|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 1, 2019 19:34:12 GMT -8
When I lived in Japan exactly 40 years ago, we foreigners soon found out how poor a sense of direction most Japanese seemed to have. A joke which made the rounds in those days was that it was not amazing that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, rather what was amazing was that they found it.
The consensus was that the attackers simply followed a couple of pilots who knew how to navigate hoped they knew where they were going.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 2, 2019 8:08:16 GMT -8
LOL. That’s a good one.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 10, 2019 22:20:56 GMT -8
For what it is worth, here is a link to some guy's "Best Western Novels" which I found interesting. Best Western NovelsI must admit I have some doubts about his recommendations as he thinks "The Virginian" is not one of the best. He even says that he couldn't get through it. Those comments show me he has a lack of taste. I found "The Virginian" an excellent book and even wrote a review for ST. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 11, 2019 7:05:03 GMT -8
I've seen a goodly number of Western movies and TV series, but for some reason I never went into Western books. Of those listed, I did read Centennial, but that reflects my tendency to read James Michener. I also read Michael Crichton and thus probably read his book on Cope and Marsh and the "bone was", but I don't recall for sure. I've certainly read at least one novel on the subject as well as a non-fiction account.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 9, 2020 8:51:51 GMT -8
This book will never receive a formal review, thus the “Books in Progress” topic: Conan Doyle for the Defense. I’m using the strategy of skipping through the junk about Slater (who basically was framed by the police via a combination of hostility, prejudice, laziness, and incompetence). From what I’ve read, there is little interest in these parts. But there is interests in the parts when this New York Times writer actually discusses Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes, Joseph Bell, or the evolving standards and practices of law enforcement. There are even some unintentionally interesting parts where you get into the mind of a “Progressive.” This New York Times chick writes: This statement could be viewed as descriptive, and not necessarily sharing the author’s views. But I doubt it. The writer gives a laundry list of more primitive methods and beliefs regarding crime and criminals.
There’s little doubt that law enforcement techniques have progressed and become more humane. But does that lead to the calculus, as “Progressives” believe, that therefore sin is but a barbaric, old-fashioned notion and that “crime” is only ever an ethical lapse? The “moral agent” aspect seems to disappear unless it’s a “crime” against their Holy of Holies (homosexuality, “climate change,” Islam, welfare, anti-Americanism, victimhood status of "minorities," etc.) It’s difficult to consider the human species as intelligent when it is so prone to tunnel thinking and prejudice. We see this play out in the Left’s view of everyone outside of Western Civilization. Their calculus is “Western Civilization is so inherently flawed that not only can we make no right-or-wrong judgments about others, but we must treat them as morally superior and due various forms of restitution.” This kind of thing was surely in the mind of our anti-American president, Barack Obama, regarding the Iran deal, for instance. American was considered automatically wrong and “the other” deemed in need of some form of restitution or favoritism. And we see the fake pope, Francis, driven by the same ideology, overturning nearly every traditional Catholic notion as outdated and inferior. Are they right? If we no longer pillory people for various crimes, or sew a scarlet letter to a dress, does that mean this arrow of reform will and must end in the handing of crime as a mere “misguided ethical choice,” whatever that is? |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 9, 2020 9:33:05 GMT -8
When I first saw Brad posting on the subject, I thought it had to do with another case which Conan Doyle pursued and proved that a convicted man was innocent.
PBS had a program on this case a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 9, 2020 10:33:23 GMT -8
George Edalji is probably the best known of ACD's cases. Of course, I've read a couple of biographies of him, so naturally I was already familiar with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 9, 2020 10:41:35 GMT -8
Clarence Darrow thought of crime in psychological terms, as a mental illness that needed treatment. He thus opposed specific jail terms -- the criminal should be treated for as long as necessary. No more and no less.
Of course, his attitude had results that L. Sprague de Camp discussed in his book on the Scopes trial (The Great Monkey Trial, as I recall). De Camp noted the Persian proverb, "To be kind to the tiger is to be curel to the lamb" and noted that Darrow never seemed to be concerned about the plight of crime victims.
Incidentally, I once saw a photo of Darrow in a trial, and the best portrayal of him on screen might have been in Compulsion, based on the novel by Meyer Levin. I don't remember the actor and don't feel like bringing up wikipedia to find out, but his appearance evidently was more accurate than Spencer Tracy's in Inherit the Wind. (That movie also featured too sometime TV stars, Dick York and Harry Morgan.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 9, 2020 10:49:44 GMT -8
While people like Darrow (lawyer) and psychiatrists/psychologists may actually believe such crap, it should never be forgotten that the imposition of such beliefs upon society goes a long way to providing a very good livelihood for these people.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 9, 2020 12:00:35 GMT -8
I try to keep an open mind. It’s apparent that hell-holes such as Devil’s Island or Peterhead (where Slater was being punished) probably don’t do much to deter criminal activity and are very much institutionalized sadism. As this liberal New York Times writer writes (and I think she’s correct), the rules in such places are haphazard and lead to guards simply making them up as they see fit.
Too much punishment serves no useful purpose. Nor does haphazard punishment.
But then you look at the reverse, where people are considered not to be moral agents in their own lives. This could describe the philosophy toward “the homeless” who are not seen as being lazy, as alcoholics, as abusers of drugs, or anything like that. Aside from the real cases of mental illness, they are assumed to be the detritus of an unfair and evil capitalist society. They are like the innocent dolphins being caught in fishermen’s nets.
But one has to also ask honestly: Does treating people as not being moral agents in their own lives serve anything but a destructive purpose?
It’s laughable to say that crime is basically an “ethical lapse.” Steve Martin has a good joke similar to this on one of his comedy albums. It’s about how to be a millionaire and never pay taxes. The shtick is “First, get a million dollars.” But what do you do when the IRS comes calling and says that you have never paid taxes? Martin advises a person to use that under-used way out, “I forgot.”
He extends this advice to other things. He continues: “Say you’re on trial for armed robbery. You tell the judge, ‘I forgot armed robbery is illegal.’”
Perfect. That’s in perfect harmony with the idea that crime is simply about “ethical lapses.”
I can tell you without doubt that there are habitual cheaters among us. And that we will all cheat if the circumstances reach some doable threshold. And I’ll also tell you that in a world of cheaters, cheating the cheaters may not be legal but it can be ethical. So we get to the Kungian rule of “Life is complicated.”
Still, if you murder your neighbor to gain his wife, is that an “ethical lapse”? Is a person who commits such an act only in need of an institutional hug and a chance to contemplate (her word, not mine) their acts?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 9, 2020 12:40:07 GMT -8
Speaking of Dr. Joseph Bell, it would not be fair to say that Conan Doyle was influenced by him. It would be closer to the truth to say that he copied him.
There are plenty of sections in the Sherlock Holmes stories where Holmes is challenging Watson to make what he can out of some physical clue. One of the better episodes of this is in “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle.” A man drops his hat when accosted on the street. Commissionaire Peterson brings Holmes this fellow’s hat and the small mystery of who the hat might belong to. Holmes deduces this from the hat:
And his wife ceases to love him. I confess, reading these stories, this stuff always seemed somewhat fanciful to me, even for fiction.
But now, here is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s account of a teaching moment with Bell (followed by another account):
Okay. Not so fanciful. My bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 9, 2020 12:55:20 GMT -8
I think I've read both of those examples of Dr. Bell at work, but then I had an extensive collection of Holmes-related material, including biographies of Dr. Bell and of Adam Worth aka "the Napoleon of Crime" (I give you two guesses who he may have inspired, but you should only need one). The first example is especially well known, being the example most often used. Such deductions in the canon are often called sherlockisms -- and they were one of his defining characteristics. You would probably be hard pressed to find a canonical story without them.
In fact, one way I judge Holmes pastiches is by their use of sherlockisms. Some do a good job.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 10, 2020 8:59:26 GMT -8
I skipped my way through the end of this book. I can’t really recommend it. But if you don’t mind skipping through, there are some good parts.
Conan Doyle had a rule for what makes a gentleman. It went something like this:
1) Chivalry towards women
2) Being honorable and responsible regarding matters of money.
3) Fair and good treatment of those in lower stations than oneself.
He actually fell in love with a woman while married. And he apparently was faithful to his wife (who was ill) for several years. And then promptly married this other woman when she died.
Of course the liberal New York Times writer doesn’t like the idea of men being chivalrous to women. But it occurs to me that when a man (pretending to be a woman) tries to enter an athletic contest against women, what is needed is the boyfriend of one of these women to punch this guy in the nose.
Anyway, things ended strangely between Conan Doyle and Slater. Slater received some kind of settlement from the government. Conan Doyle submitted his modest expenses for his part in freeing Slater and Slater refused to pay.
What was revealed, of course, was that Slater — although innocent of the murder — was still not a gentlemen. As well off as Conan Doyle was, you’d figure you’d just right off the relatively small amounts. But apparently it will stick in his craw very harshly if you cross his sense of honor. And Slater did.
Slater did eventually agree, through lawyers, to pay Conan Doyle £250.
I think the one success of this book is the picture it painted of Conan Doyle. This libtard writer likely characterized him correctly because there were many obvious instances when it was made plain where she thought Conan Doyle fell short. In my view (almost in every instance) I put it on the positive side of the scales. But I think the details about him were probably correct.
His rules for being a gentleman are substantial and not frivolous. These are not the rules of some upper class twit who simply believes being a “gentleman” has to do with proper and ostentatious displays of wealth and dress.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 10, 2020 9:02:57 GMT -8
Anyone reading the Sherlock Holmes stories can get a good idea of the author's views. Despite his religious skepticism, he retained a good bit of Victorian morality. Perhaps it's no accident that Holmes's idea of pistol practice was pocking the walls with shots forming a VR.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 10, 2020 9:41:15 GMT -8
I think you will find that in many such cases, the "innocent" person was something of a scumbag and/or criminal in the first place. It would have, otherwise, been difficult to coordinate the police, legal system and convince the jury of the person's guilt.
This being the case, Conan Doyle should not have been surprised at Slater's lack of gratitude. It's what criminals do. I am often amused at people being shocked and surprised at some thug mugging an 85 year old woman carrying her groceries home. I typically point out that a thug does not generally look for someone his own size to assault. Naturally, they look for those weaker than they are. Duh.
One finds such "Gentleman" criminals only in novels.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 10, 2020 10:01:14 GMT -8
In a college French course, we had a medieval French play (The Farce of Pierre Pathelin) which deals with something like this theme. Pathelin is a crooked lawyer who is hired by a crooked shepherd who didn't pay something or other he owed his landlord. In the end, Pathelin gets him off as a lunatic baaing like a sheep, and even gets a ruling that this obvious fool can't be sued. Of course, the crooked shepherd quickly realizes this means the crooked lawyer can't make him pay his fee.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 10, 2020 10:10:47 GMT -8
You would think. The writer speculates (and not without good reason) that Conan Doyle kept a distance from Slater during his investigation because he didn’t want to be tainted by the man. It would be like defending Jeffrey Epstein from a murder charge. You might do it in order to counter the police’s excesses. But you don’t want to become to associated with the defendant.
And apparently Conan Doyle tried to make it plain to the public that he had no sympathies, per say, with Slater. He was simply following the abundant and clear evidence that the man was innocent.
But the writer speculates that it was perhaps inevitable that Slater became an ideal to Conan Doyle, and not a flesh-and-blood person. They met but once and corresponded directly during Conan Doyle’s efforts almost not at all.
The conduct of the police was so slipshod and atrocious, one can understand why anyone is not only deserving of a competent defense but in need of one…even to this day.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 11, 2020 8:56:58 GMT -8
One of the interesting bits of this case, as pointed out by the liberal New York Times writer, was that there was a substantial piece of negative evidence to the Oscar Slater case.
As noted by many and various in these parts regarding “The Adventures of Silver Blaze,” the relevant piece of negative evidence in that story is the dog that didn’t bark.
Marion Gilchrest (the murdered woman) had a maid, Nellie Lambie. She went out to fetch a newspaper for her lady and when she returned, her neighbor (Mr. Adams) was outside the Gilchrest front door because there had been sounds of violence heard from his room below.
Suddenly, out of Gilchrest’s front door walked a man, who calmly walked past them and away. Inside was the mutilated body of Marion Gilchrest which they soon discovered.
As Conan Doyle noted, for the maid not to have asked “Who are you?” to the man coming out of the apartment, or to act the least surprised (she would have known of all appointments of comings and goings beforehand), was a case of the dog not barking.
Nellie Lambie kept quiet all those years although Conan Doyle, and anyone else with a handle on the facts, knew she wasn’t telling all.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 11, 2020 10:39:58 GMT -8
In other words, the maid knew who he was and whether he was supposed to be there. Either he had some sort of appointment inside -- or he and the maid were in cahoots.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 11, 2020 13:54:13 GMT -8
Exactly.
|
|
