At Long Last … Grhmph … Links?

Travel travel.

  1. So. I sorta missed a lot of Ferguson kerfuffle. Aside from the “we’re angry, scared, and affronted … therefore let’s loot lots of innocent bystanders shops” logic fail. Very few facts are out so most noise and nonsense seems to me to be just that. This however, may give some useful information going forward.
  2. In the context of Ferguson, liberals still striving to keep the black man down.
  3. Of course, she’s waiting for the GOP field to flesh out. (or not)
  4. Mr Perry was indicted apparently. So, if the GOP was not behind the indictment … explain why since everyone (pundits and others) “knows” that an impeachment of Mr Obama would (a) not lead to a conviction and (b) aid the Democrats in 2014 midterms, why do the similar (presumably Democrats) think that a weak indictment of Mr Perry which (a) would not lead to conviction and why the don’t think the “b” supposition is also not true.
  5. The wisdom of our press.
  6. An answer to the eagles in book one LOTR question.
  7. I ordered the book … (see item 2 above … alongside the why do liberals hate Asians?)
  8. Well, guesses 1-10 are wrong, and likely somewhat bigoted. The right answer is “one who forgets (a) “judge not lest you be judged” and from which follows the question who is the righteous judge, to which we know the answer.
  9. The greatest sentence? The Orthodox Christian answer would be the Jesus Prayer. A physicist would say Emmy Noether’s theorem.
  10. Drones on the move.

14 responses to “At Long Last … Grhmph … Links?

  1. #6

    1. Why would he say ‘fly you fools’ hoping someone ‘got it’? He was never shown to have told any of the 9 about escaping via the eagles. How would they have guessed ‘fly’ meant not only ‘take the eagles’ but also ‘turn north and meet them in the Misty Mountains?

    2. If this was the plan, he would have probably told the company in Moria. Why? Because they would have had to have turned north instead of south after leaving the mines, which would have sparked all sorts of questions.

    3. Gandalf is shown to be able to get messages to the eagles by capturing a butterfly and talking to it. Why wouldn’t he have done that to change the meeting spot?

    4. Why wouldn’t the eagles keep tabs on the 9 leaving Rivendale, thereby allowing them to choose the optimal meeting spot?

    Finally, Tom Bombadil.

    Tom represents an ‘odd’ element in the story. http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/08/07/76632-lego-finally-reveals-why-tom-bombadil-never-made-it-in-lord-of-the-rings-movies/ hits the nail on the head:

    Tolkein wrote:

    Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some pan, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental – and therefore much will from that ‘point of view’ be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion – but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that pan of the Universe

    In other words, he presents a whole world and as such there’s a lot that’s left unsaid because his focus was on the story of the Ring. (Example, he warns Bilbo there are ‘many magic rings in Middle Earth, none should be trifled with lightly’. Yet no other magic rings are mentioned in LOTR and related materials.

    So why not take the eagles? Because the eagles don’t care. They will occasionally do favors for Gandalf (and it’s been speculated Radagast, the unseen good wizard who obsesses with nature rather than people might have been behind the scenes ‘helping’), but they also aren’t going out of their way. They can’t be drafted into an army on behalf of Middle Earth’s men.

    Notice the eagle question arises in The Hobbit too. The eagles rescue Bilbo and company, but why not take them all the way to the Lonely Mountain?

  2. Boonton,

    In other words, he presents a whole world and as such there’s a lot that’s left unsaid because his focus was on the story of the Ring. (Example, he warns Bilbo there are ‘many magic rings in Middle Earth, none should be trifled with lightly’. Yet no other magic rings are mentioned in LOTR and related materials.

    Untrue. In LOTR the elves have three rings, men 9, and I don’t remember how many the dwarves had. These are mentioned. Gandalf had one. Galadriel had another. You seem to not include the many appendices to volume 3 of LOTR as part of LOTR (not to speak of the Silmarilion).

    Notice the eagle question arises in The Hobbit too. The eagles rescue Bilbo and company, but why not take them all the way to the Lonely Mountain?

    The crises Bilbo & Thorin are dealing with is not continent wide in impact like Sauron’s return would be.

  3. Those clearly could not have been the rings Gandalf was talking about. He certainly didn’t think Bilbo found one of the 9 rings given to men. All the other rings were accounted for except some of the 7 given to Dwarf lords (regardless, they had no particular magic power except helping them find gold). The clear implication is that there were other magical rings in Middle Earth besides the Rings of Power. When Gandalf realized Bilbo had a magic ring, he suspected but did not know for sure it was a Ring of Power and then he realized it was the One Ring.

    If those were all the rings in Middle Earth then what would Gandalf say when he realized Bilbo had a magic ring? There were only maybe 3 or 4 unaccounted for Rings of Power, one of which was the One Ring. That alone would have merited a major decision, not more research to confirm.

    The crises Bilbo & Thorin are dealing with is not continent wide in impact like Sauron’s return would be.

    But would it be for the eagles? Even if Sauron ruled the continent much of trees and nature would go abou their business unaffected, just as Tom Bombadil would have probably been unaffected. Again Tolkein was being very clear, just because the story focuses on the War doesn’t change the fact that it was a whole world and other things unrelated to the war happened and were happening. The Eagles were probably not interested to do all that much for men and wizards just as men and wizards appear unaware and uninterested in whatever battles or problems the Eagles themselves might have been having.

  4. Aside from the “we’re angry, scared, and affronted … therefore let’s loot lots of innocent bystanders shops” logic fail.

    Protest, being about emotion, is often not a pragmatic (or as you say logic) means to an end. Have you ever been in an argument where you got so enraged you broke something or smashed your fist against some object like a wall? It’s totally correct to say that breaking the object or smashing you fist had no logical connection to addressing whatever problem you were angry about, yet the expression of that emotion is just as real as the logic of the problem.

    Of course, that doesn’t remove moral responsibility for your actions. If you smash up someone else’s property you are no less morally wrong if you did it as an expression of your emotion than if you did it as a coldly rational means to some end.

  5. 5.The wisdom of our press.

    Of course vetern reporters who spent time in war torn places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran Ukraine or in places undergoing revolutions like Egypt or Syria would probably have known the difference without the need to ask. But that misses the point, there’s no reason why a reporter covering stuff happening in an American city or town should have to have any knowledge of heavy weapons at all.

  6. Boonton,

    But that misses the point, there’s no reason why a reporter covering stuff happening in an American city or town should have to have any knowledge of heavy weapons at all.

    “rubber bullets” = “heavy weapons”. No. But if you’re a reported talking about guns and gun violence at all, you’d think they’d actually know what an actual cartridge, bullet, and gun might look like. Mistaking a industrial/commercial noise/hearing protection earplug for a rubber bullet is naive enough that the mockery is deserved. Calling an ear protector “heavy weapons” is even worse.

  7. Boonton,

    Have you ever been in an argument where you got so enraged you broke something or smashed your fist against some object like a wall?

    Not since I was an adolescent. Are you pretending the rioter/looters are all teenagers? They aren’t.

    Of course, that doesn’t remove moral responsibility for your actions. If you smash up someone else’s property you are no less morally wrong if you did it as an expression of your emotion than if you did it as a coldly rational means to some end.

    Like terror, it also weakens the point you might be trying to make, if not (like terror) dissolve it entirely.

  8. Not since I was an adolescent. Are you pretending the rioter/looters are all teenagers? They aren’t.

    Beats me, what does that matter? It doesn’t take an army to smash a window, it takes but a single person. Looting becomes a bit different in that there’s a pile on effect. Once the door is broken down and people start taking stuff people who would normally not do anything like that will join in on the logic that the entire store is going to be looted anyway so why not grab something for themselves. Regardless I’m sure in almost all riot type situations 90% of the violence/damage is done by 10% of the participants…or even less.

    Like terror, it also weakens the point you might be trying to make, if not (like terror) dissolve it entirely.

    I think the point stands or falls on its own merits. If instead of smashing Jewish owned property, Germans on Kristalnacht had simply organized peaceful anti-semetic protests that wouldn’t have added any merit to the ‘points’ the Nazis wanted to make. Likewise if the police in a locality have systemic problems, that doesn’t become less of an issue because someone does something wrong in reaction. That’s the thinking that caused some people to excuse the beating of Reginold Denny on the grounds that Rodney King’s beaters ‘got away with it’.

  9. Boonton,

    It doesn’t take an army to smash a window, it takes but a single person. Looting becomes a bit different in that there’s a pile on effect. Once the door is broken down and people start taking stuff people who would normally not do anything like that will join in on the logic that the entire store is going to be looted anyway so why not grab something for themselves. Regardless I’m sure in almost all riot type situations 90% of the violence/damage is done by 10% of the participants…or even less.

    As pointed out elsewhere, using a low velocity (silenced/suppressed) .22 to put a round in the lung of the four of five agitators at the beginning of a riot works really well to quell the riot. The Israeli’s have actually (I read) done this and it works. At the start of a riot, typically there are a few loud instigators egging everyone on. A .22 in the lung with modern medicine is almost never fatal, but invariably focuses the rioter’s mind on other than instigating riot.

    And anyhow, I’m mostly mocking the “gosh I’m affronted by incident X, so in response I’m going to steal a TV and some sneakers” response. Although it also might indicate a more general moral lapse in which there may be, among these inner-city poor, a notion that the reason they don’t steal more is that they might get caught, not that it is wrong. I was somewhat troubled last week hanging out with the 22 y/old project manager recounting his and his friends “go ahead, take it, I’m only making min wage, I have no reason to stop you” attitude. I commented another time mentioning the “if you get paid, you ride for the brand” phrase, which he found totally foreign.

  10. Although it also might indicate a more general moral lapse in which there may be, among these inner-city poor, a notion that the reason they don’t steal more is that they might get caught, not that it is wrong

    Certainly you are not this thick. Of course some portion of crime doesn’t happen because people think (wrongly or not) that they will get caught. If that perception is relaxed (say in a mass riot where the police are otherwise occupied), of course you’ll see an increase in criminal acts. This is why the national guard is often called out when a hurricane or other natural diaster causes large areas to be evaculated. The temptation for looting goes up and has to be countered.

    I’m mostly mocking the “gosh I’m affronted by incident X, so in response I’m going to steal a TV and some sneakers”

    Who is this exactly? Have you spoken to someone who stole sneakers in response to an incident that had nothing to do with the merchant? I doubt anyone who actually does such things talk like this, you are just conversing with your own imagination rather than real humans. I suspect what they would say is that they were ‘caught in the moment’ (which is, in fact, almost to the word what one of Reginold Denny’s attackers said when asked about it years later).

  11. Boonton,

    If that perception is relaxed (say in a mass riot where the police are otherwise occupied), of course you’ll see an increase in criminal acts.

    You contradict your “not this thick” assertion. I offer that it is problematic that the reason you don’t commit crimes is because the police presence/response is flawed, and you counter it by noting of course crime will increase if police presence is lessened. My point was “The temptation for looting goes up and has to be countered” … said “temptation” is what I offer is partially part of a more general moral lapse than just being caught up in the moment. Look this rioting goes on for more than just a few minutes. Plenty of time for a person to actually come to his senses and ask self, “wtf am I doing?”. I was caught in the moment for hours and hours may be the story you tell yourself afterwards. But it isn’t credible. There has to be a point where you convince yourself this is justified because either you figure your crime is victim-less (it isn’t) or somehow your situation means you “deserve” the stuff you’re stealing (you don’t).

  12. I offer that it is problematic that the reason you don’t commit crimes is because the police presence/response is flawed, and you counter it by noting of course crime will increase if police presence is lessened.

    First of all, you seem to be veering towards the singular ‘you’ when we are talking about a plural. In any gathering of people you are going to have a diversity of different types of moral development. Some people don’t steal because they fear being caught. Others don’t steal because peer pressure is opposed to stealing. Some don’t steal out of loyality to something like the Golden Rule tinged with rational selfishness (if I steal, so will others, and since there are more others than me I’m more likely to be the victim of theft than it’s beneficary) Others don’t steal because they have higher level philosophical beliefs against stealing. Some won’t steal because they have ingrained it as against their nature or character.

    This probably goes for you as an individual too. There are probably lots of minor wrongs you avoid every day for a host of reasons…some elevated (“I shall not take more than one donut when I didn’t pay for them as that leaves less for everyone else”) and some pretty mundane (“won’t run that red light since it may be one that has a camera on it and I’ll get a huge ticket”).

    So if we ask why is Mark not raping, killing, stealing, cheating, etc. we are going to get a bunch of answers or ‘forces’ that keep Mark a relatively good person. Start removing some of those forces and the probability of Mark doing something not so nice starts going up. Get 100 Marks together and we can say something may happen and the picture gets complicated. One Mark loots, another Mark that was held back by peer pressure now has less reason to hold back. A third Mark who thought that there was still a chance of being caught now feels safer looting if others are doing it. Etc. Etc.

    Plenty of time for a person to actually come to his senses and ask self, “wtf am I doing?”. I was caught in the moment for hours and hours may be the story you tell yourself afterwards. But it isn’t credible

    IMO it’s actually more credible. Quite often it appears we make our moral decisions in a ‘snap’ manner and only later rationalize it with long winded explanations of our ‘thought process’. The guy who beat Denny and later said he was ‘caught in the moment’ is to me much more honest than the guy who claims he did it to address an imbalanced society which promotes violence towards the oppressed etc. What is most likely going thru the guys head, IMO, is the ‘moment’ with an onrush of anger, excitement and other intense emotions that switch off the brains’ reasoning functions.

    Now if you want moral responsibility perhaps it should be with failing to train yourself. If you avoid stealing only because of peer pressure and fear of getting caught, you may very well end up stealing should you discover yourself in the middle of a riot. This would be a moral failure on your part but it’s a failure that happened before you actually stole anything. You have a moral obligation to avoid wrongdoing hence you have a duty to take preventative measures of either avoiding temptations or ensuring that you are strong enough to resist them.

  13. Eagles and LOTR
    http://eldorion.com/lore/eagles/

    Seems to provide some reasons why they weren’t used. More important question IMO, why did Sauron leave the mountain and its single pass unguarded? Was the possibility of the ring being destroyed really a tactic that didn’t occur tohim?

  14. Boonton,

    why did Sauron leave the mountain and its single pass unguarded? Was the possibility of the ring being destroyed really a tactic that didn’t occur tohim?

    Well, that was in fact, in LOTR Gandalf’s hope for the strategy and his explanation for why it was successful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>