1. I’ve actually seen some commentators trying to spin Iran as a big win for Trump, which makes me write them off pretty much immediately. I think the best case scenario here is a ‘War of 1812’ situation: America launches an incredibly stupid war based on unrealistic expectations, realizes that their expectations were unrealistic when they turn out horribly, but then manages to prevent the situation from having any serious long-term consequences and tries to spin that as a victory.

2. And, regardless of how it ends, the utter incompetence of the operation and the revelation to the world that the United States doesn’t actually have the ability to enforce order, not to mention the thousands of dead bodies and the President threatening genocide, outweighs any concessions Iran might give. There is no salvaging this.

3. On the other hand, I wish we could have a Pope again who didn’t mouth childish nonsense about ‘dialogue and coexistence’ being the path to peace.

4. In other news, I showed my students a documentary on the 1930s, made in the 1950s. Note the subtle shift in tone when speaking of Huey Long versus speaking of Roosevelt

As I told the kids, if Long was a demagogue, then so was Roosevelt. The two were not actually very different in terms of policy, just that Long went a little further on the economic front (Roosevelt even adopted many of Long’s proposals in modified form). He certainly was not a fascist or “the extreme right” by any stretch. Which is not to say I approve of Long: his policies were basically socialism. But the propaganda is amusingly blatant here: Long speaking passionately in a darkened room to fervent listeners while evil music plays, then Roosevelt cheerfully fishing to jaunty tunes. As if you couldn’t do the exact same thing in reverse.

5. Another point: strip away the outer trappings and Roosevelt’s rise to power was essentially the same pattern as Hitler’s: national emergency used to grant special powers to the elected official and the legislature becomes essentially a rubber-stamp for his actions. The difference being that Hitler demanded and got much more extreme emergency powers and was more successful at consolidating that power once he had it.

6. This week’s film was The Magnificent Seven, which went over quite well. The kids enjoyed the acting and the story and how cool everybody was.

One of the topics of discussion that came up was the clash between the warrior and the farmer. The farmer has what the warrior needs: food, etc., as well as representing a more stable, fulfilling life. But he has no means of defending himself, and so the warrior can take what he wants from him. The warrior can defend himself and use force to get his way, and so commands respect, but he needs a reason to fight, and his life, though free, is often empty.

They both need each other, though; the warrior needs the food and supplies the farmer provides, as well as something to fight for, while the farmer needs the warrior to protect his home and the product of his labor. And both can become twisted: the warrior can use his power to oppress and rob the farmer, while the farmer responds by being shifty, treacherous, and cowardly. But if the farmer is such a despicable and pathetic figure, why would the warrior bother to fight for him? But then, why is the farmer treacherous and cowardly in the first place if not because of the abuse he’s suffered from warriors?

The film (and Seven Samurai) deal with this by showing both sides needing to make concessions to the other; the farmers have to show trust to the warriors and start to act courageously themselves, while the warriors have to show patience and empathy for the farmers. It isn’t only on the warriors to do the right thing; the farmers have to show themselves to be worth their sacrifice.

7. This dynamic of defender and defended is a universal feature of humanity, even built into the most basic relationship of all: man and woman. Those with power have an obligation to use it justly and with restraint; those who depend on that power have an obligation to respect their sacrifice and not to abuse that restraint. The strong should defend the weak, and the weak should respect the strong.

To owe service is not a debt, like a monetary debt, where so much is done and thus so much is owed. It’s more a recognition that this person or group is worthy of service, and that service on their behalf will not be wasted, because they can be trusted to render back their own brand of service in turn.