iRad #3 now on the shelves at Firestorm Cafe and Books

(Answer: Y’all are all wrong. And y’all are all right, too.)

Incidentally, “Irene and me went down to bijou” is also perfectly good English and its use should be encouraged over the anxiously pretentious sounding and intensely overcorrection-prone “Irene and I.” Insisting on “… and I,” no matter what the cost to the sound or the scansion of the sentence, makes no more sense than walking around Paris telling people that their French is slovenly because they say “Irene et moi allâmes au cinéma” instead of “Irene et je.”

The use of singular “they” is good English and should be encouraged. In fact its use should be widened.

To-day @ Rad Geek People’s Daily [radgeek.com]: http://radgeek.com/gt/2013/08/08/non-lethal-force-israel-hernandez/ Non-Lethal Force (Cont’d).

Facebook just asked me whether or not I had seen Ralph Bakshi’s animated film of Lord of the Rings, pt. I; which of course I have, so I said that I had. Then they asked me to rate the movie on a scale of 1-5 stars, but the problem here is that on these star scales there is never any option for “Risible and bizarre far beyond the point of absurdity” or “This does not really seem like the kind of thing for which a rating of quality is appropriate; it should not so much be considered a film as a fact, or perhaps an object.” So instead of a star rating, I offer a link to this: http://www.flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

I wondered how long it would take, when I entered into arguments about Hiroshima, before the “It was a different time!” appeal to Patriotically Correct cultural relativism would come up. The answer is, less than 24 hours. http://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/1ju9fm/68_years_ago_today_815_am_local_time/cbj861z In other news, I have decided to stop protesting the repeated drone strikes on Yemeni civilians, because, hey, the most recent one happened before midnight U.S./Central Time, so it’s completely unfair to go around judging the Obama administration’s actions on Wednesday by the standards of today. http://radgeek.com/gt/2007/08/07/it_was/

Via Lester Spence. Caps added. “. . . While allowing claims against Mehserle to go to trial, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling last week stressed the role of the lead officer at the scene, Anthony Pirone. Based on a plausible view of the evidence, the court said July 30, Pirone had NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for forcing Grant and a friend off of a train and onto the platform, where the fatal encounter occurred. . . . “. . . The events leading to Grant’s death began as Pirone responded to a report of a fight on the train just before it reached Oakland’s Fruitvale Station in the early morning hours of New Year’s Day. He approached a group of young black men on the platform and pulled his Taser on them. When three of the men started to walk away, he ordered them to sit down, the court said. “Two others in the group, Grant and his friend Michael Greer, re-entered the train, but Grant, who had been involved in the fight, got out when Pirone shined his Taser beam on him. The officer then pulled Greer from the train, yanking him by the hair and knocking him down when Greer spun to face him, the court said. Pirone later slugged Grant in the head, saying he had seen Grant place a hand on the officer’s partner, Marysol Domenici. At that point, Pirone ordered Mehserle to arrest Grant and another man. Mehserle then pulled Grant down, and Pirone and Mehserle pinned him to the platform, facedown. . . . “. . . ‘Pirone encountered a group of black men who were doing nothing but talking when he arrived at the Fruitvale Station, were not committing any crimes, and posed no apparent threat that would justify his pulling a weapon and holding them,’ Murguia said.”

“. . . [T]his particular failing is merely symptomatic of a larger problem in the libertarian movement generally. One might call the problem knee-jerk anti-leftism, or in other words, automatically responding negatively to certain issues (at least when those issues aren’t obvious applications of libertarian principle, like drug legalisation) merely because those issues have typically been the concern of the left. “The knee-jerk anti-leftist infection – libertarians’ costly inheritance from their long alliance with conservatives against the genuine menace of state socialism – takes different forms in different sectors of the libertarian movement: softness on corporatism here, softness on militarism there, softness on white-male-hetero chauvinism somewhere else (with each such sector quick to denounce the flavour of deviation embraced by some other sector, but far less swift to recognise its own). A crucial aim of left-libertarianism, as I see it, is to help libertarianism recover its pre-conservative roots. . . .” ~ Roderick Tracy Long, “Left Behind” http://praxeology.net/unblog12-05.htm#11

Suppose that you have, somehow, conclusively proven that there is no way to have a modern war without massacreing innocent people. (*) That gives you an incompatibility claim between moralism and militarism — if, say, you go around categorically condemning tactics (like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, say, or the firebombing of Tokyo) for killing innocent people, then you’d end up having to condemn any modern war at all as immoral. Many people seem to use this argument as if it were an obvious reductio ad absurdum of moralism about military tactics. (“Oh, well, if it’s always immoral to bomb cities you can’t have any wars. That’s why it must not always be immoral to bomb cities.”) I honestly don’t know why so few people who give this argument ever even seem to have considered the possibility that their conversation partner might take it as an obvious reductio ad absurdum of militarism. (“Oh, well, if it’s always immoral to kill innocent people, you can’t bomb cities, and if you can’t bomb cities, you can’t have any wars. And that’s precisely why you shouldn’t have any wars.”) (* Actually, I think this has been more or less conclusively proven. And that’s precisely why you shouldn’t have any wars.)