Blogs > Cliopatria > Noted Here and There ...

Mar 8, 2005

Noted Here and There ...




Nuclear Option: Even if you think use of the"nuclear option" to end the threat of a filibuster in the United States Senate would be a serious mistake, you might be interested in knowing that a) the House once had filibusters and b) there's an interesting story about how they were ended. Credit: Thomas B. Reed. John A. Barnes has the story on"Reed's Rules." I especially like the part where a member of the Democratic minority in the House is quietly sharpening his bowie knife against the heel of his boot. Thanks to Jason Broander at Maroonblog for the tip.

Blog Them Out of the What? The title of Mark Grimsley's new blog, Blog Them Out of the Stone Age, is gonna be a challenge for space on Cliopatria's Blogroll, but it's a good indication of his intentions for the future of doing military history. And when he tells you about George A."Custer and the Art of the Blog," you know that he's serious. Grimsley understands that, in many ways, the notion of a radical academy is an illusion, especially when you're talking about historians. We're a stodgy crew. But, mark his word, we are called to profess and how better to do it than with a blog? The day is coming when you will be judged by your fruits and a history department chairperson will say unto you:"Young man, we like your credentials and your campus visit was terrific, but where the hell's your blog and your website?" Or,"young lady, the job would have been yours, but for lack of a website and a blog." That is, if he or she is being straightforward with you.

Faith and History: For years, no one but religionists and theologians would touch the subject. When Cliopatria last engaged it, almost a year ago now, there was a huge donnybrook. The battle waxed so hot and heavy there for a while, I recall, that even Chris Pettit of all people tried to calm the waters. Increasingly, however, serious historians are engaging the issues. Historians don't get much more serious than Penn's Bruce Kuklick, Columbia's Richard Bushman, and Wheaton's Mark Noll. They're engaged in"Believing History." Kuklick argues that the same historical rationality that causes many non-Mormon historians to wonder at Bushman's acceptance of Joseph Smith's revelations should cause all historians to wonder at the miraculous faith claims of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Monotheist Indifference?Sepoy at Chapati Mystery wonders why Muslim scholars, who so actively translated Greek, Aramaic, Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian texts, were so slow to translate Hindu texts. Like, a millenium is slow, he suggests.

No Real Danger Here:"The Manolo he does not wish to go all Foucault on you ...."

Recruitment Difficulties: A Pentagon study suggests that recent military recruitment failures are severely compounded by a steep decline of African-American volunteers. From 23.5% of volunteers in fiscal 2000, they are down to 13.9% in the first four months of fiscal 2005. The latter figure is more in keeping with the African American percent of the American population, but the 40% decline in African American recruits is a big share of the overall recruitment decline and a step away from a major traditional means of social mobility for African Americans.

Get This Man Some Relief!: I'm still trying to understand Scott McLemee's line,"... if the only way to get publicity were to perform as a circus geek, it would be dangerous to be a chicken in the vicinity of David Horowitz." I'm collecting signatures on a petition to David Horowitz to get McLemee and the rest of us into the Net. We want in, David! No more of your exclusionary blacklisting schemes. We will not go quietly into that dark night!

America and Iraq: Jim Henley puts the killing of an Italian secret service agent by American soldiers in Iraq into a larger context. His"Understanding Neo-Imperialism" at Unqualified Offerings should be read in its entirety, but here's his powerful conclusion:

Here is the Highest Law in Iraq today: Thou shalt not frighten an American soldier. Not"kill," not"attack." Put in fear of his (or her) life. This is a capital crime subject to immediate arraignment, instantaneous investigation and summary execution of sentence. If your most important goal is to safeguard the lives of American troops, this law makes perfect sense. It was not propounded by Iraqis, though, who were not even consulted about it and have, still, no veto power over it. It was not adopted with the consent of the governed. How did that come about? We decided. No country where such a law obtains is"free" in the sense that the US is free, or, well, Italy is free. No Iraqi jury, nor even Iraqi bureaucrat will pass judgment on the actions of the soldiers at that checkpoint. Americans will.
It is dangerous for a people to arrogate that much power to themselves, even, or especially, when they see themselves as Doing Good. When we still had conservatives in this country, they knew that.
I could not have said it better myself and you will not even understand it until you realize that those who claim to be conservatives in contemporary America are anything but that.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Ralph E. Luker - 3/9/2005

To begin with, most Democrats are _not_ socialists. The regulatory state and welfare capitalism have little to do with socialism, which espouses state ownership of the means of production. When did you last hear of a Democrat demanding that the United States government rightly owns and manages American corporations, industry and technology? Never, right?
What passes for Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, in the United States are matters of small degrees of difference. Both parties are fairly big tents. Else how do Betsy Hoffman, Ward Churchill, Jason Nelson, and Ralph Luker all call themselves Republicans?


Jason Nelson - 3/9/2005

Mr. Luker,

Would words would you use to descibe the political divide in the county. It seems that simply using "liberal" for the Democrats and "conservatives" for the Republicans strikes you as inaccurate.

Would you use the terms "liberal" for so-called conservatives and "socialists" for Democrats? I am really just seeking your viewpoint on what I consider an important issue. You can learn alot from those with which you disagree, at least that is what I believe.


Jason Nelson - 3/9/2005

Dr. Luker,

Thank you.


Ralph E. Luker - 3/9/2005

Mr. Nelson, The word is "dissonance." Why do I doubt that you are losing sleep over this? There is a reputable conservative tradition that values established institutions, that is cautious about change, and that respects the importance of social order. Unlike liberalism, it is not an extension of free market capitalist values and, thus, it has almost nothing to do with most of what gets called "conservative" in contemporary America. If you read enough Edmund Burke or if you read enough Garry Wills or if you read the English distributists or the American agrarians, you will encounter a more authentic conservatism than you have thus far encountered.


Jason Nelson - 3/9/2005

Mr. Luker,

It seems that you were campaigning to get on a sort of Horowitz "blacklist". Im sorry I was slow to catching on. In that case my request to be included at Cliopatria in a way has already been granted. Im sure Im already on your "blacklist", being a troll and all. Im pretty sure know that you will deny my offer to diversify your magnificent stable of commentators and thinkers. This is a terrible personal disappointment, but I'll get over it.


Jason Nelson - 3/9/2005

Mr. Luker,

It seems to me that you want so much to be a part of Mr. Horowitz's site, and you consider his "blacklisting" an insult. I see this as an opportunity. Since your are against withholding membership to an exclusive group as a matter of principle, would you be open to allowing me to post on your site? I would love it, and it would add a bit of needed diversity to your already magnificent lineup of esteemed scholars. For starters, I am not a scholar. Diversity is terrific and a cornerstone of our pluralistic society, don't you think?


Jason Nelson - 3/9/2005

Mr. Luker,

I know that we have had our differences, but here I am with my hat in my hand. Could you please give me 3 or 4 examples of other conservative thinkers that have influenced you or that you agree with? I am experiencing some uncomfortable dissidence when I think about how you self identify yourself as a conservative, and how I disagree with so many of your "conservative" views, yet I also self identify myself as a conservative. I am earnestly seeking knowledge and understanding here Mr. Luker. If you would like to educate me on what it is to be a true conservative, please give me something to work with. This is not an attempt to further our less than civil exchanges, I truly am asking because I want to know. It keeps me up at nights trying to answer this question. I know that you could just let me suffer if you see fit, but you would miss an opportunity to educate, and after all, you are an educator. Thank you in advance for any guidance you might give me.


Jeff Vanke - 3/8/2005

But Jonathan, that's like my local classical music station that tells us at the end of a fund-drive that they are still X away from their goal of Y. They basically never tell us how today's Y relates to last season's or last year's Y, in part because that station is getting rich from webcasting.

(About the last legislation Jesse Helms sponsored was a compromise with the classical music recording industry so that this station didn't have to pay high royalties.)

If I have to guess at the comparative raw numbers, I need a lot of incentive to put in the time. I stopped giving to the station when they made what I believed to be idle and scare-mongering threats of going off the air, when their finances were actually going from good to great.

Likewise for the Army numbers. Surely journalists can do the research and give me a table. But no, he-said she-said will suffice for them, once again.


Jonathan Dresner - 3/8/2005

It does tell you something, though. The recruiting targets are based on two things: what they think they need and what they think they can get. If they're not meeting their own targets then that is bad either for their recruiting strategies or, more importantly, their staffing needs.

My recollection, though is that they've been ratcheting down recruiting targets for a couple of years now, because they were having trouble filling billets.


Jeff Vanke - 3/8/2005

Ralph, Most articles on recruiting trends deal in percentages rather than raw numbers. This is a case of apples and oranges. Comparing the fulfillment of recruiting targets in 2004 vs. 2000 tells me very little, unless I know the absolute numbers of the respective targets (and of recruits, etc.).