Sometimes the old traditions speak more clearly to us than their modern descendants. Here's Maddy Prior with a medley of "Marigold" and "Harvest Home".
A happy and blessed Thanksgiving to all of you. May we give thanks where they are due, and seek renewed blessings for the year ahead.
Peter
I laughed out loud as I watched this video clip of an escaped goat in Detroit last weekend.
If that goat had tried that in our back yard, I suspect my wife and I would have been in serious competition to see who could shoot it first. We both like goat curry!
Peter
In a recent column, Janet Daley tried to put the great clash of modern politics into perspective. She addresses it in the context of American versus European politics, but points out - correctly - that the socialized European model is preached in America too by the Democratic Party, particularly its left-wing progressive movement. This "muddies the waters".
American voters ... are unabashed in their belief that the American way of life is based on an abiding principle: that individuals have an inalienable right to improve their circumstances in life by their own efforts. If they find that their aspiration and determination are frustrated by things that are beyond their control like inflation or competition for jobs from illegal migrants, they expect the government to act effectively on those problems. Traditionally in the United States, it has been believed that this was what government was for: to remove obstacles to individual achievement and progress.
Much more recently the European model of state intervention and the creation of a welfare state which is designed to protect the disadvantaged and to care for those who, it is believed, cannot succeed on their own, has been brought into the US electoral arena. It is espoused by Left liberals like Bernie Sanders and the new mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, who have gained a hearing but whose ideas are still considered exotic and profoundly at odds with mainstream discourse. It is important to appreciate this because, paradoxically, it could help to illuminate the identity crisis that European democracies are undergoing.
Americans who demand that the obstacles to individual success and personal advancement be removed – that it is, in fact, the most important function of government to remove them – do not see themselves as selfish or callous. On the contrary, they believe quite sincerely that they are upholding an important moral standard: individuals must fulfil their potential and make the effort to succeed as best they can in order to take responsibility for their own lives. Most importantly, to as great an extent as possible, they must see to it that their children will have greater opportunities for self-advancement than they did. That was, and still is, the great American promise.
. . .
This perfectly plausible moral view has been almost drowned out in European politics by generations of class-based ideology. The very idea of a public morality based on individualism – generally termed “selfish individualism” – was attacked. Then there was the inviolable credo that those who appeared to fail, even if they refused to try, were not to blame. Their bad choices were determined by the misfortune of their circumstances which were out of their control.
In some cases, of course, this would be true – but as a general principle applied to the whole of a population it became an insidious vindictive force: all those who succeeded were guilty of stealing wealth and advantage from all those who failed. Allowing people to prosper and achieve the rewards of their own ingenuity or hard work could not be acceptable because their success created inequality and was, in effect, a form of theft from those who lacked those fortunate traits. The only decent political solution was to take some of that advantage away and hand it out to those who, through no fault of their own, had achieved less. Wealth redistribution or, as it came to be known, “social fairness”, relied on the idea that even your apparent virtues – self-reliance, responsible behaviour, determination – were actually unfair privileges.
If your actions are constructive and conducive to success, that is just the good luck with which you happened to be gifted at birth. The problem for contemporary democracy is that a great many people believe this too. In fact, it is probably the case that a majority of the populations of Western countries believe both of these arguments – that people should be rewarded for succeeding by their own efforts, and that they should be penalised by having to support those who have not made an effort. It has simply become impossible for societies to sustain this contradiction any longer.
There's more at the link. I highly recommend following the link at the end of the excerpt to read more about how socialized policies are "destroying" the self-sufficient.
We're seeing this conflict of perspectives in America right now between "purists" who want to demolish the "nanny state", dismantle the "deep state", and restore the rights and freedoms of the individual over those of state overreach. On the other hand, there are those who complain that they're economically less well off than they were, and want the government - any government - to "make them whole", support them financially and in other ways so that they're not as exposed to the vicissitudes of the free market. I suspect that's at the root of why President Trump's popularity has decreased in recent months. He's doing a pretty good job of tearing down State overreach, but in doing so he's exposing those who were sheltered by that overreach to greater economic uncertainty, even pain - and they don't like it.
It's a tough discussion, particularly in a world where there are too many people competing for too few resources. It's all very well for free marketeers to proclaim that if only everyone were given unlimited opportunity, they'd all do better - because there are many who will not do better, either through laziness, or through corruption, or through too much competition for resources. The free market doesn't have all the answers, but neither does socialism or any of its offshoots.
I find this conundrum personally taxing, if I could put it like that. As a result of serving in a US government law enforcement function, I became permanently partially disabled, and have relied to some extent on the income that resulted from that disability. To that extent, I'm dependent on the government. Yet, I also see the point of those that say we as a society are too dependent on government, and should minimize that dependency wherever possible. For able-bodied people, I certainly support that approach, and did my best to live that way during the years prior to my injury. I'd find it very hard to do that today, but there are doubtless those who'd prefer me to "suck it up" and "tough it out". Needless to say, I don't find that encouraging!
We'll never find an answer that satisfies everyone, I guess.
Peter
Following our discussion last week of drones and their utility for defense of life and property, I found this article about how Mexican drug cartels are weaponizing drones against each other, and against the security forces.
Last month, three drones rigged with explosives detonated outside a prosecutor’s office in Tijuana, Mexico, besieging six cars parked outside with a blast of nails, BBs and metal fragments. The attack was orchestrated by a cartel, Mexican government officials confirmed, and targeted an anti-kidnapping unit of the Baja state attorney general’s office. It is the latest high-profile example of first-person view drones being used by cartels to replicate military tactics being used in Ukraine.
Defense News previously reported that members of Latin American drug cartels had joined Ukraine’s foreign fighter volunteer units to gain FPV drone training.
Earlier this year, a cartel ambush using an explosive drone in the border state of Chihuahua sent two Mexican military service members and one police officer to the hospital. Three drones were subsequently seized.
Attacks made by explosive-equipped drones surged to over 260 in 2023. In 2024, a drone ambush was reportedly followed by an infantry-style attack in a remote community in Mexico, according to AP.
“Nonstate actors can now acquire capabilities once reserved for nation-states,” writes Stephen Honan for the Atlantic Council on cartels’ increasing use of FPV drones. “Cartels are no longer merely criminal syndicates; they increasingly resemble hybrid entities blending organized crime, paramilitary force, and terrorist tactics.”
There's more at the link.
If the cartels are getting that sophisticated in Mexico, it's surely only a matter of time before they try using drones against the US Border Patrol and/or law enforcement agencies in an effort to get more drugs into this country, or attack rivals in the drug trade. I'd also expect to see them as a security device to guard marijuana plantations and drug "factories", detecting police raids or rival cartel operations before they strike.
There's also the question of airport security. Drone operations have shut down airports in Europe on several occasions recently. Nobody knows (yet) who's behind them, but suspicion centers around Russia, which is at war with Ukraine and is hostile to European nations helping the latter country. Asymmetric warfare is nothing new, and drones merely add another string to the bow of that sort of warfare.
This makes me even more certain that it will be a good idea to learn how to use a drone, partly for reasons of local security during times of unrest, wildfire or other danger, and partly to understand how to defend against them in the hands of local gangs or drug dealers. You can bet the gang-bangers have already realized how useful these things can be to plot crimes or keep an eye out for patrolling police, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more of them being used for such purposes.
My "el cheapo" drone arrived yesterday, and over the next couple of weeks I'm going to start figuring out how to use it. If I crash it, it won't hurt my wallet too much, as drones costing less than $50 - some less than $10 - are freely available and affordable. If the learning process goes well, I can look at upgrading to something more effective when funds are available. If I understand the little beasts better, I can defend against them - and their operators - better as well.
Food for thought - and action.
Peter
I've never thought of "Thanksgiving" and "pizza" in the same breath . . . but after reading this news report, that's changed.
Pino’s Pizza of Deer Park has something savory to be thankful for this Turkey Day — their viral Thanksgiving pizza pie, which is served with sliced roasted turkey breast, gravy, sausage and apple cornbread stuffing and topped off with cranberry sauce.
Barbieri has since expanded his Thanksgiving-themed offerings to include calzones, stromboli and empanadas — all stuffed with the same ingredients.
There's more at the link.
Here's a video report on the gastronomic monstrosity.
I'm hungry just looking at that thing! It seems Americans will put anything on a pizza . . . and in this case, it looks like a winner.
What strange or alternative pizzas have you made and/or eaten, dear readers? Surprise us with your stories and recipes in Comments.
Peter
Gathered from around the Internet over the past week. Click any image for a larger view.
A fusion blast from the past this morning. British group Colosseum were (and still are, in a new incarnation) what Wikipedia describes as "an English jazz rock band, mixing blues, rock and jazz-based improvisation". I've seldom heard all three of those musical genres combined successfully in a single piece of music, let alone an entire repertoire, but Colosseum were pretty good. Their jazz rock rendition of Ravel's Bolero is a standout in the field of classical music adapted to modern electronic instruments.
For this morning, I've chosen one of their original compositions, the Valentyne Suite, released on the album of the same name in 1969. It's attracted a cult following among the group's fans. It's in three parts:
"Theme One: January's Search" (6:20) "Theme Two: February's Valentyne" (3:37) "Theme Three: The Grass is Always Greener" (6:52)
Peter
