Dartblog

Despite several obvious overtures towards the military, it seems President-elect Barack Obama is not gaining much ground. According to a Military Times survey, 6 out of 10 active duty service members are uncertain or pessimistic about their incoming commander. Perhaps this number is unsurprising as only 1 in 4 service members supported him during the election. He obviously lacks military experience, yet enters office with the burden of several election cycle promises to the American public that could have serious consequences for the military. Such a combination is sure to put some service members on guard. For those who have forgotten, Obama has promised a 16 month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, in addition to calling for the end of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay and lesbian members of the military. Controversial promises that may please his democrat base, but alienate the more conservative soldiers putting their lives in harm’s way for all of us everyday.

As our country is built upon civilian control of the military, the animosity of service members does not present a significant challenge to his authority. It does, however, show one of the major hurdles that Obama must face in his first years in office. Not even the numerous peace offerings from the Obama camp have changed the pessimism and uncertainty towards his leadership. Choosing to retain well respected Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, currently serving under President George W. Bush, and to bring in a former general as his National Security Advisor are just two of these overtures. He also chose to continue the recent use of the Virginia Military Institute corps of cadets in the inaugural parade. Certainly these gestures of good will towards a sector of our population that one might expect a Democrat president to marginalize are promising. If he continues to demonstrate a respect and desire to understand the military when making foreign policy choices, his popularity, or at least acceptability, amongst members of the military will grow. Any signs of hostility or high handedness towards the military, however, could prove to be a significant handicap in the pursuit of his international goals.

Greetings, dear ones, from Ocean City, New Jersey. O.C., as the parvenus swapping the engorged palaces along its shores must call it, is a wondrous place. It is also a dry place, which hindrance heightens the worked for wonder. The tradition is for my oldest friends and me is to come here at least once each year. Here we are. Ocean City has a place in American letters, you know, as the home Nabokov prescribed for Clare Quilty in Lolita; that distinction notwithstanding we have no reason to suspect that assault and aberrant romances are common here. And while the beaches are bare, the wind makes for nice kite-flying. Cheers to you, and bon santé, and happy Champagne Day tomorrow. (If the vintners were smart they’d push to call 12/31 that.)

Very much more in 2009. Ta ta!

Daniel Pipes offers some characteristically penetrating thoughts. His first: “Arab-Israeli warfare is not the conventional battle to control territory of old. Since 1982, the primary goal in this theater is to persuade the world of the righteousness of one’s cause. (I.e., who has the more affecting casualties?”

This morning on a drive to Dunkin’ Donuts—the local pâtisserie, an Ocean City staple called Dot’s, is closed for the season—National Public Radio interrupted Maurice Ravel to announce that “Israel’s air strikes continue in Gaza.”

People who volunteer themselves to comment upon the holy land question to the newsmedia are, generally speaking, professional partisans. (The Muslims, who appear to have a far more successful P.R. operation in place, even have professional radio call-in show callers-in. You can discern them from ordinary radio louts easily.) For the analysis provided, the reading public enjoys no practical improvement in a university professor as compared with a military captain of one side or another. What this situation wants is a semiotician, because the whole thing is a symbolic ballet. The polities that control the policies and the militaries of the world’s most significant nations are manipulable. The more the aggressor appears to be Israel, the more phone calls will be placed from dusty corners of State to sandy corners of Knesset. So announcements like “Israel continues attacks” help, even though in this instance it was Hamas whose rocket-fired plie touched off the latest.

“Who has the more affecting casualties?” is a fine way to put it, but not very practically useful. It is about the cadence and the tone of the reporting. In the Western World a convincing balance is struck, and then nudged to favor the Muslim position, frequently for no other reason than the old underdog bias. Of course, some agencies are a little more animated about their preferred party. And others display such a low estimation of their readers that they are completely amusing, such as Reuters’s report of today titled: “Israel rejects truce, presses on with Gaza strikes,” written by some eager one called Nidal al-Mughrabi. Mr. al-Mughrabi never went to kindergarten, by the evidence. If an extant truce is expiring, and one party decides that at the stroke of midnight a ruthless volley aimed at the second party seems to be called for, and the second party takes this as a suggestion that its neighbor has elected not to extend the truce, and so after being hit begins defending himself vigorously, and if the party of the first part, realizing the superior accuracy of his former trucemate’s returns, then holds his hands up to say, “O, ho, ho, no, my friend. Let’s have that truce again,” then it would not be an accurate representation of the positions of the parties to say that that of the second part had “reject[ed a] truce.”

BY THE BYE: It strikes me that, since all of this is going on during Christmas, we might read, in the reporting on the scrap, that it has its tragic and callous transpiration during “the holy octave of Christmas, the second-most sacred period in the Christian calendar” or something like that. But the AP Styleguide does not, as I recall, make mention of holy days appertaining to Christianity, relevant though they are to the events along the Jordan River. Those days are but holidays. How fleeting is success!

It’s winter vacation so lots of folks, myself included, go off to the movie theatre to see all the holiday blockbusters. Depending on the theatre there are public service announcements before the film in the form of dancing lions, written messages, or booming narration. For a few golden years at the Crown theatre chains about 5 years ago there were the trash cans who would sing, in very low bass voice, “Please throw your trash away.” Incidentally if any employee of Crown, now Bowtie I believe, is reading this, please do consider bringing the anthropomorphic garbage recepticals back.

In any event, apparently one father and son did not heed these directions, prompting another moviegoer to throw popcorn at the son and shoot the father in the arm. The movie was ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.’ I suppose it would have been more prudent to simply get a theatre official to quiet the family down, but then the shooter would have missed part of the movie. Alternatively he might have considered simply brandishing the handgun rather than deploying it, or at the very least pistol whipping the jabbering man rather than shooting him. Shooting someone for talking in a movie seems a little disproportionate a response and the sound of the shot, after all, no doubt disturbed other viewers, exacerbating the problem of disruption that so infuriated the shooter to begin with. Still, at least some sympathies to the shooter, nobody likes people talking during the movie.

Ilya Somin, Eric Posner, and Eugene Volokh exchanging thoughts and commentary about what seems like the perennial conflict over wishing people a ‘Merry Christmas’ versus a ‘Happy Holidays.’

When Dartblog posted a ‘Merry Christmas to All’ on the 25th I briefly considered (more jokingly than not) appending a ‘Happy Holidays’ addition. But I considered that such an addition would put me at great personal peril or at least provoked intense displeasure from another of Dartblog’s contributors. I do not think I can go wrong, however, posting a ‘Happy Hanukkah’ message on this eighth night of the holiday and wishing celebrators of any and all other holidays, or none at all, good wishes for the season.

Flipping through the television channels the other afternoon, I came across a very interesting program on MSNBC called ‘Crime & Punishment.’ The premise of the show is following around a D.A. with a camera as they prosecute real trials, planning case strategy, prepping witnesses, directing and cross examining witnesses in court, and making opening and closing statements. The novelty of this program, in contrast to a show like Law & Order, is that these cases are real. When a defendant is sentenced to terms in prison (when there are convictions the show also shows sentencing hearings), for example, they actually go to prison.

Of the few episodes or trials that I watched there was a first-degree murder trial, an involuntary manslaughter case, and I think an aggravated assault trial. Members of the jury were (appropriately—and I would imagine as rightly prohibited by the law) never shown and I also never recall seeing presiding judges. The focus was on the D.A. and the victim or family, with attention also given to the defendant and his or her attorney. A trial from discovery and research to trial and sentencing is condensed in to an hour time slot.

I had never seen a television program with this level of reality. A while back I remember MSNBC coming up with a program to confront and arrest pedophiles on the pretense of setting them up for illegal activities with children. Then I recall the same network featuring documentaries about high-security correctional facilities and death-row and other prisoners. This program, I think, goes a little farther still towards some sort of reality. Eventually, I suppose, they will find a way to get even closer. Perhaps the networks will get one of their reporters incarcerated in one of these prisons to report from first-hand experience or perhaps even on trial for some crime or another.

More anon from us, but you will perhaps excuse my absence: our readers’ eager eyes are no match for those of this new member of the Malchow family.

As was perhaps destined to happen, my fantasies of a relaxing winter break voraciously consuming the fantastically interesting slate of books I so carefully selected in anticipation of rare free, holiday moments, has already been scuttled. With well more than half of vacation past I have only managed to finish one book. I am in the middle of six others, almost completely devoid of time or willpower to finish any of them, and the break is rapidly coming to a close. Classes at Dartmouth will begin on the fifth of January.

I thought, therefore, that I would devote a little space to some of the movies I have had the opportunity (or misfortune) to see over the past few days.

Quantum of Solace, the new James Bond movie was more than a little disappointing. I was skeptical of Daniel Craig as Bond before Casino Royale but I thought that the movie was quite good and I was ready for a strong, repeat performance. But Craig was, as the movie as a whole, quite dull. The plot of foiling an criminal posing as an environmentalist was forced with a subplot of Bond seeking revenge for the death of his lady friend in the previous movie was equally weak. Even the action/ chase scenes were a little flat and more predictable than usual, the boat chase particularly cliche.

Because Valkeyrie was sold out when I went to the theater I was forced to see Slumdog Millionaire. The gist was an Indian teen’s success on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? which focuses in on the life experiences growing up as an orphan in the slums of Mumbai that taught him the answers to the various questions. The movie was not bad but it seemed self-consciously crafted to appeal to pseudo-intellectuals, the kind of people who would refer to the movie as a ‘film,’ and talk about putting down their $8.50 for 90 minutes as constituting a personal cultural renaissance. Still a fine ‘film’ overall and one I would enthusiastically endorse as a second-resort if all of your first choice movies are sold out.

Dartblog shall return. Enjoy the day.

A recent article in the New York Times lays out new regulations to combat what may become the newest modern-day deadly sin (following smoking, eating transfats, etc): eating meat. None of the “solutions” (I put it in quotes because it is not clear to me that there is even a problem to address) sound good.

High-tech fixes include those like the project here, called “methane capture,” as well as inventing feed that will make cows belch less methane, which traps heat with 25 times the efficiency of carbon dioxide. California is already working on a program to encourage systems in pig and dairy farms like the one in Sterksel.

Other proposals include everything from persuading consumers to eat less meat to slapping a “sin tax” on pork and beef. Next year, Sweden will start labeling food products so that shoppers can look at how much emission can be attributed to serving steak compared with, say, chicken or turkey.

The very last thing manufacturers and businesses need (not to mention consumers who are always forced to bear the high costs of government mandates and ‘solutions’), in an economic downturn or otherwise, is poorly considered regulation. More disturbing than the solutions themselves is the notion that we should treat and stigmatize meat, and by extension meat-eaters, with labels like “sin.” If it is the case that growing chickpeas produces more emissions than soybeans, it doesn’t make it a ‘sin’ to eat the former or some sort of saint to eat the latter. Ditto for meat.

There is surely more to say on the subject but my hamburger has finished cooking. My palate is salivating and I am going to chow down. I am quite sure that upon finishing I will have both a sated stomach and a clear conscience.

An interesting article about what to expect from GOP-backers on the radio waves over the coming few years. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al.

Harvard is revamping its undergraduate English curriculum as reported by the Harvard Crimson. It doesn’t look good.

On the matter, Inside Higher Ed quotes one skeptical student:

“the fact that Harvard doesn’t feel like it has any responsibility to say what ought to be learned.” The New Yorker recently quoted Lacaria’s Crimson op-ed on the subject in a short, tongue-in-cheek piece, “Decline of Civilization Dept.: Harvard ‘Eviscerates Liberal Education.’ “

“I’m sort of concerned that the [new] categories are somewhat amorphous,” Lacaria said in an interview. Speaking of the proposed “Shakespeares” course as one example, “A course in Hamlet,” he said, “would fill the same basic requirement for an English major as a course on sex in Shakespeare or something else trendy that they like to study in literature these days.”

Part of the proposal moves to replace large lecture courses with smaller, seminar-style courses—there is little controversy here, smaller courses can hardly hurt. The crux of the debate seems to be whether students should be required to read and learn great writers like Homer, Virgil, Milton, Shakespeare, Swift, Chaucer, etc. Perhaps these writers are not ‘trendy,’ but they do seem pretty important to a good education in writing or literature (or just about anything else).

…despite all the beautiful photographs that Joe has recently been posting, at least not for primary and secondary school students.

State nutrition laws have made it impossible for team, charities, churches, et al to organize (rational) bake sales at schools. The New York Times writes of one high school team’s efforts:

The Piedmont High water polo team falls woefully short of these standards, selling cupcakes, caramel apples and lemon bars off campus in a flagrant act of nutritional disobedience.

Ah yes, those delinquent students that bring contraband in to classrooms: guns, drugs, cupcakes, and the like. I imagine a kid in a trench coat peering around surreptitiously and then opening it up to reveal a fully stocked, pocket display of cookie, cupcakes, pie, cake, candy and all sorts of goodies. Car washes are fine if a little more difficult (although I would think a little inappropriate for, say, a Hanover winter). Health food bake sales featuring tofu cookies and soybean cakes (are carrot cakes banned too?) may fail to attract the same number of consumers.

It is one thing to make school lunches healthier, remembering back to my public school days I daresay they could not get any less tasty. But to turn confectionery consumers and providers in to the bad guys, especially when their efforts go towards good causes, seems more than a little misguided. And let me say this, if I see a picture of a California state legislator who votes for bills like this eating any kind of confectionery whatsoever, it will be going straight to the top of Dartblog. They better not be chowing down on sweets while they strip California children of their childhoods. And, as far as I know, state legislators don’t even have mandatory gym.

So far as I know, these (idiotic) bans are limited only to selling and serving, rather than actually bringing or eating, but it is surely only a matter of time. I have always found that a cookie or pastry of some kind is an integral part of a balanced meal, e.g. turkey sandwich, bag of chips, apple, and cookie. So if and when the bans spread you will find me outside. I’ll be the one by the dumpster, eating a cookie.