Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Here’s a surprise that popped up in YouTube’s recommended videos: Adam Driver (aka Kylo Ren) talking about his transition from United States Marine to Hollywood actor. Driver’s speech is only 9 minutes (half the video) and impressive in more ways than one. In a rapid-fire presentation, he touches on differences between military life and civilian life while also noting similarities between soldiering and acting.
Like all actors these days, it seems, Driver sponsors an organization. But his is a strange one: Arts in the Armed Forces. The basic mission statement is ho-hum. But the explication, like similar statements in Driver’s speech, is fascinating:
[….] Importantly, after each of AITAF’s performances, the actors interact with the audience through a question and answer session as well as a more informal mingling period.
The goal is not simply to provide an enjoyable evening, but to use the powerfully emotional shared experience of live theater to open up conversations capable of bridging the divides between military and civilian, service member and family member, the world of the arts and the world of practical action.
I’m sure there are benefits for both sides of that equation. But it’s especially nice to know that a few more actors are being exposed to “the world of practical action.” @garymcvey is absolutely right that conservatives should do more writing and acting, less complaining about others who do. But this is helpful too.
Driver’s speech also highlights a vital ingredient in so many success stories, both civilian and militant: drive. Victory is achieved by those who will accept nothing less.
Serenity was written by a flaming hippie. Yet the ultimate conflict is pitch perfect for tyrannical governments trying to remake human nature. Sure, the film is blemished by a preacher who doesn’t care about God, but there’s a nugget of good sense even in that scene.
“You don’t know what it’s like to work in the private sector. They expect results.” This was from a star of Saturday Night Live, for crying out loud! If you don’t recognize the quote, I will forgive you … eventually.
Monty Python, those poor souls! It’s jaw-dropping that a group of comedians could so perfectly and consistently satirize the Left’s nonsense without recognizing it in their own politics.
As for novelists, perhaps some gothic tales like Frankenstein qualify. What are some better examples?
What might we learn from this strange phenomenon? How is it possible for artists to unwittingly parody their own beliefs so keenly?
Battlefield 1, the big WWI game that launches this October, features this Harlem Hellfighter in all its marketing and has an expansion pack devoted to the famed unit. But do any of them identify as transgendered or intersex?
Throughout my life, I have been extraordinarily traditional while most of my friends have been remarkably progressive. Perhaps it’s the curse of an orthodox artist. Perhaps God thinks it’s funny. In any case, experience has taught me to be diplomatic and to choose my battles with care. But while my hippie friends and I have generally gotten along because we share an interest in life’s frivolities (even though we differ on nearly all serious matters), I find it’s increasingly difficult to maintain such friendships. With each passing year, philosophical differences intrude further and further into our casual pastimes.
These days, every other film, novel, or game is linked to some public controversy. Does the story lack gay characters? Unacceptable! Does it involve hunting? Outrageous! Why can’t player-characters in the game be cross-dressers? How can the book be respectful of the nefarious oil industry? How racist of them to choose a white man as the hero! How irresponsible to show a character smoking! Why doesn’t this sport have more diversity? You know what I mean. Even Superman, who used to explicitly fight for “the American way,” is now a globalist, an environmentalist, and probably a secret bisexual like all superheroes must be.
Electronic Arts advertised a black man and an Arab woman as two protagonists in its upcoming WWI game, Battlefield 1, but even that hasn’t stopped many gamers from complaining that they can’t play as female soldiers in the history-based shooter’s multiplayer mode (history must be racist and sexist). The hero on the cover is at least rooted in reality.
The Passion of the Christ was accused of anti-Semitism for daring to dramatize millenia-old scenes straight from the book of this country’s most popular religion.
And today I find myself having to defend the proposal of whaling as an acceptable feature in a light-hearted pirate adventure game called Sea of Thieves. Never mind that every player in the cartoonish game is cast as a thief and a cutthroat (that is, a pirate) or that we’re talking about a game with krakens and mermaids.
When did progressives abandon the liberty to have fun?
During this week’s conference call for investors in Electronic Arts (EA) — one of the world’s largest publishers of video games, from phone apps to console blockbusters — the company announced that its development subsidiaries are all uniting in use of its propietary Frostbite game engine. This could be another big step in the evolution of the $90B game industry.
What is a game engine? In short, it’s a software foundation and toolset for building video games. From graphics and audio rendering, to physics simulations and artificial intelligence, the “engine” provides basic code (increasingly, advanced code as well) that streamlines the creative work of game design. It automates complex processes and ensures that they cooperate with each other without exceeding delegated resources.
The newest version of the Frostbite engine will probably be revealed soon. Here is a demonstration of the old version.
Only a decade ago, it was normal for each game development studio to build its own game engine; perhaps upgrading it between projects. This meant that the vast majority of the developer’s time and money was spent laying the technical foundation for the ideas that defined the creative entertainment experience customers enjoy.
Such a development model left little time for gameplay iteration: testing ideas, chucking bad ones, testing alternatives, editing and testing them again, and so on. It also left less time for debugging the software, polishing, balancing relative systems with external feedback … and finally marketing the product based on its near-finished state, rather than on a plan not yet realized.
In more recent years, it became common to license ready-made and fully up-to-date engines from third parties. This cut down on pre-production time, but also cut into profits and required adjustments of the other company’s engine to one’s own particular needs.
Now, EA has almost completed a long-term plan to develop a single, powerful, and versatile engine for all its studios with shared investment costs and in-house support.
As CEO Andrew Wilson and EA Studios Executive VP Patrick Söderlund explained in this report to investors, this enables their developers “to deliver high quality games that are highly differentiated on a feature set level, but in a way that is both cost-efficient and quick.” Whether producing a new intellectual property or porting a game from one hardware platform to another (ex: tablet PC to Playstation 4), developers can halve the time, money, and manpower required for technical support and devote those resources to bigger, better games.
Meanwhile, EA has created a designated team focused exclusively on developing and improving the Frostbite engine: i.e., pushing the limits of visual and physical simulations, as well as intelligence simulations via experiments in neural networks and machine learning. They also minimize how much direct coding is required by game designers by honing a versatile interface.
But this post isn’t about just EA. It’s about the massive game industry as a whole. Other major publishers, like Ubisoft and Activision, are probably pursuing similar strategies. This is the beginning of a new era for the industry.
The shift to improved automation and streamlined development hasn’t been sudden. Avid gamers might have noticed that virtual worlds have been getting bigger, more detailed, and more dynamic. And while publishers are consolidating, independent developers abound. Small independent studios are creating entire universes by procedural generation.
Long story short — too late, I know — expect a renaissance of games in the next decade. Programming will always be vital to interactive entertainment, but the artistic elements are now coming to the fore.
I can’t wait to show my folks the virtual pictures!
Imagine that, years from now, Virtual Reality hardware and simulations have advanced to a point where giant, richly-detailed virtual worlds — each with seemingly limitless potential for experience and interaction — are possible. Imagine, for example, deciding to spend a few hours of your first day of vacation in such a simulated world. Then, finding it a genuinely thrilling experience, you return there on every subsequent day of that vacation.
In this virtual world, you are free of countless limitations of reality. Your senses are sharper and you even enjoy new senses. The environments you experience are beautiful and idealized, free of decay and grime. If you want to have relaxed conversations with distant ancestors or great figures of history, you can do it. If you want a daring adventure with dragons or pirates, spaceships or submarines, cannons or spells, you can do it. They’re all — equally — just a few clicks away.
In virtual reality, risks are laughed away. When you fall, you fly. If you are attacked, bullets fall like dust from your body. Nothing hurts and nothing can stop you. A heads-up display appears at command, ensuring you are never lost or limited to your present experience. You can do anything, anytime, anywhere.
And then … someone pulls the plug. You’re stuck in reality again. With reality, you are returned to the limitations of physics, to the flaws of human society, to pain, injury, and death. Adventures are full of risk, and are probably unaffordable. Conversations are full of misunderstanding and distractions.
But reality must have good aspects which could not be simulated even with the most ambitious technological know-how and imaginative crafting, right? The limitations of reality seem comparatively simple to list. What are the opportunities of reality that no simulation could offer? Not just today, but not even in an optimistic future?
My philosophy professor once posited that the way we distinguish reality from dreams is that reality always picks up where it left off. But video games do that as well. When virtual reality can offer grand experiences like TV-based games, users might start to wonder what’s so important or great about reality. The old questions of philosophers like Descartes and Hume might gain traction again, and reality will seem like a mere game. What will coax people back to solid ground?
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player / That struts and frets his hour upon the stage / And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told / by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing. —Macbeth
Mother Angelica, one of the meekest and yet most influential evangelists of our time, has died at the age 92. The New York Times obituary covers the details of her life and career in religious orders and as a broadcasting powerhouse, but Raymond Arroyo’s announcement on the cable channel she founded is probably the most fitting tribute to her:
My grandma and I often watched Mother Angelica’s show. Her girlish humor and enthusiasm was endearing. It set people at ease. Her theological explanations were simple but deep, typically communicated by anecdotes. Her compassion was quick, eager. Whereas Venerable Reverend Fulton Sheen preached like a Shakespearean actor, Mother Angelica preached like a sweet old neighbor visiting for tea and a casual chat. Her audiences chuckled, cried, then laughed again.
Once, I heard Mother Angelica tell a story I will never forget. While wading knee-deep in the ocean — at an Alabama beach I know well — a wave splashed in front of her. She found herself strangely fixated on a small drop resting on her hand. Then she heard God speaking in her heart. “The drop is your sin. Look out onto my ocean. It is my mercy. Why do you focus on the little drop?” Charity and mercy were her business.
I am happy that this saintly woman is now with her reward in Heaven, in the presence of Christ.
I noticed that this article by Mark Steyn has already received 2,000 likes on his Facebook page and hundreds of shares, whereas usually when Steyn links to his articles on Facebook, they only receive a couple hundred likes and dozens of shares, if that.
It’s interesting that readers seek out particular pundits during particular scenarios. After an Islamic attack in Europe, people apparently look to Steyn. If a city declares bankruptcy, perhaps they would look to Kevin Williamson.
What pundits do you associate with specific issues? Is that all that explains this phenomenon? Are people looking for validation of their views amid distress? Are they looking for answers?
As I’m forced to point out from time to time, nobody complains about hours wasted on recreation like watching sports (and reading about sports, and talking about sports, and dreaming …) or watching TV. Many responsible adults devote entire weekends to such activities but are not thought childish or lazy for it.
Affluence has enabled people to regain the abundant time for leisure that primitive hunters enjoyed before the rise of agrarian and industrial societies. In our society, video games are a normal activity of Generation X — respectable in moderation — but have yet to gain the respectability of being practiced by elders.
Yes, there remains a stigma, in some settings, against happily admitting one plays video games (or “interactive media,” as many developers prefer, to indicate the inclusion of serious themes). But that’s not why no avid gamer will be elected to high public office anytime soon.
The real reason is quotes like these, so easily misunderstood if pulled from an old Facebook or Twitter post by some unscrupulous campaign reporter and shared without context:
To our non-gamer friends: These aren’t quotes from games, but rather the sort of things gamers might say while playing those games. A Big Daddy, for example, is a particularly ominous enemy in the popular dystopian thriller Bioshock.
And yes, this post is thoroughly tongue-in-cheek. C’mon, fellow gamers! Add your own. What might you say in reference to a video game that could be damning if separated from its context? Be brave!
– –
P.S. The reason so many video games involve shooting and hitting things is because that’s much, much easier to simulate in fun and surprising ways than challenges that rely on language such s diplomacy and persuasion. Action gameplay is also less labor-intensive than conversation for developers to multiply into hours upon hours of content. Exploration-oriented gameplay is becoming more common now that emerging technologies have enabled easier, faster, and more compelling production of settings and experiences. And companies like Bioware have made considerable progress in streamlining production of conversation-based gameplay.
If you want a clear example of how the authors of the US Constitution understood our government’s relationship to religion, look no further than the proclamation of a day of thanksgiving to God in 1789 by President George Washington. Here is his speech inaugurating this holiday (and yes, “holiday” is a derivation of “holy day”).
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Let me preface this by pointing out why non-Catholics and non-Christians might find this discussion worthwhile. First, Mexico is the United States’ largest source of immigrants (legal and illegal) and influential states like Texas are heavily colored by Mexican culture (the Texas population is already nearly half hispanic), so its culture is a significant influence on our own. Second, religion is the foundation of culture: it encapsulates many of the most basic perceptions and priorities on which political decisions are made. Thus, the ideas Mexican immigrants bring with them impacts all Americans.
Though more than 80% of Mexican citizens identify as Catholic, I’m hearing a different story from Catholic educators in Texas. American Catholics often complain generally about the state of catechesis (education about the faith), but it seems to be even worse down in Mexico, where many people are ignorant of the beliefs and traditions they claim as their own.
When I lived in San Antonio, I was surprised how many mexicans (the little “m” is intentional; I’m using it as a more specific term than “hispanic”) joined Protestant and Evangelical denominations. That’s not a knock on Protestants, but simply an observation of the shallowness many mexicans’ feel toward the Catholic Church. Even those remaining within it are often what we orthodox call “cafeteria Catholics” or “cultural Catholics;” i.e., Catholics who prefer the Mass, but willfully ignore Church teachings. Others, I’m told, send their children to religious education classes, but not to Mass.
My purpose is not to complain, but rather to open discussion of what Mexican and hispanic immigrants truly believe and value.
Catholicism was severely persecuted by Mexico’s government during the early 20th century. Did the culture ever recover from that oppression? Has the rise of secularism and multiculturalism in Mexican culture been similar to the same in the US? Are there truly any significant differences between the shallow bonds of Mexicans to the Church and the shallow faith of Americans?
Some have apparently interpreted Pat’s comment in light of his politics, believing it a veiled jab at Democrats or progressives. I think he was making a fairly mundane and yet striking observation about a cultural loss, one that creates difficulty for a game show that tries to unite generations. We’ve lost the cultural touchstones that older and younger generations once shared.
It’s normal for the elderly to watch or listen to their grandchildren and encounter pop culture references, idioms, beliefs, or customs that seem strange. Societies are forever changing. In modern America, during this era of rapidly advancing technologies and instant interactions between distant peoples, those changes can be especially daunting.
But in most societies (please correct me if I’m wrong), the generations spend considerable time together. So they develop a wealth of common knowledge and experience.
Some of this knowledge is history. Stories are told, questions are asked, one anecdote leads to another, and so the elder’s experiences are connected with the child’s experiences. History gains a personal aspect. National histories are placed into a context of family histories.
Intertwined with those histories are pleasures, passtimes, and dramas — the little things that color our lives. The generations might play sports together, play board games, piece together puzzles, watch TV or films together, or listen to music together. When the children become parents, they can reminisce about the good times and share those experiences with the next generation.
Then there are pragmatic skills, like mechanical know-how, cooking, or basic carpentry. Some needs and challenges change from generation to generation, but some remain. Why figure out best practices all over again when one can learn from family?
And there’s the rub.
Why do Sajak’s coworkers on Wheel of Fortune struggle to write for modern contestants and audiences? Because knowledge and experiences in modern America are more scattered and individualized than they used to be. Family norms — and much else — have changed.
I was born in 1980. The only reason I’m as familiar as I am with black-and-white movies and TV shows is because my parents and uncles invited me to watch with them, just as they did with their parents when they were children. The main reason I’m familiar with centuries-old symphonies or jazz from the 1940s is because my elders made me listen. We can share references to Lucille Ball, the Marx Brothers, Jack Benny, Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, Vivaldi, Wagner, Copeland, Michelangelo, Norman Rockwell, and many more artists because we experienced their works together.
My parents considered that an essential part of their role as parents. They didn’t just teach us reading, writing, and arithmetic. They taught us culture. They taught us how to appreciate the arts and games they grew up with, even if we preferred more modern fare. Yes, even a simple game of horseshoes or dominoes can be important. They told us about great athletes, pioneering companies, and various movers and shakers in American society before our time. Such things strengthen the bonds between generations and instill a sense of continuity.
Many people of my generation, and later ones, don’t have that shared knowledge and experience. They didn’t have to gather with their families for dinner or join family outings — if their parents were even available for socialising at all. They were not expected to participate in old traditions or family activities. They roamed free or alone. So their knowledge is similarly separated.
Perhaps online interactions offer a way back to unity between young and old. Certainly, many online games and forums like Ricochet enable us to learn from each other and gain common ground. Is it enough?
In what ways might families and neighbors reestablish the connection that seems to have been lost since Wheel of Fortune began 40 years ago? (Need I add that Pat’s show is another American touchstone?)
In college, I was surprised when an honest and charitable philosophy professor I very much admired claimed that Karl Marx is misunderstood. Marx would not have supported communism as we have known it, he told me. What was seen at the hands of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or even Gorbachev was not communism as Marx envisioned it.
Next week, Ubisoft will release the next grand episode in its popular series of historical playgrounds, Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate. Because the overarching theme of the Assassin’s Creed series (about as philosophically consistent as Star Wars) is a conflict between the freedom-loving Assassins and conspiring Templar oppressors, the game’s setting in Victorian London will emphasize struggles for power among the classes of industrial British society.
Is my professor’s claim about Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto just the same dangerous delusion that has made forced redistribution of property and flattening of culture the foundation of the Democratic Party? Or were the published ideas of Marx distorted and misapplied by people who wanted communism to be something fundamentally different?
What should students learn about Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and the The Communist Manifesto? Is that the true origin of communism?
While one bishop (the pope) offered a sadly forgettable speech before Congress, another bishop hit one out of the park at the World Meeting of Families.
Though I believe Christians of all sorts would appreciate Bishop Robert Barron’s full speech, this bit about acquiring freedom through adherence to natural law should be accessible to non-Christian Ricochet members as well. This is what is meant by the famous claim, “the truth will set you free.”
The US Constitution was founded on assumptions of natural law. The purpose of limited, local government is not to absolve citizens of the need for an ordered society, but to protect a just order from interference. The Constitution assumes a preponderance of non-legal customs which reflect objective truths about the nature of humanity.
Freedom is found in virtue. “It is the shaping of desire to make the achievement of the good first possible and then effortless.” Virtue is found in truth.
The Constitution is an unsupportable dream without general agreement among citizens regarding truth — including truth about “the good” — and common customs well beyond the purview of politicians and judges. Multiculturalism and relativism are greater threats to American freedom than the legal monstrosities that arise in their wake.
Imagine “walking” through the Louvre or Vatican City, exploring every nook and being able to examine every aspect in detail. The next day, you might explore the ruins of Vietnam or even the now-destroyed ancient monuments of Iraq and Syria. Or look all around you at the copious sea life of the Great Barrier Reef without need of SCUBA gear.
Since this video is produced by a video game publisher (and development software leader), it references games. But the future of Virtual Reality, if this truly does get off the ground at last, isn’t just gaming.
Throughout history, only a relative handful of people have had the wealth, the leisure time, and the ability to explore sites and wonders far beyond the borders of their own nations. Modern Americans frequently see them represented in books and TV shows. Even today, though, most people do not travel internationally.
VR technology could enable people to travel instantly for hundreds of dollars rather than thousands. Schools and public libraries could cheaply make a variety of such experiences available to all. You won’t need weeks away from work or other responsibilities. If your phone rings, answer it … and rejoin your “international” experience in a few minutes. If your old bones are too stiff and sore for walking, that’s alright; you won’t need them to see the world.
Of course, there is more to travel than static sights alone. There are people to meet, smells, foods, and unscripted experiences. But, again, not everyone has access to such trips. Even those who do typically can only make a handful of international trips in a lifetime. Better a simulated experience than no experience at all, yes?
Some major software publishers, like Microsoft and Sony, have expressed confidence in this new VR tech. I’ll withhold my enthusiasm until it hits the consumer market in the next year. But it might just be the next big evolution in educational access.
Responding to a Vox article by Ezra Klein, Mark Steyn explains how the common understanding of “moderate” voters is mistaken:
Because the first position is “left” and the second position is “right,” the pollsters split the difference and label such a person a “moderate.” But he isn’t actually a moderate, so much as bipartisanly extreme. In practice, most “moderates” boil down to that: They hold some leftie and some rightie positions. The most familiar type of “moderate” in American politics are the so-called “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” red governors of blue states. […] As Trump’s detractors see it, he’s just a reality-show buffoon with a portfolio of incoherent attitudes that display no coherent worldview. But very few people go around with a philosophically consistent attitude to life: Your approach to, say, health insurance is determined less by abstract principles than by whether you can afford it. Likewise, your attitude to the DREAMers may owe more to whether your local school district is collapsing under the weight of all this heartwarming diversity.
The policy preferences of most voters are rarely grounded in careful reflection of philosophical principle, which commonly results in voters holding ideologically contradictory positions. It is, furthermore, probably true that most “moderate” voters hold at least one or two positions that could easily be considered “extreme” or “severe” by their opponents.
It is often claimed that most voters want Republicans and Democrats to work together, but I think they want acquiescence, not compromise. What makes a person “independent” or “non-partisan” is that he or she doesn’t always demand acquiescence from the same side of the political aisle and fears a system in which any one party gains a monopoly on acquiescence. Thus, the “moderate” government most voters desire is one that reflects their own individual combinations of partisan interests — e.g., global warming initiatives + tax cuts, loose immigration standards + hawkish foreign policy, etc. — rather than promotion of only those few issues with bipartisan support.
In politics, moderates don’t represent a middle ground between ideologies. Instead, they are typical of human beings in spending more time living than thinking about living. They are not consistently ideological.
Christianity is no longer permitted in Kentucky’s juvenile detention centers.
Chaplain David Wells was told he could either sign a state-mandated document promising to never tell inmates that homosexuality is “sinful” or else the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice would revoke his credentials … The Kentucky regulation clearly states that volunteers working with juveniles “shall not refer to juveniles by using derogatory language in a manner that conveys bias towards or hatred of the LGBTQI community. DJJ staff, volunteers, interns and contractors shall not imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
One incident doesn’t constitute a trend, but this was predictable, and it’s reasonable to expect similar rule changes following the Supreme Court ruling.
Will this litmus test be applied to military chaplains before or after it is applied to prisons across the country?
During his excellent speech before Congress, Sen. Ted Cruz repeated a common complaint of Republican voters:
The American people were told, “If only we have a Republican majority in the House, things will be different.” Well, in 2010, the American people showed up in enormous numbers and we got a Republican majority in the House. And very little changed. […] Then the American people were told, “You know, the problem is the Senate. If only we get a Republican majority in the Senate and retire Harry Reid as majority leader, then things will be different.” Well, in 2014, the American people rose up in enormous numbers, voted to do exactly that. We have had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress now for about 6 months. What has that majority done?
While debating the possibility of de-funding Planned Parenthood the other day, a fellow Republican insisted we needed total control — a Republican president and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress — for that to happen. Appropriations are not a significant authority, apparently. Since Roe v Wade, he told me, Republicans have enjoyed such total control for only two years, under President George W. Bush. That’s two out of 40 years. In order to prevent about a million children from being slaughtered every year, I’m being asked to wait for an electoral scenario which has only happened once in my lifetime.
And what happened in those two years that Republicans had total control? Did the Republican-controlled Congress and the most pro-life President in living memory defund Planned Parenthood? Of course not. That would be too much to ask. Presumably, Congress determined that diminished support for the war could not even be risked to stop a genocide at home. Rather than employ that total authorized power with impunity, Republicans once again “played it safe.”
I am not proposing a discussion specifically of abortion. That’s merely one of many interests of Republican voters that has not been sufficiently implemented. But must Republicans have total control to accomplish anything significant? Would they even make use of that power if they had it?
Republicans have not earned the privilege of delays. They have not earned the trust required for four-year strategies, let alone 10-year, or 20-year strategies.
In addition, Republicans are fools to rely on plans that require consistent power through multiple terms. First, America’s pendulum-like electoral history does not support such hopes. Second, Democrats have proven able to demonize Republicans and misrepresent Republican positions, even without convenient gaffes, facts, or policies (e.g., the “War on Women”); evidently, laying low cannot preserve Republican electoral victories. Third, Democrats can accomplish more in an equal amount of time due to their willingness to disregard normal procedures, laws, and even the most basic moral concerns for their opponents.
Furthermore, it is easier to get into debt than to get out of it, easier to harm international alliances than to establish them, easier to create laws and programs than to eliminate or even reduce them, and so on. The deck is stacked against the side of freedom and honor, now and forever.
Republicans must strike when they can, as often as they can, as hard as they can. Playing the long game clearly doesn’t work; nor do soft steps. History does not support the timidity of reigning Republican strategies.
Pseud’s recent post about Sharyl Attkisson fact-checking Trump’s passing remarks about McCain raises an interesting dilemma for journalists. How do you report on non-literal statements?
As I said in my comment there, I believe Trump was clearly being sarcastic when he said, ”[McCain] is a war hero because he was captured.” The implication, as evidenced by surrounding remarks, was that McCain is not a war hero because accidental suffering does not make one a hero. (That’s not to say Trump is correct or that he shouldn’t have followed the comment by acknowledging that McCain served with honor, at least. But that’s a discussion for other threads.)
Sarcasm and non-literal language are common forms of communication in modern Western societies. What are some guidelines for reporting such statements? It is easy to mistake tone and context, so to miss sarcasm or perceive it where it is not.
What other kinds of non-literal or even non-verbal communication should reporters generally mention or pointedly avoid?
Tone is often important. But can it be reported on somewhat objectively? What about body language?
In this interview (hat tip to Melissa P), Senator Ted Cruz explains why he believes Senator Jeff Sessions is mistaken in the claim that the Trans-Pacific Partnership proposal would undermine America’s sovereignty.
Cruz points out that the international body a trade agreement like this sets up is merely advisory. In a trade dispute, the court would mediate between the two nations to judge whether or not the original agreement has been honored. But it would not be able to enforce its judgement. That lack of force is the difference between a government and … well, that other thing.
It’s not clear why a standing court, theoretically neutral, is superior to mediating disputes more directly or by more spontaneous mediation. I welcome arguments for why an international body might be merited.
The weakness in Cruz’s argument is that it dismisses pragmatic reality in preference for technicality. One need only consider the United Nations to understand what I mean.
The UN is similarly an international forum and mediator without direct enforcement power over member nations. It is only as powerful as national politicians make it. But they have made it into a quite significant authority!
Americans are taxed for the United Nations, if not directly by the United Nations. According to The Heritage Foundation:
The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the Administration’s budget for FY 2011 requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget.
However, the U.S. also provides assessed financial contributions to other U.N. organizations and voluntary contributions to many more U.N. organizations. According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009. This is more than $1 billion more than total contributions as compiled by OMB for FY 2005, and it is indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.
In the 21st century, a “billion” is chump change. But the fact remains that the United States is committed to this regular expense, the appropriations of which are determined by non-Americans. That the commitment could theoretically be repealed is not different than saying any law could be repealed. Not funding the UN is as unthinkable in the District of Columbia as not publicly funding education.
More to the point, the UN has become a loosely governing body. Though American forces may act without UN approval, even Republican presidents treat the Security Council and the General Assembly as much more authoritative bodies than mere forums for consultation. Rather than deal only with select nations which share our interests on a particular issue at a particular time, our presidents look to the UN to form a general coalition with conflicting priorities. We even stomach the farce of sharia states condemning Israel for “hate” and “oppression” on our dime, and similar absurdities.
We need fewer international courts and political councils, not more. Practically speaking, we don’t create these mediating bodies to ignore them.
It seems to me that the Ricochet community could use some good news right now. So here it is:
The left tried to unionize McDonald’s and force a higher minimum wage; McDonald’s responded by minimizing the need for wages. I suspect fast food chains were headed in this direction anyway. If so, this was the extra incentive they needed to dive in. Thanks, unions!
Of course, the picture’s not entirely rosy. As someone pointed out on Facebook earlier, this could eliminate many thousands of entry-level jobs. Those jobs help teenagers begin a work history and help adults re-enter the work force, as well as provide assurance of job opportunities in economically depressed areas.
But I have faith that when one economic door closes another opens. The opportunities aren’t always available nearby. They aren’t always well-paying or fulfilling jobs. But — provided the nanny state will get the heck out of the way! — there are always new jobs being created.
During this week’s 
As I’m forced to point out from time to time, nobody complains about hours wasted on recreation like watching sports (and reading about sports, and talking about sports, and dreaming …) or watching TV. Many responsible adults devote entire weekends to such activities but are not thought childish or lazy for it.
Let me preface this by pointing out why non-Catholics and non-Christians might find this discussion worthwhile. First, Mexico is the United States’ largest source of immigrants (
Dave Carter alerted me to this 
Christianity is 
During his 
In 