10th SFG (A) inaugurates combatives program

10th SFG (A) inaugurates combatives program
By Staff Sgt. Michael R. Noggle

The SOCP, as Thompson described, is developed to evolve at any point and time. When they receive feedback from the Green Berets on the battlefield on different techniques used, it is tested immediately by the schoolhouse.

"If you can show there is a better way of doing things, we will test it, vet it and we're going to do it," he said. "I don’t care whose system it came from, if its better, we're going to do it and have it absorbed into the system."

Haskins stated, "SOCP's loyalty is not to any one combatives discipline but to the Soldiers in uniform. SF Soldiers learn to fight in full kit and use their organic weapon systems in close-quarters hand-to-hand combat scenarios."

At the completion of the 40-hour course, 10th SFG (A) will have the most certified SOCP instructors in the SF community. Each Soldier will be able to instruct the basic course to members of their unit. Every two years, the instructor will have to be recertified as well as provide feedback to the schoolhouse at Fort Bragg.

Are they being taught how to use a combat knife?

USASOC News Service

Items of Interest, 19 July 2010

John Robb,JOURNAL: Global Guerrillas and Resilient Communities in Afghanistan

Catholic Light:
I still think people should avoid TFP
From Petrus: the Medjugorje 'seers' will have to report their ten secrets

Energy Bulletin:
Lloyd's Sustainable Energy Security White Paper - Some hits; some misses (original)

Gail Tverberg, The Oil Drum

Lloyd's hired Chatham House to prepare a white paper on the risks of peak oil called Sustainable Energy Security: Strategic risks and opportunities for business. It seems to me that this new report gets quite a few things right, but it misleads in the direction of thinking things are better than they really are, when it comes to timing and alternatives

Fizzling dreams of "back-to-the-land" (original)

Blujay, these new old traditions

And then *POP* just like that, my back-to-the-land bubble bursts. I rub the sleep from my eyes and blink: Ah yes, here I am. Back in Brooklyn, in school full time, pursuing a masters degree, racking up the loans.

Modernizing Henry George (original)

Herman Daly, The Daly News

Economists have traditionally considered nature to be infinite relative to the economy, and therefore not scarce, and therefore properly priced at zero. But the biosphere is now scarce, and becoming more so every day as a result of growth of its large and dependent subsystem, the macro-economy.

Counterpunch:
Patrick Cockburn, Leaving Iraq: The Ruin They'll Leave Behind
Dave Lindorff, Cracking the Sea Floor: Fools' Errand in the Gulf

Zenit: Papal Delegate's Homily at Legionary Center
"We Have the Task of Fulfilling God's Plan" (also at the RC website)


Life After RC: Moving into a fog bank
Clarity of vision

NLM: Cardinal Cañizares Interview on Three Years of Summorum Pontificum: Full Text

Chastened

Just listened to part of an interview of the author of Chastened: The Unexpected Story of My Year Without Sex, Hephzibah Anderson, by Rabbi Daniel Lapin on AM 560. Has Rabbi Lapin had Dawn Eden on his show? Chastened may reach a broader audience than Thrill of the Chaste, but I think the latter is "spiritual" without being preachy about religion. Still, Chastened may be of help to young women today by getting them to rethink how they conduct their love lives.

Related:
My (Voluntary) Year Without Sex -- A Q&A With Hephzibah Anderson


Smithmag Interview
(She's attractive.)

Tres Sugar
The Jewish Chronicle
The Atlantic

The Today Show
Penguin.com
New Statesman archive

Peter Hitchens, Our shameful journey from Diana to the sick cult of Raoul Moat

His column today.

Of course, it is obvious now that the unleashed passions of the new underclass are pretty nasty. How could they not be? They have been brought up to be nasty, or at least nobody in our neon-lit, raucous Babylon has ever had any opportunity to persuade them to be anything else but nasty during their formative years.

The cultural revolution of the Sixties robbed the British poor of anything to believe in, or any reason to try to be good. Patriotism was derided and rejected. The Christian religion was mocked, marginalised and studied – if at all – as a weird curiosity.

The stable two-parent families in which children learned manners and morals were more or less abolished, so that a household with two contin­uously married parents is now a luxury item, as is an orderly classroom.

The virtues of patience, stoicism, thrift, temperance, constancy and modesty were reclassified as ‘repression’ and ‘inhibition’ and all were encouraged to cast them off. And they did, so that on Friday and Sat­urday nights it often seems as if half the young people of Britain have decided to dress as hookers, and the other half as convicts newly released from 19th Century hulks. We are nearly back to the days of William Hogarth’s Gin Lane, only without the high-minded evangelists trying to rescue the poor from wickedness.

Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt: No More Christian Nice Guys & Gals

An interview with Paul Coughlin.

Low-Carb Community Reaction To The USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines Testimony On July 8, 2010

(Via Jimmy Moore -- more coverage of this topic at his blog.)

Rod Dreher, Information, the basis of reality

I thought maybe there was a potential for finding some sort of analogue to form, but instead I think this is just an example of what happens when scientists get trapped in their own head.

The MD and her family are in town this weekend; I didn't use my digital camera because it fell in the sand at a playground down in SLO at the end of May, so I'm back to using disposable cameras, until I get an estimate on the cost of repairs. The food from Li Zhou was really bad today; did they change chefs? Even my mother thought it was bad, and she scrubbed it as an option for the red egg & ginger party. I am definitely losing interest in Chinese food -- I don't know if it is the cooking oil used or something else. Still haven't tried using cocconut oil. They decided to stay overnight, so we'll be having lunch tomorrow.

If I have some time I'll write a short post about culture and republicanism.

Bill Kauffman, “Entirely a National Government”? The Anti-Federalist Perspective

“Entirely a National Government”? The Anti-Federalist Perspective (via The Western Confucian)

Another peek at First Principles this week -- I wish a paleo would give a response to George Carey's Conservatism, Centralization, and Constitutional Federalism. M. Stanton Evans, The States and the Constitution.

Mark O'Connor, Bush, Rice, Fleck and Douglas

"White House Blues"


Mark O'Connor, Tony Rice, Bela Fleck - Freeborn Man

Financial Reform Bill was a Stunning Success

Michael Shedlock: Financial Reform Bill was a Stunning Success. How so? He compares it to the health care bill. How can the Democrats look at themselves in the mirror when they claim they've accomplished something positive with the Financial Reform Bill?

If you can get bad legislation passed, is that really such an achievement? What's wrong with the analysis at the CS Monitor? Financial reform bill another win for Obama, but will the public care?

Alexander Cockburn, The Fall of Obama

Counterpunch:

It is not Obama’s fault that for 30 years America’s policy – under Reagan, both Bushes and Bill Clinton – has been to export jobs permanently to the Third World. The jobs that Americans now desperately seek are no longer here, in the homeland, and never will be. They’re in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Indonesia.

No stimulus program, giving money to cement contractors to fix potholes along the federal interstate highway system, is going to bring those jobs back. Highly trained tool and die workers, the aristocrats of the manufacturing sector, are flipping hamburgers – at best – for $7.50 an hour because U.S. corporations sent their jobs to Guangzhou, with the approval of politicians flush with the money of the “free trade” lobby.

It is not Obama’s fault that across 30 years more and more money has floated up to the apex of the social pyramid till America is heading back to where it was in the 1880s, a nation of tramps and millionaires. It’s not his fault that every tax break, every regulation, every judicial decision tilts toward business and the rich. That was the neoliberal America conjured into malign vitality back in the mid 1970s.

But it is Obama’s fault that he did not understand this, that always, from the getgo, he flattered Americans with paeans to their greatness, without adequate warning of the political and corporate corruption destroying America and the resistance he would face if he really fought against the prevailing arrangements that were destroying America. He offered them a free and easy pass to a better future, and now they see that the promise was empty.

It’s Obama’s fault, too, that, as a communicator, he cannot rally and inspire the nation from its fears. From his earliest years he has schooled himself not to be excitable, not to be an angry black man who would be alarming to his white friends at Harvard and his later corporate patrons. Self-control was his passport to the guardians of the system, who were desperate to find a symbolic leader to restore America’s credibility in the world after the disasters of the Bush era. He is too cool.

So, now Americans in increasing numbers have lost confidence in him. For the first time in the polls negative assessments outnumber the positive. He no longer commands trust. His support is drifting down to 40 per cent. The straddle that allowed him to flatter corporate chieftains at the same time as blue-collar workers now seems like the most vapid opportunism. The casual campaign pledge to wipe out al-Quaida in Afghanistan is now being cashed out in a disastrous campaign viewed with dismay by a majority of Americans.

The polls portend disaster. It now looks as though the Republicans may well recapture not only the House but, conceivably, the Senate as well. The public mood is so contrarian that, even though polls show that voters think the Democrats may well have better solutions on the economy than Republicans, they will vote against incumbent Democrats in the midterm elections next fall. They just want to throw the bums out.

Obama has sought out Bill Clinton to advise him in this desperate hour. If Clinton is frank, he will remind Obama that his own hopes for a progressive first term were destroyed by the failure of his health reform in the spring of 1993. By August of that year, he was importing a Republican, David Gergen, to run the White House.

Obama had his window of opportunity last year, when he could have made jobs and financial reform his prime objectives. That’s what Americans hoped for. Mesmerized by economic advisers who were creatures of the banks, he instead plunged into the Sargasso Sea of “health reform,” wasted the better part of a year, and ended up with something that pleases no one.

More from the weekend edition:
John Ross, In the Basement of Mexican Justice, No One is Innocent
Chase Madar, Keep Cops Out of Schools: New York's Failed Experiment
Andrew Cockburn, Worth It? the Human Price of Sanctions
Ralph Nader, Delta Blues: Can the Iranian Model Save Mississippi?
Dave Lindorff, Cap and Blow?
Missy Beattie, Marketing Peace and War
Michael Barker, Foundations and Social Change: an Interview with Diana Johnstone
Stewart J. Lawrence, Is Obama Backing Away From a Sweeping Immigration Legalization
Program?
Sherwood Ross, What Tea Partiers Owe Progressives

Donald P. Goodman, III. The Primacy of Agriculture

The Primacy of Agriculture

This primacy of production is even more pronounced in necessaries, particularly the most basic, like food and clothing. The producer of food will always need food; he is motivated to produce enough at least to ensure that he may eat. The consumer of food, on the other hand, is entirely dependent upon the producers of it. If the producers do not produce enough, or produce in too low a quality, the consumer dies. The same is true for a society as a whole: if that society fails to produce sufficient food, it must either import that food, compensating for that importation by some other valuable production, or simply go without, which clearly is not a viable option. Either way, it must produce rather than merely consume, and production is again seen to be primary; for without production, no consumption can occur.

Which brings me to my present topic: the primacy of agriculture. By “agriculture” here I mean, very loosely, the production of food; it includes farming, gardening, animal husbandry, hunting, fishing, and anything else that results in some food product at the end. It’s clear from the foregoing that agriculture is the most necessary of all productive industries. Agriculture is the oldest and the greatest profession. Without a healthy agricultural base, all economies are doomed, for workers cannot work if they cannot eat. Before we worry about whether we’ve got enough motor vehicles, good enough highways, fast enough computers, and big enough office parks, we need to worry about whether we’ve got enough food. We take it entirely for granted these days, but we shouldn’t. It’s the bedrock of all human endeavor, the root of all human production. Without it, we can do nothing.

Without physical sustenance, no other work in a political community is possible. And yet, most Americans pay scant attention to what is required for food to be brought to their homes. In fact, many are content with the industrial system; they are just ignorant of the damage that it causes to the soil and to water systems and of the amount of energy required to keep it going.

Relocalization and sustainability require that more become farmers, but who is willing to do the work? How can we transform the major urban and suburban areas, and make farming more appealing and financially feasible? Would people be willing to pay more money for their food, when they can get it at lower prices from elsewhere, thanks to cheap gas?

Joseph Pearce interview on Shakespeare

Digging Into the Bard's Beliefs | An Interview with Joseph Pearce, author of "Through Shakespeare's

The liberal has no need for a common culture.

Not in a thick sense.

Recalling what Aristotle writes about community in Politics III.3 and III.9....

The doctrinaire liberal has no problem with the immigration of members of other peoples who have a different culture, because he doesn't have to live with them, and he doesn't care about community life. In the liberal model for understanding the origin of society (and government), individuals (or families) associate for the sake of the necessities of life, especially the protection of life and property. Living in society is desirable in so far as society enables them to more easily secure their private good. Liberal thinkers neglect an important good, namely the good of friendship. They may admit that men and women form families, but they ignore the good of friendship as it exists between members of a political community. (Not all of which are reducible to friendship between family members.)

Liberals presume that there are universal moral norms which govern how individuals behave towards one another, defending some notion of justice and right. (A "thin" sense of culture, as it were.) But is there anything more to morality than this? No. Society and government are for the sake of promoting the good of the individual, and the individual can determine what this is for himself, so long as he does not harm anyone else without their consent or infringe on their rights. Hence the laws that liberals support may not be sufficient for promoting what is necessary for people to live together well. Liberals also have no sense of custom as unwritten law, and would probably be opposed to such a notion on principle.

(The notion of a common good that liberals subscribe to is either the instrumental one or the aggregate one. The personalistic account of the common good comes dangerously close to being the same as the liberal one, if its definitions are not careful and do not take into account man's social nature.)

Written human laws constitute only a small part of the culture of a society, which includes all that orders society, even if our knowledge of unwritten mores shrinks with every generation. Moreover, a culture will differ in accordance with the constitution of the polity. Though admittedly the days of republican America are probably behind us.

The typical well-off American doesn't care about immigration, since he doesn't have to have immigrants as neighbors, or associate with them, really. Interracial marriage is often frowned upon, though they'd be loathe to admit it. Because these Americans live in isolation from their own neighbors, as well as from people who are ethnically different, they do not care about the vast array of informal laws and customs that govern behavior in any society. Life in community has very little meaning for them.

These intellectual error of liberals may also be combined with those of the (dogmatic) multiculturalist who either embraces diversity for its own sake, or sees Western culture as being inferior to non-Western cultures. Then you add to this mix the error of the will, the "do-gooder" mentality of the liberal who does not recognize an order in charity and whose loves reflect the belief that there is no difference whatsoever between the citizen and the non-citizen.

Even if a polity doesn't have the same sort of physical mobility and lack of rootedness that characterizes American culture, it may experience social fragmentation and loss of culture because of its inordinate size. (Plus the other historical factors that lead to the destruction of local communities.)

Edit. Mark Richardson has some complementary thoughts in his look at Sweden in Identity lite.


Notes:
Althusius, in his Politica, follows Aristotle closely on the ends of society, though it is not clear to me that he discusses civic friendship enough. John C. Calhoun's Disquisition on Government agrees with Aristotle as well, though he seems to offer a more "Augustinian" reason on why government is necessary?

In order to have a clear and just conception of the nature and object of government, it is indispensable to understand correctly what that constitution or law of our nature is, in which government originates; or, to express it more fully and accurately — that law, without which government would not, and with which, it must necessarily exist. Without this, it is as impossible to lay any solid foundation for the science of government, as it would be to lay one for that of astronomy, without a like understanding of that constitution or law of the material world, according to which the several bodies composing the solar system mutually act on each other, and by which they are kept in their respective spheres. The first question, accordingly, to be considered is — What is that constitution or law of our nature, without which government would not exist, and with which its existence is necessary?

In considering this, I assume, as an incontestable fact, that man is so constituted as to be a social being. His inclinations and wants, physical and moral, irresistibly impel him to associate with his kind; and he has, accordingly, never been found, in any age or country, in any state other than the social. In no other, indeed, could he exist; and in no other — were it possible for him to exist — could he attain to a full development of his moral and intellectual faculties, or raise himself, in the scale of being, much above the level of the brute creation.

I next assume, also, as a fact not less incontestable, that, while man is so constituted as to make the social state necessary to his existence and the full development of his faculties, this state itself cannot exist without government. The assumption rests on universal experience. In no age or country has any society or community ever been found, whether enlightened or savage, without government of some description.

Having assumed these, as unquestionable phenomena of our nature, I shall, without further remark, proceed to the investigation of the primary and important question — What is that constitution of our nature, which, while it impels man to associate with his kind, renders it impossible for society to exist without government?

The answer will be found in the fact (not less incontestable than either of the others) that, while man is created for the social state, and is accordingly so formed as to feel what affects others, as well as what affects himself, he is, at the same time, so constituted as to feel more intensely what affects him directly, than what affects him indirectly though others; or, to express it differently, he is so constituted, that his direct or individual affections are stronger than his sympathetic or social feelings. I intentionally avoid the expression, selfish feelings, as applicable to the former; because, as commonly used, it implies an unusual excess of the individual over the social feelings, in the person to whom it is applied; and, consequently, something depraved and vicious. My object is, to exclude such inference, and to restrict the inquiry exclusively to facts in their bearings on the subject under consideration, viewed as mere phenomena appertaining to our nature — constituted as it is; and which are as unquestionable as is that of gravitation, or any other phenomenon of the material world.

In asserting that our individual are stronger than our social feelings, it is not intended to deny that there are instances, growing out of peculiar relations — as that of a mother and her infant — or resulting from the force of education and habit over peculiar constitutions, in which the latter have overpowered the former; but these instances are few, and always regarded as something extraordinary. The deep impression they make, whenever they occur, is the strongest proof that they are regarded as exceptions to some general and well understood law of our nature; just as some of the minor powers of the material world are apparently to gravitation.

I might go farther, and assert this to be a phenomenon, not of our nature only, but of all animated existence, throughout its entire range, so far as our knowledge extends. It would, indeed, seem to be essentially connected with the great law of self-preservation which pervades all that feels, from man down to the lowest and most insignificant reptile or insect. In none is it stronger than in man. His social feelings may, indeed, in a state of safety and abundance, combined with high intellectual and moral culture, acquire great expansion and force; but not so great as to overpower this all-pervading and essential law of animated existence.

But that constitution of our nature which makes us feel more intensely what affects us directly than what affects us indirectly through others, necessarily leads to conflict between individuals. Each, in consequence, has a greater regard for his own safety or happiness, than for the safety or happiness of others; and, where these come in opposition, is ready to sacrifice the interests of others to his own. And hence, the tendency to a universal state of conflict, between individual and individual; accompanied by the connected passions of suspicion, jealousy, anger and revenge — followed by insolence, fraud and cruelty — and, if not prevented by some controlling power, ending in a state of universal discord and confusion, destructive of the social state and the ends for which it is ordained. This controlling power, wherever vested, or by whomsoever exercised, is GOVERNMENT.

More on identity:
The role of affections: identity not merely "rational" or "credal" -- what one thinks or believes. Identity is also defined by one's social relations and bonds.

IEP: Political Philosophy, Liberalism
CE: Liberalism

Begun on July 2.

Frances Moore Lappé, Why Power Is Not a Dirty Word

Why Power Is Not a Dirty Word by Frances Moore Lappé (via EB)

No, again. In recent decades, a revolution in our understanding of human nature has produced evidence from neuroscience to anthropology that we have all the social “wiring” needed to make the turn toward life. It turns out we’ve evolved to take pleasure in and to need cooperation, empathy, fairness, and efficacy.

Human beings are social by nature. How many of our wisdom traditions already told us this?

Then what is preventing us from moving toward the world that almost all of us want? My short answer is that we feel powerless. We feel powerless to act on what we know.

And what robs us of power?

For some, it’s the false idea that we have to change human nature itself; that we have to overcome our Stone Age emotions, as esteemed biologist E.O. Wilson tells us.

Others cling to the notion that most of us are OK, but there’s an evil minority—be it people raking in the dough on Wall Street or hiding in caves in Pakistan. The solution is to get rid of “them” so we can have the world we want.

To me, both seem daunting, truly impossible tasks.

What if there were a wholly different way of seeing the challenge that gets at the very root of our powerlessness, and is grounded in the latest science?

In Getting a Grip 2: Clarity, Creativity and Courage for the World We Really Want, I suggest that we humans find our power only as we embrace the totality of our complex nature: accepting that, yes, we are hard-wired (or at least, “soft-wired”) to be caring and cooperative problem-solvers. And at the same time, lab experiments, as well as current and past genocides, prove that under the right (wrong) conditions, most of us will brutalize others.

It’s tough to truly accept that both attributes exist within virtually all of us, but the payoff for taking this mental leap is huge.

From this frame, we know what to do. We don’t have to change human nature or get rid of the evil ones. We have to first identify the social rules and norms that both bring out the best in us and keep the worst in check; and then work to manifest precisely those conditions.

I believe the evidence shows that three conditions, in particular, lead humans to no good. They are concentration of power, anonymity, and scapegoating.

If that is the case, progress toward the world we want comes as we dissolve these conditions and move toward communities and societies with widely dispersed power, transparent public decision making, and shared responsibility for creating solutions instead of looking for someone to blame.

The great news is that millions of people worldwide are fostering the conditions that bring out the best in us. But if despair is still a danger for many who feel powerless to act on what we know now, maybe it’s time we rethink power itself.

A traditional conservative can agree with the decentralization of power, but what of the rest? The author seems like a democrat, and while the three factor she lists can contribute or exacerbate evil, the conservative does not put the blame wholly on a bad system. We must also look at the responsibility of the moral agent for his actions. Laws shape our actions and character -- but what laws would the author endorse? I suspect that her choices would differ significantly from the conservative, republican or not.

Just as important, the findings of neuroscience suggest a great way to empower ourselves. We can place ourselves in the company of those more courageous than we are. For sure, we’ll become more like them.

Thus, our most important choices may be deciding whom we spend time with as friends, colleagues, and partners. And “spending time” means more than face-to-face contact. What we see on TV, in films, and on the Internet, what we read and therefore imagine—all are firing mirror neurons in our brains and forming us. Knowing this, we can choose courage—and power.

Relocalization requires that we focus on building up community, though it may be too late for conservatives to do much to stem the progressive tide. While some conservatives and radicals see the importance of community, I do not think there is much of a competition between the two groups, if only because what is being done overall to build community is rather insignificant in comparison to the social trends of decline affecting the country. I might be wrong.

I think the author is overly optimistic in thinking that these small beginning steps can lead to legislative reform at the Federal level:

Our every act shapes the field of power relationships, and the rules we create determine whether they will be life-serving.

Today’s rules, for example, allow private-money’s influence over public decisions to create one of the three conditions proven to lead to no good: highly concentrated power. Lobbyists spent $3.5 billion last year to influence Congress, funding more than two dozen lobbyists for every single legislator citizens have elected to represent them.

Once we fully embrace the notion that dispersion and accountability of power is key to our thriving, then we will no longer be surprised when a new president fails to turn the ship of state. Instead, we’ll realize the need and see our power to change the rules.

Right now, we have a prime opportunity. Both houses of Congress are considering the Fair Elections Now Act, which would establish voluntary public financing of congressional elections. It would enable everyday citizens—the waitress, teacher, or truck driver—to run for office without being tethered to corporate money. It’s built on a system that is already working in Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut.

No matter what else we are doing to promote democracy we can each press our representatives to get on board. We can make campaign finance reform a sexy, compelling issue, knowing it’s needed to move on everything from serious climate-change legislation to remaking our banking system.

For further inquiry:
I've been dipping into Illich again,but it is taking me a while to read through his essays.
Illich accords a primacy to love, but what is it for Christ to be anarchist? Does Illich distinguish between power and authority? Between command and exploitation or coercion? Is there such a thing as the moral use of power? And is disparity in power or inequality in general tantamount to injustice?

Bishop Kicanas on Immigration‎ Reform

Bishop Kicanas Speaks Out on Immigration‎
Tucson Bishop Kicanas Testifies Before Congress, Urges Federal Action on Immigration Reform

Insight Scoop: Wow. Sorta. Well, okay. Not really.

Related: Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas

Items of Interest, 15 July 2010

CHT: On the Anti-Occidental Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal

Field Report: A Michigan Teen Farms Her Backyard (via Rod Dreher)

Zenit:
History of Norms Addressing Gravest Crimes

Father Lombardi on Significance of New Norms
"A Great Contribution to the Clarity and Certainty of Law in This Field"

Norms Addressing "Gravioribus Delictis"

Changes Made to "Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela"
Made to "Render the Text More Useful"

Asia News:
Fr. Samir: French ban on burqa a welcome law!
by Samir Khalil Samir
For the expert on Islam, the law is an invitation for European Muslims to strive for integration and marginalize Salafi trends of opposition and conflict. Moreover, the burqa has no justification in the Koran or Islamic tradition, it is merely a custom of Saudi Arabia (and some other countries) which confirms chauvinism and the "the woman’s grave".

New bishop of Yulin (Yan’an), a PhD graduate from Rome
by Zhen Yuan

Church tightens, clarifies rules on sex abuses by priests
Changes on ‘Rules on the Most Serious Crimes’ are made public today. They include faster procedures, a longer statute of limitations (20 years), treating as a crime the acquisition, possession or disclosure “in any way and by any means” of pornographic images of minors by priests. Changes are also made to the rules that govern crimes against the faith and the sacraments.

Religious freedom, the path to peace: a Carmelite convert from Hinduism comments
by Nirmala Carvalho
Sister Mary Joseph, a former Brahmin Hindu, since 1977 has lived in the cloistered Carmelite Convent in Mumbai. Here she comments to AsiaNews the theme "Religious freedom, the path to peace", chosen by Pope Benedict XVI for World Day for Peace 2011.

Ethnic unrest in Guangxi over water pollution by industrial plant
Thousands of villagers come out to protest against polluting aluminium plant, but are beaten by company security guards. Police face sit-ins and demonstrators, who belong to the Zhuang ethnic minority.

Asia Times:
Death on your doorstep
Restrepo directed by Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger

Repeated tight shots of earnest US soldiers are the perfect metaphor for what makes an otherwise cinematically-pleasing film almost useless for telling us anything about the real war. The lack of critical local knowledge of what it's like to live through decades of conflict leaves a gaping hole in this Sundance prize-winner. - Nick Turse

A year after Xinjiang riots, tensions simmer
On the surface, Urumqi, scene of last year's deadly riots in China's western Xinjiang autonomous region, seems calm. But as Beijing moves to develop the country's west, there are underlying ethnic tensions it will need to address to avoid future flare-ups. - Gordon Ross

Counterpunch:
Frida Berrigan, Trillion Dollar Babies: Re-examining the Pentagon's Spending Habits
Dave Lindorff, How Bank of America Got Away With a Huge Swindle
Paul Craig Roberts, Economics in Freefall

Another of Stiglitz’s shortcomings, one that he shares with most economists, is his habit of reifying the market economy. The market is a social organization. The results of market activity reflect the behavior of the human participants in the market. When economists reify the market, they attribute the behavior, ethics, and morality--or lack thereof--of humans to the market itself. Thus, Stiglitz describes human failures as “market failures,” and he asks in his new book, Freefall, “why didn’t the market exercise discipline on bad corporate governance and bad incentive structures?”

Social institutions are inanimate. They do not possess life and cannot impose good outcomes on human action.

Libertarians also reify markets, but instead of blaming markets for human failures, they imbue the market with human virtues and even with the super-human virtue of producing results that human intelligence cannot improve upon. Economists’ “risk models” for which Nobel Prizes have been awarded and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan attributed the social institution with economic wisdom beyond man’s.

It is likely that the practice of reifying the market economy developed as a form of shorthand. It was convenient to say that the market did this and that rather than to have to describe the human interactions that produced the results. The market was transformed from an abstraction into a life form and became the actor instead of the humans operating within the institution.

If the outcomes are good, libertarians attribute the good results to the market’s virtues; if bad, libertarians blame human interference--government regulation. Economists of Stiglitz’s persuasion see it in the opposite way. Good results are produced by regulation; bad results are the result of allowing the market to make decisions on its own.

This way of thinking, which reifies a social institution, is ingrained in economics. It is the source of enormous confusion and has resulted in a pointless long-running ideological battle that Stiglitz calls “a battle of ideas.”

It is possible to clear away the confusion. First, understand that a free market is one in which prices are free to respond to supply and demand. Economists of all persuasions understand that to fix a price below the price at which supply and demand equate results in shortages. Economists have learned this from rent control. Fixing a price above the price at which supply and demand equate results in surpluses. Economists have learned this from agricultural subsidies. A free market does not mean a market in which human behavior is not regulated. A free market is one in which supply and demand are permitted to equate.

Second, understand that regulation regulates human behavior, not the market. It is the actors in the market who are charged with regulatory infractions, not the institution itself. Regulation is necessary because of human faults, such as greed, fraud, carelessness, not because of market faults. Regulation is necessary because of human failure, not because of market failure.

Third, understand that the problem of regulation is that it is done by flawed humans. Human flaws do not disappear by moving human action from the economy to government. Most likely the flaws worsen as government decisions are often unaccountable. Many economists assume that regulators act in the public interest. However, as George Stigler, another Nobel Prizewinner, pointed out several decades ago, regulators are invariably captured by the industries that they regulate.

Dr. Wilson's review of The Last Confederate and Firetrail

is now online. My post on the two movies, with trailers.

Federalism and Subsidiarity

The Prudent Case for Robust Federalism and Limited Subsidiarity
By Peter Haworth

Federalism and subsidiarity are, indeed, different concepts, even though they often dictate similar applications. Federalism is a rigid notion; it now frequently connotes the making of strong demarcations of power between the multiple local associations and the single central government within a political union. Subsidiarity, however, enjoins leaving a function with the lowest level of association (i.e., not allowing a higher-level association to assume power over the function) to the extent that the lower-level association can perform it efficiently.*

The difference between the two principles can be further illustrated through considering the different ways that each might dictate handling the scenario of a rogue state or polity within a larger political union that possesses a federal government to help manage the common affairs of this union.

Let us assume, for example, that a state gravely mistreated a minority portion of its residents. What would each of the above principles direct as being the correct action? If the political union were organized such that the states had full police powers and this was not a power assigned to the federal government, then federalism would demand maintaining such demarcation of powers regardless of the fact that the rogue state is failing to protect and is even willfully mistreating its residents. In fact, other than during the initial stage of deciding how power is to be demarcated between lower and higher (or more centralized) levels, the effective performance of a function is not even considered in determining applications of the principle of federalism.

Subsidiarity, on the other hand, is more flexible, in that it is theoretically open to transferring a function (i.e., power over the function) to higher levels if it becomes clear that a lower-level association cannot perform the function efficiently. Thus, if it were found that a state or polity within our hypothetical union could not efficiently perform the function of protecting a certain minority of people within its borders, then subsidiarity would direct us to transfer this function and the corresponding power over such function to a higher level, by whose agency performance of that function could be performed more efficiently.

For many, the pursuit of such applications of the subsidiarity principle (and not federalism) just seems like utter common sense. Subsidiarity is a principle that allows for continual re-evaluation about which levels of government can most efficiently perform various functions and, hence, should have the relevant powers over such functions. Federalism, on the other hand, does not entail this evaluation within its concept; it refers merely to the maintenance of an already determined division of functions and the powers to implement them.

Here is a short post I wrote on subsidiarity, speculating on its role in contemporary CST. A longer post.

We have to remember that what may be ideal or in accordance with reason is different from what obtains in reality. While the civitas is the perfect community and should be of a certain size, because of the loss of autarky what used to be a perfect community may no longer be such, and what originated as a union of civitates may now have the character proper to a perfect community, instead of being some sort of alliance or confederation.

How does the authority of the father differ from that of the head of a guild? How does the authority of the government of the civitas compare?

A move to Texas?

Last week, there was another earthquake in southern California... Given the political situation in the Golden State and its hostility to guns, I've been thinking about moving. Where would I go? Somewhere in the midwest (Montana) or the South. Texas is physically closest to California, and probably more sustainable than Arizona or New Mexico. It may also be a bit more diverse than other states in the South. It has a reputation for being gun-friendly, and it has historical and cultural links to the South. Surely things aren't as bad in Texas as they are in coastal California. Maybe I'll keep an eye out for opportunities at OLAA in the future. I should visit San Antonio some time in the future.

Moving near Clear Creek Monastery would be more challenging, unless I already had some money and the proper farming skills.

Per impossibile, if a group of citizens could form an informal militia, would they be obligated to submit to the proper state authority (the governor)? Or would it be possible to follow only the local authority, such as that of the sheriff? (Those who would form an informal militia may not be inclined to trust those holding state office, after all.)

Went to Cooking Papa for lunch. Since it's not better than anything else around here (not even Top Cafe/Tsim Fung?), don't bother trying it. The congee was ok (bland for mom), but the meat didn't taste fresh. The fried noodles were ok. The salt and spicy pork varied, but the portion size for the entrees was definitely not worth the price. The ja leung was very oily, and the yau tieu part was overcooked.

Keep on looking...

Bastille Day 2010

Chez Panisse is celebrating Bastille Day. How important is this secular holiday to the French? Alice Waters writes on her FB:

Happy Bastille Day! We are celebrating with mulberry ice-cream cones from in front of Chez Panisse from 12:30pm today. Come down and join us. Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

The Western Confucian links to the following by Kevin Gutzman: Bastille Day is Bunk.

Traditional American republicans do not endorse everything about the French Revolution; some even reject it entirely. Traditional Catholics are even more critical. (For example, Christendom and Revolution.) And then there are the Catholic monarchists...

Remember the Vendée! What more can be said in response to French radicalism?

Alphajets from the French Air Force' Patrouille de France, or French Acrobatic Patrol, fly above the Arc de Triomphe during the annual Bastille Day military parade on The Champs Elysee Avenue in Paris, Wednesday, July 14, 2010. (AP/Daylife)

French First lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy (R) poses with Benin's first lady Chantal Boni in front of the Elysee palace in Paris following a meeting on July 13, 2010, as leaders of 13 African countries are in France to take part in its national celebrations. Troops from 13 African nations marched in Paris on July 14, 2010, marking half a century of independence from France as part of a rain-soaked Bastille Day parade heavily criticised by human rights groups. (Getty/Daylife)

French troops take part in the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris July 14, 2010. (Getty/Daylife)

Students from the French Ecole Polytechnique take part under heavy rain in the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris July 14, 2010. (Getty/Daylife)

French republican guards take part in the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris July 14, 2010. (Getty/Daylife)

Saint-Cyr military academy students take part in the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris July 14, 2010. (Getty/Daylife)


Pioneers from the French Foreign Legion (Legion etrangere) take part in the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris July 14, 2010. (Getty/Daylife)