mean a movie is bad. The Dirty Dozen is a classic war movie and is based on the absurd premise that the Army would use death row inmates to carry out a vital mission on D-Day. The deeper problem with Saving Private Ryan is that embraces a mawkish and unrealistic view of war in general.

The remarkable thing about the mission in Saving Private Ryan is that it does nothing to help the Allied cause or end the war. The mission and all of that sacrifice is to get some Private back home with his mother. Of course, that is supposed to be a metaphor. The men of D-Day didn’t just save Private Ryan, they saved all of us. Okay, but how? By charging around Normandy trying to send some guy home to his mom? I don’t think so.

The men who fought and died in Normandy did save us from fascism. I have no doubt about that. They didn’t do that by saving people and sending them home to their mothers. They did it by murdering Germans until the Germans had no more will to fight and surrendered. And that is what war is about; killing. It isn’t about saving people or doing good deeds. It is about the grim job of killing people until the other side gets sick of dying and gives up. And that is what I loathe most about Saving Private Ryan; that it enforces the fantasy idea that war is about noble sacrifice and not about killing.

This country suffers from the cult of the wounded warrior. At some point, we stopped understanding what war is about killing and winning and celebrating people who did heroic acts in furtherance of that and started to think war is about dying and sacrifice and started only celebrating those unfortunates who make such sacrifices. This is not to say that the people killed or wounded in war are not making the ultimate sacrifice and worthy of honor. They are. But getting wounded or killed is not what war is about and not what ends wars or more importantly wins wars. What ends wars and wins wars is killing.

And forgetting that is a very bad thing. Thinking war is really about sacrifice and positive actions like saving people cause us to lose sight of the enormous moral gravity of the decision to go to war. We don’t send men and women to war to save Private Ryan. We send them there to kill people. And if we are not comfortable with the full meaning of that, we shouldn’t do it. Ignoring that reality and pretending war is about the positive, causes us to enter into wars far too cavalierly and without a full understanding of the moral consequences of doing so.

Worse still, having a fantasy view that war is about sacrifice and saving people rather than killing, makes us less likely to stay with a war until it is won. Time and again people support going to war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan only to turn against the war once it gets hard or they see full extent of the horror our military necessarily inflicts on its adversaries. If we understood war was about killing, we would be less likely to go to war and more likely to finish and win wars when we did.

The entire point of Saving Private Ryan is as the title says, to save someone not win or even shorten the war. And what a pointless mission it is. Yeah, it’s nice that Matt Damon gets to go home. But thousands of other people were not going home ever. And if you are going to be one of them, you would like to think you died so the war would end sooner not so some guy can go home to mom. I think if the Tom Hanks character were real and you could tell him on June 5th that he was destined to die in Normandy, he would be sad but understand because that was a risk he signed up to take. If you told him he would die not trying to win the war but instead doing some errand for Headquarters trying to ensure that some private got to go home, he probably wouldn’t be too happy about that. Sure, he died after staying on to defend the bridge, but the only reason he was there was to retrieve Ryan. And that had nothing to do with winning the war.

In fact, winning the war is something none of the characters in the movie seem to consider. The entire movie can be summed up as follow. Sure, Mrs. Ryan, I will put down my duties as Chief of Staff of the Army to make sure your son returns. Sure, Mrs. Ryan, we will take a highly trained team of infantry that could be doing other valuable things and send them off on a snipe hunt looking for your son. Why? Because what matters is the individual and doing good deeds. Winning the war as quickly as possible so we can go home and not have any more mothers with dead sons in Europe, well that is just something that will take care of itself. We are all about saving your son Mrs. Ryan.

And that sums up the problems with 21st Century America in many ways. We have stopped facing reality as it is and making the tough choices and sacrifices necessary for our civilization. We pretend that life revolves around us and there are no larger issues at play and that we will always be able to make the noble and easy choice. And that conceit is at the heart of Saving Private Ryan and why I am more convinced it is a lousy movie today than I was the day I first saw it.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Secret Hands and Other Signs of Being a Nut

 

She is a fellow lawyer, a colleague here in Austin. I’ve assisted with her on a case before with a very difficult client. We were both very early for court on Monday and I sat next to her to chit chat.

After preliminaries, she asked, with little preamble, “So what is it that you hate most about Trump?” She explained that everyone hated him, but it was her experience that different people hated a different thing most.

Now, I realize this is Austin, and she’s a lawyer, and her mother is a lawyer, but it’s still Texas. I’m amazed that so many people who hate Trump think that there is no other point of view.

I’m a lawyer too, so I knew better than to answer her question directly. That would do no good. Instead I asked her what she hated him for most. This normally very articulate lady then rambled on about hatred and racism. I let her go for a while and then asked her, how is Trump a racist? What has he done that is racist?

“The White House is filled with white power extremists. Don’t you know about Steve Miller’s hand signs?” I confessed that I didn’t even know who Steve Miller was, but according to my colleague he makes obscure hand signals to signal he supports white power.

Our conversation was cut short by someone wanting to discuss her upcoming hearing, so I didn’t get her to explain why a secret white power supporter would blow his cover by using silly hand gestures.

This was one talk, but I’m hearing more and more of this. A few weeks ago I was sitting in a mediation, with several lawyers I know and respect, and suddenly they started a similar conversation, without even wondering what their clients, some of whom were present, might think of our President. That time they were complaining that Trump still was running his business, claiming it was illegal. I don’t know where they get that from.

These people are educated and have lost their senses.

Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Welcome to Your “New Normal”

 

If it seems as if the whole world has gone mad then you would be wrong. What happened is nothing more complicated than the fact that while you were sleeping I pulled my finger from the dike and things are simply finding their natural equilibrium.

By the way, I tried to warn you about what things might look like if and when the next generation of rednecks decides that the game is rigged against them. Could it be that they just don’t want to fight and die for a country that tears down their statues and constantly reminds them that they are a bunch of ignorant, no-good, Bible thumping racists? Imagine my surprise.