After attending the funeral for xiao Jimmy's mother, I don't think I could hack it in the funeral home or the cemetery business - some of the expressions may be sincere, but I don't think I'd handle playing the part well.
There is something about the experience of death; not the fear of it but the emotions it evokes...
Do morticians aim at making the body look more "life-like" or just decent flattery? I've been to a few viewings, and I haven't seen a body that resembled the living person. In each case I thought that the body looked fake or "unreal" - of course, something was very different or missing. What is the nature of the difference, though? Even materialists can admit that there is a significant change when someone dies, though they may not be able to explain it coherently.
Why is cremation more acceptable than simply chopping a body up into tiny pieces and scattering them? Are we comforted by the belief that the "carbonization" of a body does not leave any significant or recognizable remains? As far as I can tell, arguments for the prohibition against cremation have been aimed at the intention, either of the deceased (if he is being cremated in accordance with his wishes) or of the family. It may be permissible in areas where land is scarce. But is there something about cremation that intrinsically shows disrespect to the deceased or the body? Is cremation more like disposal than burial? Keeping the ashes in an urn in the family room seems very strange to me -- at least put the urn in a niche or bury it.
Showing posts with label reflections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reflections. Show all posts
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, December 18, 2009
Saints
The lives of those who are being consideration for being canonized are examined for the display of heroic virtue. But virtue is not the same for all. The virtue of a porter saint is not the same as the virtue of St. Pius V, for example, because the role or function each plays within Creation is different. It seems to me that virtue must be judged accordingly, even if charity is the form of all virtue. Virtues are related to function; the obligations, duties and works are different according to the role one plays.
It seems true that there is greater media exposure to the popes now than before, so that we can scrutinize their actions when they are public. Nonetheless, this is a reason why popes must be even more careful and avoid scandalizing the faithful.
Can the Holy Father be faulted for not doing something about the Curia, as opposed to an individual bishop? Can the Roman Curia and the Pope be judged according to the same criteria by which we judge secular governments and organizations? What is "effective leadership" for a pope? Can Romanitas and the desire to "save face" for subordinates be an excuse for inaction or slow action? Do ecclesiastical honors get in the way of reform as a result? It seems difficult to "demote" a bishop in the Curia. Are there inherent problems with the structure of the Curia and the selection of office-holders that warrant it being done away with completely? It seems that some sort of apparatus is necessary for the Pope to do his work as the first among the bishops of the entire world taken as a whole.
Rorate Caeli
It seems true that there is greater media exposure to the popes now than before, so that we can scrutinize their actions when they are public. Nonetheless, this is a reason why popes must be even more careful and avoid scandalizing the faithful.
Can the Holy Father be faulted for not doing something about the Curia, as opposed to an individual bishop? Can the Roman Curia and the Pope be judged according to the same criteria by which we judge secular governments and organizations? What is "effective leadership" for a pope? Can Romanitas and the desire to "save face" for subordinates be an excuse for inaction or slow action? Do ecclesiastical honors get in the way of reform as a result? It seems difficult to "demote" a bishop in the Curia. Are there inherent problems with the structure of the Curia and the selection of office-holders that warrant it being done away with completely? It seems that some sort of apparatus is necessary for the Pope to do his work as the first among the bishops of the entire world taken as a whole.
Rorate Caeli
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Halloween
KK asked me to house-sit and pass out candy at her house tonight, while she and her family are in Hong Kong/Macau. Whatever I may think of the secular holiday itself (the post I've devoted to horror movies and Halloween remains unfinished as of today), I personally enjoyed handing out candy tonight to the children. That was a bit unexpected -- I thought it would be more of a chore. (I do note that a significant minority of the children did not say, "Thank you.")
There are not many Anglos living here.
Perhaps being too giving to children spoils children.
It is, for children, mostly an innocent diversion. The nastiness of Halloween, associated with the trick part of "trick or treat," may be seen in pranks done during the night, but I do not think it happens very often here. (Though my sister was worried that the house or the car might be egged. But if anyone is going to do that, it will be teenagers, and not children?)
How many other "festive" opportunities does one have to meet one's neighbors? When do families and children who live close to one another celebrate something in common and visit each other?
If the holiday is problematic (and I think it is), nonetheless, its popularity may be due not only to the desire of children for free candy (though perhaps this is all the children think about) --
but for adults who continue to observe this holiday, not out of a sense of duty, but because they enjoy it -- for these reasons?
10 years ago trick-or-treating appeared to be dying out in our part of Cupertino -- but with the influx of families with children over the past 10 years, has there been a resurgence in the number of trick-or-treaters? What about in the United States in general?
There were some 7th/8th/9th graders trick-or-treating? They were rather tall...
And no, Snickers does not satisfy those who have a craving for chocolate and sugar.
There are not many Anglos living here.
Perhaps being too giving to children spoils children.
It is, for children, mostly an innocent diversion. The nastiness of Halloween, associated with the trick part of "trick or treat," may be seen in pranks done during the night, but I do not think it happens very often here. (Though my sister was worried that the house or the car might be egged. But if anyone is going to do that, it will be teenagers, and not children?)
How many other "festive" opportunities does one have to meet one's neighbors? When do families and children who live close to one another celebrate something in common and visit each other?
If the holiday is problematic (and I think it is), nonetheless, its popularity may be due not only to the desire of children for free candy (though perhaps this is all the children think about) --
but for adults who continue to observe this holiday, not out of a sense of duty, but because they enjoy it -- for these reasons?
10 years ago trick-or-treating appeared to be dying out in our part of Cupertino -- but with the influx of families with children over the past 10 years, has there been a resurgence in the number of trick-or-treaters? What about in the United States in general?
There were some 7th/8th/9th graders trick-or-treating? They were rather tall...
And no, Snickers does not satisfy those who have a craving for chocolate and sugar.
Friday, July 04, 2008
"Freedom!"
I don't think I imagined this while I was half-asleep, but this afternoon Sean Hannity mentioned on the radio that the last line uttered by William Wallace in Mel Gibon's Braveheart was the cry of "Freedom!" And then he proceeded to relate this to a "libertarian" conception of freedom, what one might associate with license, but the individual right to determine one's actions for one's self and choose accordingly. But the freedom that the fictional Wallace was striving for in the movie [and the real historical person as well] was "political freedom" -- liberation from a occupying power (or a tyrannical government). Political liberty as opposed to differing notions of individual liberty; there isn't a necessary connection between the two, unless one rejects both subjection from without and from within (as being unjust). More on this in a bit.
BBC - History - Scottish History
Wallace: A Biography - Google Books Result
Braveheart @ MacBraveHeart - Homepage
One friend liked the movie to an extent, which was a surprise when I first heard him talking about it since he usually avoids movies. But he wished that instead of "Freedom," Gibson's Wallace had shouted instead something like "Scotland!" Catholic traditionalists and reactionaries tend to mistrust any talk about liberty, since it is often tied up with some form of liberalism or bad conceptions of freedom, authority, and community. But is talk of liberty always necessarily tainted or wrong? Can there be a proper Catholic understanding of political liberty?
Traditionally, it has been taught that if the ruler is ruling justly, for the sake of the common good, then his rule is legitimate and should be obeyed. So one question is what is to be done if his rule or his laws are unjust. The other question is whether those conditions are enough. It has also been traditionally taught that those who obtain rule through conquest may have their rule legitimated with time, provided that they meet the other conditions for just rule. If, despite the way they came into power, they rule justly, one cannot disobey their laws or start a rebellion.
Still, we would do well to question whether there is a divine mandate for one world government. I can see how the desire for self-rule in the medieval republics (and autonomy on the part of kings in their states) would lead to discussions about the various claims to authority (especially by the Holy Roman Empire) and reactions by some to attempts by others to gain power over them. Other than a claim to having inherited some imperial authority from the past, what legitimate claim did the Holy Roman Emperor have over others?
If communities should be of an appropriate size (in accordance with natural limits), then most attempts to gain control over them by larger entities would probably be not only wrong-headed but unjust as well. Only in extreme cases should such authority be assumed (for example, if a community is incapable of self-rule, realizes it, and asks for outside help--but is that likely to happen?), and ideally authority should be returned to that community as soon as it is possible. (Once it becomes capable of self-rule, and this is a goal that the outside power should seek to bring about, if it is truly 'benevolent'.)
I could envision someone using Aquinas' argument concerning the best form of government to press for a unified world government over all, but I think this is too much to ask for, in a world marred by sin. And, it would go again reason. (Once again, the question of limits -- size and being able to understand local circumstances -- and the proper political participation of the citizens.)
Quentin Skinner has written about republican government and conceptions of liberty during the middle ages and afterwards. He has traced various understandings of political liberty through European history, focusing on the classical notion as being the best(?). According to the classical notion of [political] liberty, only those who participate in self-rule are free; those who are subject to the authority of another are not really free.
Even if we accept that there is a "classical" conception of political liberty to be found in Republican Rome and in the Greek poleis, is it necessarily always the best? Or do we follow Aristotle, who differentiates between the different good constitutions? Aristotle maintains that polity (or 'rule by the many') is not the best constitution for all societies. Is a right violated if one does not participate in rule? Or is this only when one is qualified to rule? What are the qualifications for rule? 'Civic humanism' or republicanism does not always involve the egalitarian assumption that one is qualified to rule merely in virtue of being a(n) [adult] member of a community. But is the many's possession of the requisite virtue for a polity sufficient to entail that taking political participation away from them is unjust and a violation of their liberty? One need not to accept this to avoid such an action--the prudential judgment that the taking away of political power from them will cause resentment and other adverse effects on the common good would be enough.
This sort of political liberty is not opposed to, or does not do away with, the virtue of obedience, since self-rule is attributed to the whole and not to each member of the community taken individually. There is no place in authentic republicanism for an exaggerated notion of freedom -- that I be able to do what I want, and not have to follow the commands of others, since this would be destructive to the common good. The question is whether others outside of the community can claim to have authority over me. God and the Church, yes. But what of another human temporal authority, in which we do not participate?
Just as one cannot licitly disobey an usurper if he is ruling in accordance with the common good, so political liberty cannot be the highest good within the political order--the common good (and by extension obedience to the law) take precedence. (Which isn't to say that one shouldn't strive to regain or strengthen self-rule, so long as it the intended outcome is likely and it does not destroy the common good, respect for the law, and so on.)
I should try to skim through Professor Skinner's Liberty Before Liberalism and Hobbes and Republican Liberty; they are probably worth getting. I've read through his The Foundations of Modern Political Thought; while it is informative I'm not entirely convinced by the narrative that he puts forth. I do think that links between republicanism of the middle ages and of the classical period need to be explored further and judged in accordance with something normative, even if medieval rhetoric appealed to liberty and republicanism to justify certain political actions. ("Following the example of our ancestors" would not be enough?)
Google Books: The Foundations of Modern Political Thought
As for "American independence," and whether it really was a case of secession or rebellion--I have yet to study the constitutional case of the loyalists. Was it a case of tyrannical rule being rejected? Or the violation of a contract between sovereign communities and a higher authority being violated? Hence, my present ambivalence about celebrating the 4th of July.
I'm surprised none of the networks is broadcasting The Patriot tonight. Is it being shown on cable?
Yahoo Movies; Rotten Tomatoes
Extended version
More on Quentin Skinner
wiki
Quentin Skinner on concepts of liberty (mp3)
A summary: Cambridge historian lectures on concepts of liberty - Podcast ...
Content-TV: Quentin Skinner - Three Concepts of Liberty - video
LRB · Quentin Skinner: A Third Concept of Liberty
Rethinking Political Liberty -- Skinner 61 (1): 156 -- History ...
Quentin Skinner - Rethinking Political Liberty - History Workshop ...
Google Books: Equal Freedom: Selected Tanner Lectures on Human Values
The Social Affairs Unit - Web Review: David Womersley
The place of history in public life, by Quentin Skinner
Quentin Skinner on civic humanism
Professor Quentin Skinner on Hobbes | The Early Modern Intelligencer
DSpace at Cambridge: Interview of Quentin Skinner
INTERVIEW WITH QUENTIN SKINNER (pdf)
On Encountering the Past – Interview with Quentin Skinner (pdf)
Philosophy Bites interview with Quentin Skinner (mp3, transcript)
Related:
Cambridge University Press: Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought - Cambridge
Republicanism - vol. 1, 2; Visions of Politics - vol. 1, 2, 3
States and Citizens
An Approach to Political Philosophy
P. Pettit, KEEPING REPUBLICAN FREEDOM SIMPLE On a Difference with Quentin Skinner (pdf)
Samuel Moyn - Intellectual History and Democracy: An Interview ...
Thursday, June 26, 2008
More thoughts about modern policing
A continuation of this post.
Will violence in the UK get so bad that all police officers must be armed? Or will the police simply be ordered to avoid confronting violent offenders and doing their duty? We who live in the United States know only armed police officers, and it is unlikely that things will ever be different here.
How many police officers were killed in the line of duty in the U.K. during the 19th century? If the numbers were very low, what stopped criminals from taking the lives of police offers? Deterrence and the fear of a serious punishment? (What was the penalty for killing a police officer then?) In general, did murder happen less, on a per-capita basis? Can we say that the British 'criminals' of the 19th century were more restrained than those of today? That they at least still had some access to the 'moral capital of the past,' plus the grace of baptism? (Assuming that ratio of baptized to non-baptized was higher in the 19th century than in the 20th.) As a result, it was possible for unarmed police officer to apprehend criminals without a serious risk of grave injury or death for themselves.
With the rise of gangs in major urban areas and the loss of fathers who would act as moral guides, tempering the spiritedness of their sons and show them "how to be a man," should we expect more violence directed at police officers in the future? What about a nightmare domestic 4GW scenario, as things get worse socially and economically? The problems of gangs and violence is predominantly male, but violence committed by girls and young women seems to be increasing as well... Murdering LEOs as a form of gang initiation--how common is this in countries where 'narcoterrorism' has taken hold? (Where you already have assassinations of high-ranking police officials, judges, and politicians.)
4GW may exist already in certain Latin American countries, but it is not here in the U.S.--yet. What happens if things destabilize? Could we see a rise in drug use if we hit a major economic depression? Would it be financially possible during a depression for the poor to buy drugs?
How many malefactors feel emboldened enough to use weapons against the police, especially guns or knives? We see on TV shows and in movies ex-cons proclaiming that they will not get caught and go back to prison. So they resist with deadly means in order to avoid returning to jail. Apparently prison is not a deterrent from crime; it merely escalates the behavior of the hardened criminal. Does this reflect reality?
In a "multicultural" society where traditional mores are being undermined and respect for law and authority are on the wane, I would expect crime rates to get worse--even if politicians and the news media deny this, in order to advance their ideological worldviews. And if criminals are becoming more likely to use violence to escape arrest or for some other purpose, the police do need to be able to defend themselves.
Unarmed foot patrols by themselves may be able to help foster communication between the community and the police in Anglo communities, or at least help the police observe what is happening. (Has it become easier for criminals to conceal themselves and their activities as urban environments change, and cities have become megapolises?) But what of insular ethnic communities where distrust or resentment of authority is high? The strategy (at least here in the U.S.) has been to recruit more officers of that ethnicity, to establish a rapport with the community, but how successful has that been? The use of unarmed foot patrols, by itself, will not stem the moral decline of a community, or address the root causes of increasing violent behavior by criminals, or prevent criminals from using violence. If violence is to be deterred, then what needs to be reformed is legal system, punishments, and sentencing. Without these changes, unarmed police officers remain easy targets. (And I am not sure if one can use the coercive effect of law to deter those accustomed to using violence. What do the numbers in the U.S. reveal about the effectiveness of punishments employed against those who injure or kill police officers?)
Police stand guard ahead of US President George W. Bush's visit to Windsor Castle. US President George W. Bush has arrived in Britain for talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Iran and other issues, as both sides vigorously denied any rift over troop levels in Iraq.
(AFP/Geoff Caddick)
An anti-war protester is prevented by police officers from entering Whitehall which leads to Downing Street, as thousands gathered at Parliament Square in London to demonstrate against the visit of U.S. President George W. Bush, Sunday, June 15, 2008. Bush is due to meet the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street later this evening. Police say up to 2,000 demonstrators have gathered in London's Parliament Square to greet U.S. President George W. Bush. Police have barred the protesters from marching to Downing Street, where Bush is due to have dinner with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Sunday night.
(AP Photo/Sang Tan)
A stand-off takes place between police and anti-war protestors during a protest, organised by the Stop The War Coalition, in Parliament Square, central London, demonstrating against the current visit to the United Kingdom of US President George Bush on Sunday June 15, 2008.
(AP Photo / Johnny Green)
Hey Sarge, check out who is in front.
Which reminds me--it is not wrong for Christian boys to have as heroes soldiers and statesmen or even intellectuals, but we must impress upon them that the doing of great and noble deeds must always be centered in and flow from the love of God, and so we should include among paragons of virtue those whom the world belittles as "useless" or "fools"--the hermits, the contemplatives, as well as those who are engaged in the active life.
As for using up moral capital--would it be possible for radical feminism and misandry to flourish if the male citizenry were not already emasculated to some extent? Republican virtue has long been gone, replaced by servile obedience to a central authority. It seems that the sexual revolution only radicalized feminism even more, and by then "chivalry" was already dead among the males who participated. Members of both sexes rebelled against social mores, not just sexual mores, but mores governing marriage, family, and so on? Iirc, divorce laws had already been liberalized before the sexual revolution, and this change too contributed to the breakdown of marriage and family.
While Southern culture and music seems to still foster the ideal of a husband and father, the divorce rates there do not seem to be much better, and the 'Christian' churches are not doing their job. (See these two posts by Dr. Fleming, Sex and Marriage in the Early Church and Sex and Marriage in San Francisco.)
Post begun on June 18.
Some links:
Blues And Twos - Police Officer's Blog
The Policeman's Blog
World Weary Detective
Chief Constable's Blog
Blog of the blogs
PC Bloggs - a Twenty-first Century Police Officer
The Philosophical Cop Police Blog
LAPD Blog
Dalton Police Blog
BPDNews.com - News Updates from the Boston Police Department
The Graveyard Shift » Blog Archive » Police Officer Hiring Process
Will violence in the UK get so bad that all police officers must be armed? Or will the police simply be ordered to avoid confronting violent offenders and doing their duty? We who live in the United States know only armed police officers, and it is unlikely that things will ever be different here.
How many police officers were killed in the line of duty in the U.K. during the 19th century? If the numbers were very low, what stopped criminals from taking the lives of police offers? Deterrence and the fear of a serious punishment? (What was the penalty for killing a police officer then?) In general, did murder happen less, on a per-capita basis? Can we say that the British 'criminals' of the 19th century were more restrained than those of today? That they at least still had some access to the 'moral capital of the past,' plus the grace of baptism? (Assuming that ratio of baptized to non-baptized was higher in the 19th century than in the 20th.) As a result, it was possible for unarmed police officer to apprehend criminals without a serious risk of grave injury or death for themselves.
With the rise of gangs in major urban areas and the loss of fathers who would act as moral guides, tempering the spiritedness of their sons and show them "how to be a man," should we expect more violence directed at police officers in the future? What about a nightmare domestic 4GW scenario, as things get worse socially and economically? The problems of gangs and violence is predominantly male, but violence committed by girls and young women seems to be increasing as well... Murdering LEOs as a form of gang initiation--how common is this in countries where 'narcoterrorism' has taken hold? (Where you already have assassinations of high-ranking police officials, judges, and politicians.)
4GW may exist already in certain Latin American countries, but it is not here in the U.S.--yet. What happens if things destabilize? Could we see a rise in drug use if we hit a major economic depression? Would it be financially possible during a depression for the poor to buy drugs?
How many malefactors feel emboldened enough to use weapons against the police, especially guns or knives? We see on TV shows and in movies ex-cons proclaiming that they will not get caught and go back to prison. So they resist with deadly means in order to avoid returning to jail. Apparently prison is not a deterrent from crime; it merely escalates the behavior of the hardened criminal. Does this reflect reality?
In a "multicultural" society where traditional mores are being undermined and respect for law and authority are on the wane, I would expect crime rates to get worse--even if politicians and the news media deny this, in order to advance their ideological worldviews. And if criminals are becoming more likely to use violence to escape arrest or for some other purpose, the police do need to be able to defend themselves.
Unarmed foot patrols by themselves may be able to help foster communication between the community and the police in Anglo communities, or at least help the police observe what is happening. (Has it become easier for criminals to conceal themselves and their activities as urban environments change, and cities have become megapolises?) But what of insular ethnic communities where distrust or resentment of authority is high? The strategy (at least here in the U.S.) has been to recruit more officers of that ethnicity, to establish a rapport with the community, but how successful has that been? The use of unarmed foot patrols, by itself, will not stem the moral decline of a community, or address the root causes of increasing violent behavior by criminals, or prevent criminals from using violence. If violence is to be deterred, then what needs to be reformed is legal system, punishments, and sentencing. Without these changes, unarmed police officers remain easy targets. (And I am not sure if one can use the coercive effect of law to deter those accustomed to using violence. What do the numbers in the U.S. reveal about the effectiveness of punishments employed against those who injure or kill police officers?)
Police stand guard ahead of US President George W. Bush's visit to Windsor Castle. US President George W. Bush has arrived in Britain for talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Iran and other issues, as both sides vigorously denied any rift over troop levels in Iraq.
(AFP/Geoff Caddick)
An anti-war protester is prevented by police officers from entering Whitehall which leads to Downing Street, as thousands gathered at Parliament Square in London to demonstrate against the visit of U.S. President George W. Bush, Sunday, June 15, 2008. Bush is due to meet the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street later this evening. Police say up to 2,000 demonstrators have gathered in London's Parliament Square to greet U.S. President George W. Bush. Police have barred the protesters from marching to Downing Street, where Bush is due to have dinner with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Sunday night.
(AP Photo/Sang Tan)
A stand-off takes place between police and anti-war protestors during a protest, organised by the Stop The War Coalition, in Parliament Square, central London, demonstrating against the current visit to the United Kingdom of US President George Bush on Sunday June 15, 2008.
(AP Photo / Johnny Green)
Hey Sarge, check out who is in front.
Which reminds me--it is not wrong for Christian boys to have as heroes soldiers and statesmen or even intellectuals, but we must impress upon them that the doing of great and noble deeds must always be centered in and flow from the love of God, and so we should include among paragons of virtue those whom the world belittles as "useless" or "fools"--the hermits, the contemplatives, as well as those who are engaged in the active life.
As for using up moral capital--would it be possible for radical feminism and misandry to flourish if the male citizenry were not already emasculated to some extent? Republican virtue has long been gone, replaced by servile obedience to a central authority. It seems that the sexual revolution only radicalized feminism even more, and by then "chivalry" was already dead among the males who participated. Members of both sexes rebelled against social mores, not just sexual mores, but mores governing marriage, family, and so on? Iirc, divorce laws had already been liberalized before the sexual revolution, and this change too contributed to the breakdown of marriage and family.
While Southern culture and music seems to still foster the ideal of a husband and father, the divorce rates there do not seem to be much better, and the 'Christian' churches are not doing their job. (See these two posts by Dr. Fleming, Sex and Marriage in the Early Church and Sex and Marriage in San Francisco.)
Post begun on June 18.
Some links:
Blues And Twos - Police Officer's Blog
The Policeman's Blog
World Weary Detective
Chief Constable's Blog
Blog of the blogs
PC Bloggs - a Twenty-first Century Police Officer
The Philosophical Cop Police Blog
LAPD Blog
Dalton Police Blog
BPDNews.com - News Updates from the Boston Police Department
The Graveyard Shift » Blog Archive » Police Officer Hiring Process
Monday, June 16, 2008
Negative attitudes towards the police
Many have an aversion to, or even a resentment of, the police. Some hold it against the police officer when they get in trouble and receive a ticket for speeding or some other infraction. Others are put off by those who abuse their authority, or are lording it over others, or because police officers are symbols of an 'oppressive' government. But is there an uneasy tension between the republican spirit itself and the existence of a professional police force? Or is the resentment due to a lack of humility and obedience to lawful authority, to a spirit of rebellion?
Should police officers wear some sort of a uniform? Or should they wear civilian clothing, along with a badge and their gear, maintaining a low-profile as much as possible? Is a uniform necessary for professionalism? (What would sheriffs and constables of the past have worn? Whatever was typical of the nobility?) Is a visible presence important for deterrence? Would deterrence be necessary in a small community? While police officers can effect some measure of deterrence in larger communities, doesn't this effect persist only while they are present? Hence, there is the problem of size and 'policing' by patrol car.
Some oppose the adoption of military-style BDUs by police officers, even though these are more comfortable and suited to the demands of police work (according to police officers who wear them), because this would make the police too 'militaristic' and be at odds with their actual function in society. Peter Hitchens holds on to the ideal attributed to Robert Peel in his creation of the Metropolitan Police Force, namely that the police officers should appear to be like an ordinary citizen as much as possible. Mr. Hitchens criticizes the replacement of the traditional bobby by the modern police officer accordingly. But what are the functions of the police, in addition to providing a defense of a community from criminals? The police are not merely referees and political life is more than a game--the stakes involved are much higher.
While they should appear like ordinary citizens as much as possible, they also have to be different, so that they are noticeable. Is it possible to balance being readily identifiable with blending in with the citizenry? Or are these two considerations so opposed, despite being seemingly necessary? What if it is the case that for the police to be truly effective, their presence should be concealed rather than be obvious? In order to determine what it is for the police to be effective, we must first know what its function is.
One detective for the Metropolitan Police has written that, "In 1829 the Metropolitan Police Act led to the introduction of the modern police force. The primary means of policing was conspicuous patrolling by uniformed police officers. The key objective was the prevention of crime." Is this ideal too unrealistic? Even though LEOs are said to enforce, that is compel observance or obedience of, the law, they cannot be a constant monitor everywhere, even in public areas--they cannot prevent a well-conceived crimed or one that is hidden from patrols or surveillance. In the U.S., because of the reliance on patrol cars, they usually only respond after a crime has been committed, and apprehend those who are guilty of crime and bring them to judgment and punishment. Though they serve the legal system and justice, they are not a tool of punishment, which is the coercive effect of law. They are also involved in the physical defense of a community, which function is assigned by Plato to the guardians in The Republic. And to an extent they act as referees who can mediate a dispute or de-escalate a situation before things turn ugly. Critics, in their zealous support of the deterrent function of police forget that the police must also defend the public and themselves from violent criminals, and therefore take the necessary precautions. (As the use of knives increases, is the time of the unarmed bobby coming to an end?)
Police officers are not meant to be social workers, though they should show a concern for their fellow citizens and do what they can to help because they are a citizen and in a position to do so. But these two roles should be kept separate, unless they are participating in the role of those who rule or of the magistrate? Otherwise, where the line be between showing proper concern for a fellow citizen and being a busybody?
Who should be entrusted with giving moral and spiritual direction to the members of the community, other than those who are virtuous and wise? And should they present themselves as sources of such aid, or should they rather wait until they are approached? In a fragmented community, perhaps only the police can be in such a position, but in a fragmented community, how can we be sure that the police themselves can be reliable moral guides? Being able to cite the laws of a community is not the same as being prudent or knowledgeable of (and conformed to) higher principles that should inform human law.
If it is proper to a republican constitution (or polity -- see Aristotle's Politics) for most to be citizens, would not the function of protecting a community from its internal enemies be a duty incumbent on everyone who is qualified to be a citizen as well? This seems to be in harmony with Peelian Principles. (Is it better to have a designated 'neutral' party apprehend those who have committed crimes, rather than relying upon the family of the victim(s)?) (Even in other constitutions, all the members of a community may be responsible for its defense, even though they might not hold office or have a share in ruling.)
The police are an instance of function being specialized within a community, and not of delegation or restriction of a function to certain persons, as in the case of legislating or ruling. If a true militia were to be established, how many people would lose interest in becoming a police officer, and look for another means of support while still feeling that they are engaged in the duties of a citizen? If citizens were more capable of defending themselves, or did not give the appearance of being passive sheep, would it be necessary to set the police apart in appearance in order to make their presence known and thus scare criminals off? And does having a uniformed police force (along with restrictions on firearms) serve to degrade the exercise of citizenship? If the citizenry cannot rely on the police to prevent crimes (which they cannot do to any great degree, at least here in the United States), would they not be somewhat justified in feeling angry that they have to support a group of people who seem useless?
Links:
Peelian Principles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Peelers - The World's First Police Force.
A History of the Nine Principles of Policing
Blues And Twos - Police Officer's Blog (UK policing)
City of London Police (wiki)
Metropolitan Police History
The Metropolitan Police
Wiki: Metropolitan Police Service; Metropolitan Police Act 1829, 1839
The Metropolitan Police Act, 1829
Metropolitan Police Act 1829 (c.44)
Police authority and reform in Augustan Rome and nineteenth ...
Google Books: An Introduction to Policing and Police Powers, by Leonard Jason-Lloyd
Elaine Reynolds, Before the Bobbies: The Night Watch and Police Reform in Metropolitan London, 1720-1830 -- Google Books
| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 104.5 | The ...
To First U.S. Bobby, Unarmed Is Unsafe
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Armed police tackle gun murders
Another page for Sheriff Richard Mack. (Previously mentioned here.)
Constitutional Duties of a Sheriff
The Spiritual Politician: Sheriff Richard Mack: America's ...
Should police officers wear some sort of a uniform? Or should they wear civilian clothing, along with a badge and their gear, maintaining a low-profile as much as possible? Is a uniform necessary for professionalism? (What would sheriffs and constables of the past have worn? Whatever was typical of the nobility?) Is a visible presence important for deterrence? Would deterrence be necessary in a small community? While police officers can effect some measure of deterrence in larger communities, doesn't this effect persist only while they are present? Hence, there is the problem of size and 'policing' by patrol car.
Some oppose the adoption of military-style BDUs by police officers, even though these are more comfortable and suited to the demands of police work (according to police officers who wear them), because this would make the police too 'militaristic' and be at odds with their actual function in society. Peter Hitchens holds on to the ideal attributed to Robert Peel in his creation of the Metropolitan Police Force, namely that the police officers should appear to be like an ordinary citizen as much as possible. Mr. Hitchens criticizes the replacement of the traditional bobby by the modern police officer accordingly. But what are the functions of the police, in addition to providing a defense of a community from criminals? The police are not merely referees and political life is more than a game--the stakes involved are much higher.
While they should appear like ordinary citizens as much as possible, they also have to be different, so that they are noticeable. Is it possible to balance being readily identifiable with blending in with the citizenry? Or are these two considerations so opposed, despite being seemingly necessary? What if it is the case that for the police to be truly effective, their presence should be concealed rather than be obvious? In order to determine what it is for the police to be effective, we must first know what its function is.
One detective for the Metropolitan Police has written that, "In 1829 the Metropolitan Police Act led to the introduction of the modern police force. The primary means of policing was conspicuous patrolling by uniformed police officers. The key objective was the prevention of crime." Is this ideal too unrealistic? Even though LEOs are said to enforce, that is compel observance or obedience of, the law, they cannot be a constant monitor everywhere, even in public areas--they cannot prevent a well-conceived crimed or one that is hidden from patrols or surveillance. In the U.S., because of the reliance on patrol cars, they usually only respond after a crime has been committed, and apprehend those who are guilty of crime and bring them to judgment and punishment. Though they serve the legal system and justice, they are not a tool of punishment, which is the coercive effect of law. They are also involved in the physical defense of a community, which function is assigned by Plato to the guardians in The Republic. And to an extent they act as referees who can mediate a dispute or de-escalate a situation before things turn ugly. Critics, in their zealous support of the deterrent function of police forget that the police must also defend the public and themselves from violent criminals, and therefore take the necessary precautions. (As the use of knives increases, is the time of the unarmed bobby coming to an end?)
Police officers are not meant to be social workers, though they should show a concern for their fellow citizens and do what they can to help because they are a citizen and in a position to do so. But these two roles should be kept separate, unless they are participating in the role of those who rule or of the magistrate? Otherwise, where the line be between showing proper concern for a fellow citizen and being a busybody?
Who should be entrusted with giving moral and spiritual direction to the members of the community, other than those who are virtuous and wise? And should they present themselves as sources of such aid, or should they rather wait until they are approached? In a fragmented community, perhaps only the police can be in such a position, but in a fragmented community, how can we be sure that the police themselves can be reliable moral guides? Being able to cite the laws of a community is not the same as being prudent or knowledgeable of (and conformed to) higher principles that should inform human law.
If it is proper to a republican constitution (or polity -- see Aristotle's Politics) for most to be citizens, would not the function of protecting a community from its internal enemies be a duty incumbent on everyone who is qualified to be a citizen as well? This seems to be in harmony with Peelian Principles. (Is it better to have a designated 'neutral' party apprehend those who have committed crimes, rather than relying upon the family of the victim(s)?) (Even in other constitutions, all the members of a community may be responsible for its defense, even though they might not hold office or have a share in ruling.)
The police are an instance of function being specialized within a community, and not of delegation or restriction of a function to certain persons, as in the case of legislating or ruling. If a true militia were to be established, how many people would lose interest in becoming a police officer, and look for another means of support while still feeling that they are engaged in the duties of a citizen? If citizens were more capable of defending themselves, or did not give the appearance of being passive sheep, would it be necessary to set the police apart in appearance in order to make their presence known and thus scare criminals off? And does having a uniformed police force (along with restrictions on firearms) serve to degrade the exercise of citizenship? If the citizenry cannot rely on the police to prevent crimes (which they cannot do to any great degree, at least here in the United States), would they not be somewhat justified in feeling angry that they have to support a group of people who seem useless?
Links:
Peelian Principles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Peelers - The World's First Police Force.
A History of the Nine Principles of Policing
Blues And Twos - Police Officer's Blog (UK policing)
City of London Police (wiki)
Metropolitan Police History
The Metropolitan Police
Wiki: Metropolitan Police Service; Metropolitan Police Act 1829, 1839
The Metropolitan Police Act, 1829
Metropolitan Police Act 1829 (c.44)
Police authority and reform in Augustan Rome and nineteenth ...
Google Books: An Introduction to Policing and Police Powers, by Leonard Jason-Lloyd
Elaine Reynolds, Before the Bobbies: The Night Watch and Police Reform in Metropolitan London, 1720-1830 -- Google Books
| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 104.5 | The ...
To First U.S. Bobby, Unarmed Is Unsafe
Johnson, who used to stand ceremonial guard duty at the White House and other Washington sites as a member of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, said British police need far better training.
He said he had 36 weeks of academy training and supervised field work to become a police officer in Texas. But at Thames Valley he said he received less than half that, and most of the instruction involved how to fill out paperwork.
Johnson said British officers are instructed to retreat if they see a gun and call for backup from armed officers, but that can give suspects time to escape. He said he recently found himself in the same room with a man wanted for attempted murder and he could easily have taken the suspect by surprise and apprehended him.
But, Johnson said, because the man was believed to be armed, he was ordered not to approach him. The suspect walked away and was arrested by armed officers two days later.
"If he had gone out and committed more violent crimes in those two days," Johnson said, "I would have felt personally responsible."
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Armed police tackle gun murders
Another page for Sheriff Richard Mack. (Previously mentioned here.)
Constitutional Duties of a Sheriff
The Spiritual Politician: Sheriff Richard Mack: America's ...
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Some more thoughts about clothing
North Face fleeces and jackets are a common sight in Boston; many college students and young professionals wear them. There is a North Face store on Newbury Street-- I was surprised at first to see such a store in an upscale shopping district, but then I saw the prices for North Face clothing. The store, not surprisingly, is popular with young people, but you will also see middle-aged people shopping there with their children. When Sarge use to visit Boston, we would often drop by REI and Eastern Mountain Sports and check out various items being sold there, including the clothing. Now admittedly in Boston, there is a use for such clothing since it is very cold during the winter. But there is a recent post over at Stuff White People Like mocking the fashion trend and the intentions of those who wear outdoor clothing everywhere.
Why are such clothes popular? For most, is wearing brands like North Face just a way to be both trendy and casual? Or do they perahsp wear them for the specific reasons mentioned at the blog:
a neutered office drone, but rather an independent American, whose real identity consists in living the rugged, active, athletic lifestyle, or having the semblance of that.
Indeed, go to a mall like Valley Fair and you will see how often they are found together. North Face clothing especially is popular not only among 'white' people, but with Asians as well, at least here in the Bay Area.
Or it may be that people truly like the appearance as well as the comfort of such clothing. A combination of both aesthetic appeal and utility.
The Denali is a best-seller, though one commentor on the blog, while acknowledging its popularity and profitability, claims, "The local North Face rep says that as a company they 'hate the denali jacket and wish it would 'go away'."
extreme sports
I must admit that I do like the fleeces and vests that are sold at stores like REI. They do provide warmth and usually have plenty of pockets. I do like the ones that have pockets on the inside, though this requires that one opens the jacket or vest in order to gain access to them, and thus exposing one's self to the cold and losing warmth. No wonder it is not a common feature for outdoor clothing. But if they are worn indoors...
As price of heating goes up, it is conceivable that the use of indoor heating will lessen and people will need to find other ways to stay warm indoors during the winter. It's the most economical way of coping with rising energy costs, putting on my layers of clothing, or wearing clothing that is more effective in retaining body heat. Will the 'traditional' suit coat (and the business suit itself, since even thick slacks do not insulate heat well enough) become obsolete in colder climates? Or will they be modified, become thicker somehow? Or would their replacement by sportcoats be sufficient? Will sweaters and hoodies become acceptable attire even in business offices on the East Coast?
I suppose in times of great need or emergencies, no one will be checking with traditional mores regarding clothing before doing what is most practical in ensuring their survival.
In the past did farmers and artisans need to worry about court fashion and the trends there? Or were they encouraged rather to be humble and content with their state in life, and not 'over-dressing'? Do we really have a right to think that our station in life is higher than that of our ancestors, merely because we are admittedly wealthier? How much of our society's wealth has been gained through immoral means, and how much through access to easy energy?
On the East Coast, the dress code for work requires that men should always dress in a shirt, tie, suit, and heavy overcoat during the Winter. What makes the men's jacket and coat more suitable than something from North Face? Not simply the cost, as North Face items are not cheap; a jacket can cost as much as a cheap suit or sports coat, if not more. Rather, it is solely because such attire has been accepted as the 'uniform' or what is appropriate to the dignity of someone working in such an environment. (I do not accept the judgment that the modern men's coat is necessarily better looking than a fleece, though the zippers and the rings attached to the zippers could be eliminated or replaced.)
According to the wikipedia article:
Of course the weakness of a jacket or a fleece is the shortness of the length, but these are short for a reason--to provide greater mobility for the lower body. One has to warm the lower body through other articles of clothing. But if the current political economy is on the way to destroying itself, we'll need less clerks and office works, and more people working with their hands.
As with all mass-produced clothing, I would complain more about their mass production than with their appearance or design or class associations, and the standardized sizes that result in a lack of a proper fit for body types varying too much from the 'norm.' And then there is the prominent display of the corporate name and logo. Do we really need this kind of branding? Isn't our society saturated with enough advertising as it is?
If only our political economy would support the tailoring of clothing for individuals--either within the household or by local tailors in the town.
Beyond the articles of clothing themselves, we should examine the costs involved in their production. And are these being made overseas under just working conditions? If not, it would seem that we should not patronize the companies that exploit human beings in such a way. Or we should at least protest their practices.
But if there such concerns were not present, would it be right otherwise to wear such clothing? We return again to the question of what's been traditionally accepted and required by society, or those who have power over others and trend-setters.
There is also the question of whether having unisex clothing is appropriate. It seems that the same design for North Face jackets and vests is employed for both men and women? The only difference may be the colors that are available for each sex. If there were a strict demarcation by color that might be sufficient, but certain colors, such as black, are used for both sexes. What distinguishes them, then?
Why is it important to distinguish women and men? Doesn't a 'practical mentality,' which I seem to extol above, justify the unisex design? If a fleece keeps you warm, then why shouldn't both men and women wear it? But does a piece of clothing have to have the same appearance in order to maintain its functionality? I do not think this is the case. And while clothing does hide the body, it also should reveal something about the one wearing it. It covers the female body, and yet somehow conveys the femininity of the wearer.
Women lose out when they replace their femininity with a distorted masculinity, distorted in the sense that they cannot be men, but only imitate poorly, and also because the ideal of masculinity that they are encouraged to imitate may in itself be wrong. It is no surprise that cultural conservatives, like Cardinal Siri, have seen the emergence of unisex clothing as an attack on femininity and a form of misogny, rather than a herald of egalitarianism as its supporters would suggest.
One may wish to dispute whether women should have the same sort of 'active' lifestyle as men, even to the extent of embracing the same 'extreme' sports or outdoor activities. (And hence whether there is a need for them to have the same kinds of outerwear.) Certainly one can separate sports such as running and cross-country skiing and mountain climbing from leisurely activities like walking or hiking, where parity of physical activity between the sexes is more readily achieved. But if we are to return to a home economy, it seems that women laboring at home will need clothing that fulfills the function of protection to the same extent as the clothing worn by men laboring at home, as all will be working indoors and outdoors. Again, what is needed is a harmony between protection and decoration.
Women often wear outerwear like North Face fleeces with jeans or khaki pants, or worse, in the opinion of Pete Takeshi and others, capris. As far as I know, North Face and the other companies are not the creators of the unisex trend, but they are certainly following and reinforcing it. Given the youth of the company, the original owners and designers probably never even considered designing distinctive clothing for men and women--that probably was not part of the cultural thinking of the time.
With the distinction between the sexes as revealed in some forms of clothing being lost, is our clothing evidence of our barbarism, despite our advanced material and technical culture?
On hats and coats:
Hmmm... Bonnie Blue Cap for sale... I definitely prefer canvas baseball caps (or those made out of some sturdy fabric) to the ones made of mesh (the stereotypical trucker cap)? There's Prince Harry's "We do bad things to bad people" hat, by Tactical Tailor. Still, while baseball caps are often associated with members of the military (and paramilitary), they are also worn by young uncultured males today (Wimps and Barbarians), both indoors and outdoors, backwards and off to the side.
How is it different, say from a kepi? Are the differences in perception due more to the culture and its associations? I read somewhere that the kepi was looked down upon, but was nonetheless popular. Was it the "baseball cap" of its time? I don't think it was forbidden. (See the wiki entry for kepi on why it may have been looked down upon.)
What about wear a cricket cap everywhere? It is associated with schoolboy uniforms in the U.K. How cheap is the material out of which a typical cricket cap is made? This brings up a question--what should be considered refined clothing? Is it based primarily on the value of material used to make it? The scarcity of the raw materials (for example, silk for a long time was rather expensive)? Or the labor that is required to produce it? Or the quality and desirability of the material itself? (Desirability is usually related to the value, but there is not always a direct relation?)
Hrm... more about hats... what were the quality of foraging caps like in the 1860s? And of today's replicas? Are they comparable? Or are today's replicas actually better than the kepis of the 1860s in that regard? Confederate kepi.
What about an adult's cricket hat?
As for coats... the New Scot likes wool pea coats. KK got one too last year. What is the kind of coat, with the straight (tooth-shaped) buttons called? KK must know what I'm talking about.
Edit: I found out that she doesn't... I'll have to keep an eye out for the coat next time I'm shopping at Burlington Coat Factory so I can find out the name. Or maybe the wiki entry on coats can help. HAHA -- it's the duffle coat. Great!
Hah... Started this one on March 15. I didn't actually finish it until near the end of May.
Why are such clothes popular? For most, is wearing brands like North Face just a way to be both trendy and casual? Or do they perahsp wear them for the specific reasons mentioned at the blog:
In that way having outdoor clothing is like having a SUV--it reinforces the illusion that one is notThe main reason why white people like these clothes is that it allows them to believe that at any moment they could find themselves with a Thule rack on top of their car headed to a national park. It could be 4:00 p.m. on a Saturday when they might get a call “hey man, you know what we need to do? Kayak then camping, right now. I’m on my way to get you, there is no time to change clothes.”
Though it is unlikely that they will receive this call, White people hate the idea of missing an opportunity to enjoy outdoor activities because they weren’t wearing the right clothes.
a neutered office drone, but rather an independent American, whose real identity consists in living the rugged, active, athletic lifestyle, or having the semblance of that.
Indeed, go to a mall like Valley Fair and you will see how often they are found together. North Face clothing especially is popular not only among 'white' people, but with Asians as well, at least here in the Bay Area.
Or it may be that people truly like the appearance as well as the comfort of such clothing. A combination of both aesthetic appeal and utility.
The Denali is a best-seller, though one commentor on the blog, while acknowledging its popularity and profitability, claims, "The local North Face rep says that as a company they 'hate the denali jacket and wish it would 'go away'."
extreme sports
I must admit that I do like the fleeces and vests that are sold at stores like REI. They do provide warmth and usually have plenty of pockets. I do like the ones that have pockets on the inside, though this requires that one opens the jacket or vest in order to gain access to them, and thus exposing one's self to the cold and losing warmth. No wonder it is not a common feature for outdoor clothing. But if they are worn indoors...
As price of heating goes up, it is conceivable that the use of indoor heating will lessen and people will need to find other ways to stay warm indoors during the winter. It's the most economical way of coping with rising energy costs, putting on my layers of clothing, or wearing clothing that is more effective in retaining body heat. Will the 'traditional' suit coat (and the business suit itself, since even thick slacks do not insulate heat well enough) become obsolete in colder climates? Or will they be modified, become thicker somehow? Or would their replacement by sportcoats be sufficient? Will sweaters and hoodies become acceptable attire even in business offices on the East Coast?
I suppose in times of great need or emergencies, no one will be checking with traditional mores regarding clothing before doing what is most practical in ensuring their survival.
In the past did farmers and artisans need to worry about court fashion and the trends there? Or were they encouraged rather to be humble and content with their state in life, and not 'over-dressing'? Do we really have a right to think that our station in life is higher than that of our ancestors, merely because we are admittedly wealthier? How much of our society's wealth has been gained through immoral means, and how much through access to easy energy?
On the East Coast, the dress code for work requires that men should always dress in a shirt, tie, suit, and heavy overcoat during the Winter. What makes the men's jacket and coat more suitable than something from North Face? Not simply the cost, as North Face items are not cheap; a jacket can cost as much as a cheap suit or sports coat, if not more. Rather, it is solely because such attire has been accepted as the 'uniform' or what is appropriate to the dignity of someone working in such an environment. (I do not accept the judgment that the modern men's coat is necessarily better looking than a fleece, though the zippers and the rings attached to the zippers could be eliminated or replaced.)
According to the wikipedia article:
Before 1940 (and again in the 1970s) men preferred snugly-tailored coats and waistcoats, however, since then, the mainstream trend has been for looseness. The waistcoat (vest) was worn until World War II when it disappeared because of cloth rationing, returning in the post-war time.Are coats that adhere to the body more closely better at retaining heat? If so, would that function not be more important than the fashion of a loose-fitting coat? Protection and decoration are both functions of clothing, but I think the former is more important than the latter. (I include the conveyance of "religious, cultural and social meaning," as put forth by the wiki entry on clothing, under decoration.)
Of course the weakness of a jacket or a fleece is the shortness of the length, but these are short for a reason--to provide greater mobility for the lower body. One has to warm the lower body through other articles of clothing. But if the current political economy is on the way to destroying itself, we'll need less clerks and office works, and more people working with their hands.
As with all mass-produced clothing, I would complain more about their mass production than with their appearance or design or class associations, and the standardized sizes that result in a lack of a proper fit for body types varying too much from the 'norm.' And then there is the prominent display of the corporate name and logo. Do we really need this kind of branding? Isn't our society saturated with enough advertising as it is?
If only our political economy would support the tailoring of clothing for individuals--either within the household or by local tailors in the town.
Beyond the articles of clothing themselves, we should examine the costs involved in their production. And are these being made overseas under just working conditions? If not, it would seem that we should not patronize the companies that exploit human beings in such a way. Or we should at least protest their practices.
But if there such concerns were not present, would it be right otherwise to wear such clothing? We return again to the question of what's been traditionally accepted and required by society, or those who have power over others and trend-setters.
There is also the question of whether having unisex clothing is appropriate. It seems that the same design for North Face jackets and vests is employed for both men and women? The only difference may be the colors that are available for each sex. If there were a strict demarcation by color that might be sufficient, but certain colors, such as black, are used for both sexes. What distinguishes them, then?
Why is it important to distinguish women and men? Doesn't a 'practical mentality,' which I seem to extol above, justify the unisex design? If a fleece keeps you warm, then why shouldn't both men and women wear it? But does a piece of clothing have to have the same appearance in order to maintain its functionality? I do not think this is the case. And while clothing does hide the body, it also should reveal something about the one wearing it. It covers the female body, and yet somehow conveys the femininity of the wearer.
Women lose out when they replace their femininity with a distorted masculinity, distorted in the sense that they cannot be men, but only imitate poorly, and also because the ideal of masculinity that they are encouraged to imitate may in itself be wrong. It is no surprise that cultural conservatives, like Cardinal Siri, have seen the emergence of unisex clothing as an attack on femininity and a form of misogny, rather than a herald of egalitarianism as its supporters would suggest.
One may wish to dispute whether women should have the same sort of 'active' lifestyle as men, even to the extent of embracing the same 'extreme' sports or outdoor activities. (And hence whether there is a need for them to have the same kinds of outerwear.) Certainly one can separate sports such as running and cross-country skiing and mountain climbing from leisurely activities like walking or hiking, where parity of physical activity between the sexes is more readily achieved. But if we are to return to a home economy, it seems that women laboring at home will need clothing that fulfills the function of protection to the same extent as the clothing worn by men laboring at home, as all will be working indoors and outdoors. Again, what is needed is a harmony between protection and decoration.
Women often wear outerwear like North Face fleeces with jeans or khaki pants, or worse, in the opinion of Pete Takeshi and others, capris. As far as I know, North Face and the other companies are not the creators of the unisex trend, but they are certainly following and reinforcing it. Given the youth of the company, the original owners and designers probably never even considered designing distinctive clothing for men and women--that probably was not part of the cultural thinking of the time.
With the distinction between the sexes as revealed in some forms of clothing being lost, is our clothing evidence of our barbarism, despite our advanced material and technical culture?
On hats and coats:
Hmmm... Bonnie Blue Cap for sale... I definitely prefer canvas baseball caps (or those made out of some sturdy fabric) to the ones made of mesh (the stereotypical trucker cap)? There's Prince Harry's "We do bad things to bad people" hat, by Tactical Tailor. Still, while baseball caps are often associated with members of the military (and paramilitary), they are also worn by young uncultured males today (Wimps and Barbarians), both indoors and outdoors, backwards and off to the side.
How is it different, say from a kepi? Are the differences in perception due more to the culture and its associations? I read somewhere that the kepi was looked down upon, but was nonetheless popular. Was it the "baseball cap" of its time? I don't think it was forbidden. (See the wiki entry for kepi on why it may have been looked down upon.)
What about wear a cricket cap everywhere? It is associated with schoolboy uniforms in the U.K. How cheap is the material out of which a typical cricket cap is made? This brings up a question--what should be considered refined clothing? Is it based primarily on the value of material used to make it? The scarcity of the raw materials (for example, silk for a long time was rather expensive)? Or the labor that is required to produce it? Or the quality and desirability of the material itself? (Desirability is usually related to the value, but there is not always a direct relation?)
Hrm... more about hats... what were the quality of foraging caps like in the 1860s? And of today's replicas? Are they comparable? Or are today's replicas actually better than the kepis of the 1860s in that regard? Confederate kepi.
What about an adult's cricket hat?
As for coats... the New Scot likes wool pea coats. KK got one too last year. What is the kind of coat, with the straight (tooth-shaped) buttons called? KK must know what I'm talking about.
Edit: I found out that she doesn't... I'll have to keep an eye out for the coat next time I'm shopping at Burlington Coat Factory so I can find out the name. Or maybe the wiki entry on coats can help. HAHA -- it's the duffle coat. Great!
Hah... Started this one on March 15. I didn't actually finish it until near the end of May.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Should we patronize the entertainment industry
The HK entertainment sex scandal (the story continues... or at least people are continuing to be baat, waiting to see if any new photos come out or what x or y will do next) got me thinking... how prevalent are "casting couches" in Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, the United States, and elsewhere? Or executives and managers demanding sexual favors in exchange for promoting an "artist" trying to break into the industry?
Should we financially support such an industry, if the majority of its key players are like this? Now, maybe things are not that corrupt in E. Asia (or here in the U.S.), but how do we know that they are not? It's not as if they are marketing fine art, but entertainment idols with their 'beauty' and youth who will keep the money coming in. Even if it's not a majority, how much is enough?
Or what about giving our time, attention, and money to artists who really do not contribute much for the edification of others? (For example, they are arrested for drunk driving or caught doing something indecent in public.) Besides, cohabitation and fornication seem to be on par for many young adults today, and even a greater percentage of "artists" and celebrities? Some have written about how hypocritical some Asian idols are, draping themselves with a pure and innocent image while doing the opposite in their private lives. (I read a while ago that the Korean singer Ivy has been in hiding since an ex-boyfriend blackmailed her, threatening to leak a compromising video. While he has been arrested and jailed, she is still in hiding.) At times I don't know which is worse, being hypocritical or being brazen about living such a lifestyle.
The suicide of Heath Ledger also reminds us that the entertainment industry attracts many who are psychologically or spiritually unhealthy, or it makes them so. The term "attention whore" is used often by teenagers to refer to themselves and others when they post photos of themselves online to solicit compliments; perhaps the whoring part is more literal when it comes to the dealings of managemers and company execs. (Are there any ties between the mainstream entertainment industries and pornography producers?) How many aspiring actors and actresses are there who decided to go into acting precisely because they thought this was the way to get the attention that they didn't get at home?
If we were to go into an economic depression, how much of the entertainment industry would survive? Should we be encouraging entertainment workers to get an honest job instead? (And if the case may be, to reform their lives?)
Both of the first two sets of questions require us to look at formal and material cooperation in evil, and it seems to me that it is possible to continue financially supporting such people without approving of the evil that they do. So perhaps the most morally relevant question is still this one: What about supporting the "art" that is created? Should we be wasting our money on projects and products that are not worth it? (And should we be providing them a livelihood when the products they provide are of questionable quality? Or should we be subsidizing better endeavours?)
We have become used to buying products aimed at pleasing the senses and not much more as "having culture." We are passive users of such products, instead of acting creatively, virtuously, artistically. Someone might object: but haven't patrons always been passive consumers of the art they supported? First, it is not a good thing for us to neglect our own native abilities to create art, especially with respect to music and singing. Not everyone is born tone-deaf. Second, the patrons of the past were not without the necessary background and education to appreciate great works of art. Most of us are. Third, it is one thing to patronize a life performance, and another to buy a recording. When we consider how much better some performer sounds on CD, because of the manipulation that can be done in a recording studio, as opposed to live in concert, are we wrong to think we have been deceived in thinking that someone has more talent than is actually possessed? If we can only listen to performances at certain times, we have to have some measure of self-discipline. A concert can be inserted into the life of the community or be given more meaning by being tied to some celebration. But now, all we need to do is pop in a CD or listen to our ipod or mp3 player--instant gratification, often while we ignore our neighbors sitting next to us.
I find it hard to believe that parents will buy their children an Ipod or mp3 player, and let them plug in. When I was growing up, I was envious of those who had a Walkman or Discman at such an early age, but now... doesn't it go against good parenting to stunt the emotional, aesthetic, and moral development of one's children through such toys?
As for movies... that discussion will have to be postponed...
Consumption is also part of the mindset/hunger behind idol-making and following. We project onto the idol and seek to possess him or her, perhaps creating a vivid fantasy life around the idol. At the very least we objectify the idol by focusing on that which pleases us (outer appearance and maybe talent) while remaining ignorant of their true personality. In this way, idols are not heroes, people whom we admire, honor, and seek to emulate (though we may wish to become a celebrity and have a luxurious lifestyle). We merely wish to have them. (Becoming a celebrity stalker is just this mindset going to an extreme.)
Celebrity 'worship' is strengthened, if not begun, during the confused years of adolescence, when hormones are first making their power felt. (With parents failing to protect their children from the influence of mass media and marketing, children as young as 7 and 8 begin to acquire these attitudes as well.) If only it were so easy for them to stop idolizing celebrities. Can we say that we eventually outgrow such childish attachments? But how many married women in their 30s and 40s still have their little crushes on George Clooney or Brad Pitt, for example? Do we start to believe that beauty is owed to us, and that we deserve nothing less?
I started writing on 2/12--by now it seems that the scandal is dying down, with the announcement by the actor at the center of it all that he will be retiring once his current obligations have been met. What impact will it have on the lives of the women involved? Is there a double-standard in how they are treated and viewed in Chinese society? It must be said that the actor has lost some advertising and spokesman contracts.
Lust knows no end in Hong Kong
By Kent Ewing
Edit: 3/2
More rumors that photos of other female celebrities have been found by the Hong Kong Police.
Should we financially support such an industry, if the majority of its key players are like this? Now, maybe things are not that corrupt in E. Asia (or here in the U.S.), but how do we know that they are not? It's not as if they are marketing fine art, but entertainment idols with their 'beauty' and youth who will keep the money coming in. Even if it's not a majority, how much is enough?
Or what about giving our time, attention, and money to artists who really do not contribute much for the edification of others? (For example, they are arrested for drunk driving or caught doing something indecent in public.) Besides, cohabitation and fornication seem to be on par for many young adults today, and even a greater percentage of "artists" and celebrities? Some have written about how hypocritical some Asian idols are, draping themselves with a pure and innocent image while doing the opposite in their private lives. (I read a while ago that the Korean singer Ivy has been in hiding since an ex-boyfriend blackmailed her, threatening to leak a compromising video. While he has been arrested and jailed, she is still in hiding.) At times I don't know which is worse, being hypocritical or being brazen about living such a lifestyle.
The suicide of Heath Ledger also reminds us that the entertainment industry attracts many who are psychologically or spiritually unhealthy, or it makes them so. The term "attention whore" is used often by teenagers to refer to themselves and others when they post photos of themselves online to solicit compliments; perhaps the whoring part is more literal when it comes to the dealings of managemers and company execs. (Are there any ties between the mainstream entertainment industries and pornography producers?) How many aspiring actors and actresses are there who decided to go into acting precisely because they thought this was the way to get the attention that they didn't get at home?
If we were to go into an economic depression, how much of the entertainment industry would survive? Should we be encouraging entertainment workers to get an honest job instead? (And if the case may be, to reform their lives?)
Both of the first two sets of questions require us to look at formal and material cooperation in evil, and it seems to me that it is possible to continue financially supporting such people without approving of the evil that they do. So perhaps the most morally relevant question is still this one: What about supporting the "art" that is created? Should we be wasting our money on projects and products that are not worth it? (And should we be providing them a livelihood when the products they provide are of questionable quality? Or should we be subsidizing better endeavours?)
We have become used to buying products aimed at pleasing the senses and not much more as "having culture." We are passive users of such products, instead of acting creatively, virtuously, artistically. Someone might object: but haven't patrons always been passive consumers of the art they supported? First, it is not a good thing for us to neglect our own native abilities to create art, especially with respect to music and singing. Not everyone is born tone-deaf. Second, the patrons of the past were not without the necessary background and education to appreciate great works of art. Most of us are. Third, it is one thing to patronize a life performance, and another to buy a recording. When we consider how much better some performer sounds on CD, because of the manipulation that can be done in a recording studio, as opposed to live in concert, are we wrong to think we have been deceived in thinking that someone has more talent than is actually possessed? If we can only listen to performances at certain times, we have to have some measure of self-discipline. A concert can be inserted into the life of the community or be given more meaning by being tied to some celebration. But now, all we need to do is pop in a CD or listen to our ipod or mp3 player--instant gratification, often while we ignore our neighbors sitting next to us.
I find it hard to believe that parents will buy their children an Ipod or mp3 player, and let them plug in. When I was growing up, I was envious of those who had a Walkman or Discman at such an early age, but now... doesn't it go against good parenting to stunt the emotional, aesthetic, and moral development of one's children through such toys?
As for movies... that discussion will have to be postponed...
Consumption is also part of the mindset/hunger behind idol-making and following. We project onto the idol and seek to possess him or her, perhaps creating a vivid fantasy life around the idol. At the very least we objectify the idol by focusing on that which pleases us (outer appearance and maybe talent) while remaining ignorant of their true personality. In this way, idols are not heroes, people whom we admire, honor, and seek to emulate (though we may wish to become a celebrity and have a luxurious lifestyle). We merely wish to have them. (Becoming a celebrity stalker is just this mindset going to an extreme.)
Celebrity 'worship' is strengthened, if not begun, during the confused years of adolescence, when hormones are first making their power felt. (With parents failing to protect their children from the influence of mass media and marketing, children as young as 7 and 8 begin to acquire these attitudes as well.) If only it were so easy for them to stop idolizing celebrities. Can we say that we eventually outgrow such childish attachments? But how many married women in their 30s and 40s still have their little crushes on George Clooney or Brad Pitt, for example? Do we start to believe that beauty is owed to us, and that we deserve nothing less?
I started writing on 2/12--by now it seems that the scandal is dying down, with the announcement by the actor at the center of it all that he will be retiring once his current obligations have been met. What impact will it have on the lives of the women involved? Is there a double-standard in how they are treated and viewed in Chinese society? It must be said that the actor has lost some advertising and spokesman contracts.
Lust knows no end in Hong Kong
By Kent Ewing
Edit: 3/2
More rumors that photos of other female celebrities have been found by the Hong Kong Police.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
It's all about the guy next to you
The constant refrain you hear in many contemporary war movies. But has this always been the case? What about those who were fighting for their homes and the Confederacy? Was that struggle more than about their own survival and the survival of their brothers-in-arms? Perhaps it is easier to believe that soldiers fighting in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq think this way because we don't see the purpose behind [some of] these wars. And indeed if there is no purpose that we can relate to, if it's not for our homes and those close to us and there is no clear threat or danger to them, then doesn't it become a question of trying to make it home alive, or enhancing the survivability of your comrades? For in this way, our comrades then become that which is closest to us and whom we seek to protect from death and harm. (And thus the necessity for the powers that be to create a "threat" to one's homeland in order to justify the wars they want.)
From City Journal:
The Lost Art of War
Hollywood’s anti-American war films don’t measure up to the glories of its patriotic era.
Should we praise those who show true courage in the face of death? It seems that our response would be an unquestionable yes. But shouldn't the cause for which men sacrifice themselves also be factored into our evaluation of their bravery, or of such films at least?
So what then of depictions of courage in wars that we would not agree with? Can we admire the bravery and obedience of the men who fought in those wars, while being critical of the war and of the leaders who are responsible for them? Or should we expect something more from the citizenry of a "republic"? How much discernment can we expect from the citizens of a large nation-state, where access to information is restricted (even if it claims to be a "free society")?
From City Journal:
The Lost Art of War
Hollywood’s anti-American war films don’t measure up to the glories of its patriotic era.
Here the typical neo-con line: America is a proposition nation, and Americans are willing to die for such an abstraction. No longer do they need to die for something concrete--sustaining the American proposition is sufficient in itself.Antinationalism has a long pedigree in Western art and thought, so to track its development in Hollywood war movies, we now have to double back, before Vietnam and World II, to even earlier films.
Through much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with nationalism at its height in Europe, Western artists routinely depicted war as purifying and ennobling. With World War I, that idea became increasingly insupportable. A generation of young men had been wiped out for reasons that remain murky even today, slaughtered in their millions by a technology that seemed to eliminate any trace of martial sublimity.
The dominant artistic reaction was a rejection of nationalist sacrifice. It was best summed up by Wilfred Owen’s famous poem “Dulce et Decorum Est,” which sneers at “the old lie” that it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country. Between the world wars, Hollywood took up that antinationalist theme in one of its earliest talkies, 1930’s All Quiet on the Western Front. The film won an Oscar for best picture and remains an extraordinary movie to this day. In this story of German soldiers in the trenches, based on Erich Maria Remarque’s fine novel, every father figure who fills young men with dreams of “some desperate glory,” to use Owen’s phrase, is a blustering fool, a militaristic buffoon, or a secret coward. The war is nothing but senseless death.
Key to this depiction is one scene that remains a staple of the war-movie genre: battle-weary soldiers sitting together and discussing the greater mission. These scenes almost invariably ring false—statements by the artists intruding on the art—but they’re telling nonetheless.
“How do they start a war?” one soldier asks in All Quiet.
“One country offends another,” a second says.
“Oh, well, if that’s it, I shouldn’t be here at all. I don’t feel offended.”
Here, the concerns of the individual—and, by extension, the concerns of the People—are different from, and even antithetical to, the concerns of the nation. In the wake of this devastating conflict, that pretty much became the left-wing line. Nationalism had caused the war; therefore cosmopolitanism, and a stateless commitment to the People, would end war altogether.
The trouble with cosmopolitanism, as George Orwell pointed out, is that no one is willing to fight and die for it. When warlike racial nationalism resurged in the thirties, only an answering “atavistic emotion of patriotism,” as Orwell wrote, could embolden people to stand against it.
Though European intellectuals and their left-wing American acolytes are loath to admit it, the U.S. had already provided an excellent new rationale for that emotion. Our Founding redefined nationhood along social-contract lines that Europeans can still only theorize about. Our love of nation at its best was ethical, not ethnic. Our patriotism was loyalty not to race, or even to tradition, but to ideals of individual liberty and republican self-governance.
But many World War II films emphasize what America stands for. The ceaseless Hollywood roll calls of Spinellis, O’Haras, Dombrowskis, and Steins highlight the e pluribus unum of it all: an ethnically diverse nation unified by democratic ideals....Is this generalization about World War II movies accurate? If it is, do those movies realistically portray the motivations of the American men who fought in that war? Was it really about protecting American democracy? We would undoubtedly see it in the propaganda of that time. But with the wars after World War II the cry to protect freedom and democracy became more universalized, as it was tied to the Cold War and the threat of the Soviet juggernaut. Looking back on it now, it seems difficult to believe that the actual enemies in the proxy wars that the U.S. fought represented any genuine danger to the "American way of life."
Most people love their homeland, but these movies understood that, for Americans, the democratic ethos constituted the substance of that land.
Should we praise those who show true courage in the face of death? It seems that our response would be an unquestionable yes. But shouldn't the cause for which men sacrifice themselves also be factored into our evaluation of their bravery, or of such films at least?
So what then of depictions of courage in wars that we would not agree with? Can we admire the bravery and obedience of the men who fought in those wars, while being critical of the war and of the leaders who are responsible for them? Or should we expect something more from the citizenry of a "republic"? How much discernment can we expect from the citizens of a large nation-state, where access to information is restricted (even if it claims to be a "free society")?
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Some thoughts about law enforcement
Over at Chronicles, Paul Craig Roberts has initiated a discussion about contemporary law enforcement and the people employed as police officers: Criminals With Badges—How the Police Create Crimes. There is controversy, indeed.
The first professional police force in the United States was established in Boston. We hear tales of corruption in early big city police departments. While the professionalism and code of conduct of LEOs in big cities like Chicago, Boston, New York City, and Los Angeles have undoubtedly improved since then, incidents of police misconduct do occur from time to time. While some paleolibetarians may go a bit too far with their scorn of police officers, citizens should be worried about the abuse of power if those wearing a uniform and badge are not exempt from the same negative influences and decay that cities in general are undergoing. If the culture of large cities leads to its inhabitants becoming impersonal and rude to strangers, how can it not have an impact on those who will eventually become police officers?
The most important quality necessary for a LEO, as for anyone involved with government, is the virtue of justice, both legal justice and particular justice. LEOs should be treating their fellow citizens appropriately and justly, especially when apprehending them or using force. However, the examinations given by police departments, along with the background check and psychological evaluation, cannot provide direct insight into someone's character. Candidates with [extreme or unsuitable] psychological problems can be eliminated, but it seems to me that those who have not been caught committing a felony could escape detection. (Even people who occasionally take illegal drugs could pass the drug tests if they were smart about it? It would require abstaining for long periods of time, but if they are not "addicted," that should not pose a problem.) Someone who is inconsistent in his lying may be caught in a written test or during the interviews. Still, it seems possible for a candidate with serious moral problems to pass the review during the evaluation process. (If I am wrong, your corrections are welcome.)
[A related question: how has the review process been affected by pressures from without and within police departments to adhere to some contemporary notion of social justice (i.e. radical egalitarianism or affirmative action)?]
A common complaint is that some LEOs behave as they do because they are on a power trip, misusing their authority over others. There are a lot of youtube videos online that purportedly record this, and much space at the Lew Rockwell blog has been used to highlight supposed abuses. While it is possible that the character of a LEO can become corrupted because of his work, how many others were corrupted to begin with, and escaped detection when they were applying for employment? What sort of moral training can a police department employ for its officers and cadets? An ethics course in the academy would not be sufficient.
Without endorsing everything that Hilary Clinton has said, it does take a village to raise a child in that the child's contact with people outside his immediate family is an introduction to his life as a citizen. The members of a community do have some role to play in his moral formation, monitoring his interactions with others and correcting or praising his behavior when appropriate.
When social relationships have been destroyed or "bureaucratized" then the family must do all of the work, and given the constraints imposed upon parents by the current political economic system, how many of them can do this well?
It is difficult to develop the affection proper to civic friendship for people you barely know, much less civic friendship, in a contemporary megapolis. This is the case for both children and adults.
While here in California at least LEOs are required to live within a certain distance of their station, how many of them live in the neighborhoods they patrol? And how familiar can they be with the neighborhoods if they are in a car driving quickly by?
With respect to the question of which provides more effective policing, patrolling on foot vs. cruising in a car, it seems obvious that the former is better. Peter Hitchens advocates a return of the bobby and gives good reasons with respect to crime prevention and the apprehension of the guilty. The foot patrol is necessary for police deparments seeking to develop ties with the community and becoming familiar with other members of the community -- but closer ties with the community is not an instrumental goal, valuable only for the sake of "lowering crime." It is, rather, valuable in itself. Foot patrols would help develop and reinforce civic friendship, and train LEOs to exercise authority with humanity, Confucius' ren. The LEO would no longer seen as an outsider to the local community, a mere functionary or distant enforcer of the laws of an even more distant government.
Now it may be that patrolling in a car is necessary in areas characterized by sprawl, and the police department cannot afford to have a localized presence. What are the municipalities where these departments are located to do when the consequences of peak oil become prominent?
Could a militia be used appropriately for certain police functions? At least in emergencies? How much training did members of a posse receive before they could go out and apprehend or kill a criminal-at-large in the "Wild West"? Is the division of function between a militia and a posse necessary? (Not for Plato, in his Republic.) Can the power of arrest be taken away from ordinary citizens? It seems not. When someone is defending himself from an assailant and manages to incapacitate him, he will also need to restrain him and transfer him to the authorities. Would this not imply a power of arrest? Do small towns need professional police force? Or can it rely upon volunteers instead? (Or on the citizens, either as individuals or as members of kin groups and the like?) Does a professional police force foster the impartial enforcement of the law and the protection of rights? What sorts of checks would need to be in place if family and friends of the victim, or if individual citizens, were to carry out the demands of justice?
While the prestige value of the guardians in Plato's utopia is high, it is not as high as that of the philosopher-kings, who rule and legislate. Is it the case that traditionally this work has been looked down upon? Or is that attitude related to a mistrust of government? Or is the negative attitude due to corruption and abuse of power? How did the medievals view sheriffs and others?
Wiki: sheriff; sheriffs in the United States; conservator of the peace; marshal; constable; law enforcement; police
Links:
Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and Museum
Texas Department of Public Safety - Courtesy, Service, Protection
Welcome to Texas Rangers - The Law Enforcement Association
National Sheriffs' Association
Police & Law Enforcement - Officer.com Police News, Forums, Links ...
Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com - Powered by ...
Police One
Police / Law Enforcement Jobs
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), State ...
Police Officer,Law Enforcement,Police Cars,Police Videos,Criminal ...
Real Police: Law Enforcement,Police Officer,Criminal Justice ...
Law Enforcement Associations
California Law Enforcement Association - Home
The first professional police force in the United States was established in Boston. We hear tales of corruption in early big city police departments. While the professionalism and code of conduct of LEOs in big cities like Chicago, Boston, New York City, and Los Angeles have undoubtedly improved since then, incidents of police misconduct do occur from time to time. While some paleolibetarians may go a bit too far with their scorn of police officers, citizens should be worried about the abuse of power if those wearing a uniform and badge are not exempt from the same negative influences and decay that cities in general are undergoing. If the culture of large cities leads to its inhabitants becoming impersonal and rude to strangers, how can it not have an impact on those who will eventually become police officers?
The most important quality necessary for a LEO, as for anyone involved with government, is the virtue of justice, both legal justice and particular justice. LEOs should be treating their fellow citizens appropriately and justly, especially when apprehending them or using force. However, the examinations given by police departments, along with the background check and psychological evaluation, cannot provide direct insight into someone's character. Candidates with [extreme or unsuitable] psychological problems can be eliminated, but it seems to me that those who have not been caught committing a felony could escape detection. (Even people who occasionally take illegal drugs could pass the drug tests if they were smart about it? It would require abstaining for long periods of time, but if they are not "addicted," that should not pose a problem.) Someone who is inconsistent in his lying may be caught in a written test or during the interviews. Still, it seems possible for a candidate with serious moral problems to pass the review during the evaluation process. (If I am wrong, your corrections are welcome.)
[A related question: how has the review process been affected by pressures from without and within police departments to adhere to some contemporary notion of social justice (i.e. radical egalitarianism or affirmative action)?]
A common complaint is that some LEOs behave as they do because they are on a power trip, misusing their authority over others. There are a lot of youtube videos online that purportedly record this, and much space at the Lew Rockwell blog has been used to highlight supposed abuses. While it is possible that the character of a LEO can become corrupted because of his work, how many others were corrupted to begin with, and escaped detection when they were applying for employment? What sort of moral training can a police department employ for its officers and cadets? An ethics course in the academy would not be sufficient.
Without endorsing everything that Hilary Clinton has said, it does take a village to raise a child in that the child's contact with people outside his immediate family is an introduction to his life as a citizen. The members of a community do have some role to play in his moral formation, monitoring his interactions with others and correcting or praising his behavior when appropriate.
When social relationships have been destroyed or "bureaucratized" then the family must do all of the work, and given the constraints imposed upon parents by the current political economic system, how many of them can do this well?
It is difficult to develop the affection proper to civic friendship for people you barely know, much less civic friendship, in a contemporary megapolis. This is the case for both children and adults.
While here in California at least LEOs are required to live within a certain distance of their station, how many of them live in the neighborhoods they patrol? And how familiar can they be with the neighborhoods if they are in a car driving quickly by?
With respect to the question of which provides more effective policing, patrolling on foot vs. cruising in a car, it seems obvious that the former is better. Peter Hitchens advocates a return of the bobby and gives good reasons with respect to crime prevention and the apprehension of the guilty. The foot patrol is necessary for police deparments seeking to develop ties with the community and becoming familiar with other members of the community -- but closer ties with the community is not an instrumental goal, valuable only for the sake of "lowering crime." It is, rather, valuable in itself. Foot patrols would help develop and reinforce civic friendship, and train LEOs to exercise authority with humanity, Confucius' ren. The LEO would no longer seen as an outsider to the local community, a mere functionary or distant enforcer of the laws of an even more distant government.
Now it may be that patrolling in a car is necessary in areas characterized by sprawl, and the police department cannot afford to have a localized presence. What are the municipalities where these departments are located to do when the consequences of peak oil become prominent?
Could a militia be used appropriately for certain police functions? At least in emergencies? How much training did members of a posse receive before they could go out and apprehend or kill a criminal-at-large in the "Wild West"? Is the division of function between a militia and a posse necessary? (Not for Plato, in his Republic.) Can the power of arrest be taken away from ordinary citizens? It seems not. When someone is defending himself from an assailant and manages to incapacitate him, he will also need to restrain him and transfer him to the authorities. Would this not imply a power of arrest? Do small towns need professional police force? Or can it rely upon volunteers instead? (Or on the citizens, either as individuals or as members of kin groups and the like?) Does a professional police force foster the impartial enforcement of the law and the protection of rights? What sorts of checks would need to be in place if family and friends of the victim, or if individual citizens, were to carry out the demands of justice?
While the prestige value of the guardians in Plato's utopia is high, it is not as high as that of the philosopher-kings, who rule and legislate. Is it the case that traditionally this work has been looked down upon? Or is that attitude related to a mistrust of government? Or is the negative attitude due to corruption and abuse of power? How did the medievals view sheriffs and others?
Wiki: sheriff; sheriffs in the United States; conservator of the peace; marshal; constable; law enforcement; police
Links:
Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and Museum
Texas Department of Public Safety - Courtesy, Service, Protection
Welcome to Texas Rangers - The Law Enforcement Association
National Sheriffs' Association
Police & Law Enforcement - Officer.com Police News, Forums, Links ...
Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com - Powered by ...
Police One
Police / Law Enforcement Jobs
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), State ...
Police Officer,Law Enforcement,Police Cars,Police Videos,Criminal ...
Real Police: Law Enforcement,Police Officer,Criminal Justice ...
Law Enforcement Associations
California Law Enforcement Association - Home
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
CE vs AD
Liberals may think that they are being enlightened and non-sectarian when they change from AD (Anno Domini) to CE (Common Era), but aren't isn't this sort of change another instance of Western post-Christian cultural imperialism? At least with Christ at the reference it is universal. But CE is common only because of fiat, accepted and used only because of the economic and cultural power of the West. If we abandon Christ as the universal reference point for all peoples, then why should non-Westerns continue to follow the "new" Western dating of years?
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Is a public service academy a good idea?
Via Drudge:
How has civil service changed with the rise of bureaucracy? What sort of education is really necessary for a civil servant? What was required by the British Empire, or the Spanish Empire or the Holy Roman Empire for that matter? Some form of a liberal education, I would think, even if that has evolved much over the past 5 centuries. How does the program at the USPSA compare? If it aims at having a diverse student body, does it nonetheless acknowledge the Natural Law? And what about a proper understanding of the Constutition? (I doubt that the notion of states' rights and the account of federalism that it generates will get much play there.)
"The campus ethos and daily pace of life will be more akin to a military academy than a typical liberal arts college. Students will be held to the highest standards of behavior and character through the Academy Honor System, which will underpin all campus activities. "
Will there be co-ed housing? Any rules against fornication? Drunkeness? I am a bit wary of training Federal civil servants who are then "posted" to different states--especially if there is a deliberate attempt to place them somewhere other than their home state. (Shades of the Chinese Empire.) I also am concerned about the reinforcement of a Federal/imperial arrogance which looks down upon the locals.
"It will offer students a broad-based liberal arts education that emphasizes a commitment to public service but maintains the academic rigor and wide-ranging intellectual experience essential to flexible, critical thinking. Academy students will earn a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Sciences degree in traditional subjects such as English, economics, biology, or physics."
Sounds normal for most "liberal arts" schools these days. But nonetheless a bad idea. A Great Books program would be better than this.
British Civil Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What about a school for diplomacy or international relations? It is difficult for me to say anything bad about the idea, as it seems that the Vatican's school for diplomacy has much prestige behind it. (One assumes that since the students at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy are clerics, they should know that their service is ultimately ordered to God and should be bound to their spirituality.) In the abstract, the training of diplomats would probably be similar to that of civil servants, though it would also require some knowledge of languages and other cultures and customs, and so on, plus more concentration on that part of statecraft that is involved in diplomacy. Still, I am also suspicious of contemporary programs in International Relations, for the same reason that such training seems to emphasize formal learning rather than growth in the virtues and the practice of citizenship in a community.
U.S. Public Service Academy
Help Us Build the U.S. Public Service Academy U.S. Public ...
youtube clip from the debate
What's this?
Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations
American Graduate School of International Relations and Diplomacy
GU SFS: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy
Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce
Graduate School of International Relations - The Fletcher School ...
Welcome to Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations ...
Plus a host of other programs for International Relations
Accademia
Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy - Index
Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy Celebrates 300 Years
The Vatican State
Agenzia Fides - VATICAN - The Pope addresses students of the ...
THE WORLD'S OLDEST DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
Pope's Address to Ecclesiastical Academy: "All Will Clearly See the Atypical Character of Pontifical Diplomacy"
English School of International Relations
English School of International Relations Theory (homepage)
The English School and Diplomacy
The English School on Diplomacy
The English School, Herbert Butterfield and Diplomacy
International relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
English school of international relations theory - Wikipedia, the ...
Realism (international relations) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clinton: Create Public Service AcademyI am sympathetic to the Confucian tradition, and the idea of a "public service" academy might resonate with the tenets and history of Confucianism. Still, book learning can supplement, not supplant, virtue, and it is not clear to me that a U.S. Public Service Academy would have the correct idea about virtue.
Jul 28, 4:04 PM (ET)
By PAGE IVEY
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told college Democrats on Saturday she would create a national academy to train public servants.
"I'm going to be asking a new generation to serve," she said. "I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position."
An older woman carrying a sign that said "She doesn't care, all she wants is the power" yelled at Clinton while the New York senator was speaking in a ballroom on the University of South Carolina campus. Students attending the College Democrats of America convention shouted down the woman down and pushed her from the room.
"One of the things I love about politics, you never know what the day will bring," Clinton said.
Several people at the convention said they were inspired by Clinton's speech and her experience in public service after law school.
Clinton was an intern with the Children's Defense Fund, which advocates for minority, poor and disabled children.
"I loved her personal stories. ... It wasn't her generic speech," said Katelyn Porter, president of the College Democrats chapter at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island.
Porter, who is from Boston and works for a nonprofit organization that helps low-income families, said she has not decided which Democratic candidate she will support. "But Hillary is definitely at the top of the list," she said.
Clinton spoke about her conversion during college from a born and raised Republican to a Democrat.
"I woke up in my dorm one day and I thought, 'Well, I'm not sure I am a Republican,'" she said to enthusiastic cheers. "I was at the time, embarrassingly enough, the president of the Wellesley College young Republicans."
Later, in Beaufort, she told supporters she was running for president "because I think we can set big goals again. There is still so much to be done."
She mentioned universal health care, ending dependence on foreign oil, expanding early childhood education and safely withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Helen Gilbert, a retired government worker originally from Virginia, said she believes women - especially older women - may be Clinton's biggest hurdle.
"We're brought up to believe the men know it all," said Gilbert, 75. But Clinton's track record is what has earned Gilbert's support.
"She knows so much and she's done so much and she's been involved so much," Gilbert said. "She's going to be the president. I think it's about time, don't you?"
---
Associated Press writer Evan Berland in Beaufort contributed to this report.
How has civil service changed with the rise of bureaucracy? What sort of education is really necessary for a civil servant? What was required by the British Empire, or the Spanish Empire or the Holy Roman Empire for that matter? Some form of a liberal education, I would think, even if that has evolved much over the past 5 centuries. How does the program at the USPSA compare? If it aims at having a diverse student body, does it nonetheless acknowledge the Natural Law? And what about a proper understanding of the Constutition? (I doubt that the notion of states' rights and the account of federalism that it generates will get much play there.)
"The campus ethos and daily pace of life will be more akin to a military academy than a typical liberal arts college. Students will be held to the highest standards of behavior and character through the Academy Honor System, which will underpin all campus activities. "
Will there be co-ed housing? Any rules against fornication? Drunkeness? I am a bit wary of training Federal civil servants who are then "posted" to different states--especially if there is a deliberate attempt to place them somewhere other than their home state. (Shades of the Chinese Empire.) I also am concerned about the reinforcement of a Federal/imperial arrogance which looks down upon the locals.
"It will offer students a broad-based liberal arts education that emphasizes a commitment to public service but maintains the academic rigor and wide-ranging intellectual experience essential to flexible, critical thinking. Academy students will earn a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Sciences degree in traditional subjects such as English, economics, biology, or physics."
Sounds normal for most "liberal arts" schools these days. But nonetheless a bad idea. A Great Books program would be better than this.
In addition to their Academic Major, students will participate in a systematic leadership development program that builds students’ leadership responsibilities progressively through the four-year undergraduate program. Modeled on the Cadet Leadership Development Program at the United States Military Academy, the program will involve academic work, extracurricular programming on campus, and service in the community. All students will enroll in a service-learning class each semester. This community service will improve living conditions and promote civic well-being in the local community, while contributing to students’ sense of responsibility and leadership. Through their community service projects, students not only will interact with local people and see firsthand some of the challenges that citizens face on a daily basis, they also will gain practical leadership experience. The hands-on experience will help guide students in their choice of the public service fields in which they want to work.Have I ever written about why I dislike community service programs/activitiets as an element of liberal education? In a true polity, education in such virtues would be necessary for all, not just a few, and the responsibilities enumerated here would be common to all citizens, not just those who are admitted to the elite. (This is a essential part of relocalization.) And so I am suspicious of a project such as this, which may produce more imperial bureaucrats who serve not the people, but the oligarchy.
British Civil Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What about a school for diplomacy or international relations? It is difficult for me to say anything bad about the idea, as it seems that the Vatican's school for diplomacy has much prestige behind it. (One assumes that since the students at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy are clerics, they should know that their service is ultimately ordered to God and should be bound to their spirituality.) In the abstract, the training of diplomats would probably be similar to that of civil servants, though it would also require some knowledge of languages and other cultures and customs, and so on, plus more concentration on that part of statecraft that is involved in diplomacy. Still, I am also suspicious of contemporary programs in International Relations, for the same reason that such training seems to emphasize formal learning rather than growth in the virtues and the practice of citizenship in a community.
U.S. Public Service Academy
Help Us Build the U.S. Public Service Academy U.S. Public ...
youtube clip from the debate
What's this?
Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations
American Graduate School of International Relations and Diplomacy
GU SFS: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy
Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce
Graduate School of International Relations - The Fletcher School ...
Welcome to Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations ...
Plus a host of other programs for International Relations
Accademia
Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy - Index
Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy Celebrates 300 Years
The Vatican State
Agenzia Fides - VATICAN - The Pope addresses students of the ...
THE WORLD'S OLDEST DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
Pope's Address to Ecclesiastical Academy: "All Will Clearly See the Atypical Character of Pontifical Diplomacy"
English School of International Relations
English School of International Relations Theory (homepage)
The English School and Diplomacy
The English School on Diplomacy
The English School, Herbert Butterfield and Diplomacy
International relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
English school of international relations theory - Wikipedia, the ...
Realism (international relations) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)