"Known and Unknown"

Thus reads the title of Donald Rumsfeld's book, apparently taken from a remark that he made back in 2002 when he was the Secretary of Superciliousness, WMD's were all the craze, and the Iraqi-invasion die had been cast:  

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.  We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.  But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." 

It's little wonder the White Wabbit of Wherazona was recently heard to quip, "Whasup with that Wumsfeld? Thank god you was wewieved of you dwuties."                            
       

         

Two Bloviators Are Better Than One

O'Reilly vs. Beck on the popular uprising in Egypt!  (Which blatteroon is right when each is saying the other's wrong?)

The Brooksonian Institution

David Brooks is a voice in the wilderness within a profession prone to reflexiveness and little self-reflection.  No mere journalist, he has earned his place in  that "comradeship of letters," to cite Woodrow Wilson, "which is a very real [and venerable] comradeship because it is a comradeship of thought and principle."  Brooks raises the level of discourse on matters that happen to be in the public consciousness.  But he is at his best when raising the public consciousness on matters people do not  think about--such as consciousness, or our utter lack of it.  Brooks' fascinating piece on human nature, understanding and interactions appears in The New Yorker, and you can read it here.

Following is one of Brooks' premises--which hopefully will be a continuing literary theme of his:

"Intelligence, academic performance, and prestigious schools don't correlate well with fulfillment, or even  with outstanding accomplishment.  The traits that do make a difference are poorly understood, and can't be taught in a classroom, no matter what the tuition:  the ability to understand and inspire people; to read situations and discern the underlying patterns; to build trusting relationships; to recognize and correct one's shortcomings; to imagine alternate futures.  In short, these achievers have a sense that they are shallower than they need to be."

Portland

...or is that Portlandia. 

Dude!

Wordsmithing and Gunsmithing

The Second Amendment reads:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Antonin Scalia, penning the opinion of the Supreme Court in the 2008 case that struck down the District of Columbia ban on handguns, benignly launches into his analysis [i.e., transmogrification of the Constitution] by stating:  "In interpreting th[e] text of the Second Amendment, we are guided by the principle that 'th[e] Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning...Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."  According to the leading constitutional originalist of our day, the words of the amendment, "[a] well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," reflect the trepidation of "able-bodied men" of the 1780's that a tyranical federal government could quash their "ideal of a citizen militia which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down."  "During the 1788 ratification debates," Scalia tells us, "the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric."

Presumably, the words of the clause, "[a] well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," are to be given their "normal meaning," not some "secret or technical meaning" unknown "to ordinary citizens of the founding generation."  But Scalia deigns to assign the first words of the Second Amendment no meaning whatsoever, as they are merely prefatory, serving no other function than to clarify the purpose for which  the otherwise self-evident right "to keep and bear Arms" was constitutionally codified.  To put a Scalialistically fine point on it, the clause, "[a] well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a mere linguistic appendage, and surely should not be considered in any way to limit the people's right to keep and bear Arms...and Glock 19's in particular.  

So to all of the Antifederalists out there:  Take up your Arms!  (Best not call yourself a Militia, though.)

The Tucson Memorial

Notable:

The Secretary of Homeland Security reads from the Old Testament, Isaiah 40:3-5, where the Prophet speaks of "the voice in the wilderness" telling us that "every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain; and the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all people will see it together."

The Attorney General reads from the New Testament, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, where Paul writes: "Through God's mercy we have this ministry, and therefore we do not lose heart...; and though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day.  For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.  So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

And the President does not just eulogize a 9-year-old girl so much as hearken the broader theme of children, alluding to the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew 11:25 and 19:13-15, proclaiming that "things God has hidden from the learned and the wise, he has revealed to little children, and admonishing the former (and us) to "let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to them belongs the kingdom of heaven." 

So, it may be that politics should not presume to inform us in matters of scripture, but isn't it also the case that a bit more scripture would go a long way to informing us in matters of politics.

  

"I Get It"

When you hear somebody say this, you can bet that they probably don't.