Peggy Noonan identifies a common illness:
'I think there is an illness called Goldmansachs Head. I think it's in the DSM. When you have Goldmansachs Head, the party's never over. You take private planes to ask for bailout money, you entertain customers at high-end spas while your writers prep your testimony, you take and give huge bonuses as the company tanks. When you take the kids camping, you bring a private chef. Goldmansachs Head is Bernie Madoff complaining he's feeling cooped up in the penthouse. It is the delusion that the old days continue and the old ways prevail and you, Prince of the Abundance, can just keep rolling along. Here is how you know if someone has GSH: He has everything but a watch. He doesn't know what time it is.
'I remember the father in the movie script of "Dr. Zhivago," inviting what's left of his family, huddled in rooms in what had been their mansion, picking up the stump of a stogie and inviting them to watch the lighting of "the last cigar in Moscow."
'When you have GSH, you never think it's the last cigar.
'But you don't have to be on Wall Street to have GSH. Congress has it too. That's what the stimulus bill was about—not knowing what time it is, not knowing the old pork-barrel, group-greasing ways are over, done, embarrassing. When you create a bill like that, it doesn't mean you're a pro, it doesn't mean you're a tough, no-nonsense pol. It means you're a slob.'
The bubble has burst on Wall Street and Main Street, but not on Capitol Hill.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
What is ideology? Can a conservative be an "ideologue?"
Kyle Cupp asked me to comment about my mentor Russell Kirk's view of ideology. My comments are below, at Cupp's blog, and at Vox Nova.
You can see that there is quite a lively debate about it. My comments are as follows:
Russell Kirk led a debate among conservatives of whether being conservative is an "ism" or an ideology. His friend, Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909-90), the last stubborn subject and living defender of the Hapsburg monarchy in America, disagreed with him. Kuehnelt-Leddihn laughed the afternoon I conversed with him at Kirk's home, Piety Hill in central Michigan, and said that Kirk had an ideology but didn't know it. Kirk despised ideology; Kuehnelt-Leddihn despised most of them.
What Kirk really meant is if an intellectual abstraction such as economic determinism, racial supremacy, or Marxism hammers all the world's discordant facts into a straight steel rail, the mystery, softness, asymmetry, tradition, history, poetry, and family relations which make life worth living must be railroaded, bypassed, or ignored to make way for the simple dogma of the intellectual abstraction embraced as a quasi-religion.
Call it an ideology if you like, but Kirk believed that the purpose of the conservative in the modern world is remind the herd in the cloudy whirl that some things don't change, that some truths cannot be explained using the all-encompassing logic of the latest intellectual fashion, and that the sky is not going to fall unless we are saved by politicians promising us more government for our own good. Politics and politicians won't save what we love, but what we love, that is, the Permanent Things of literature, poetry, tradition, art, history, family, and so on, might save us, or at least comfort us as we prepare to meet our Maker and save our grandchildren or stepchildren.
Kirk lived his creed. Like Allen Tate, he saw the triumph of intellectual abstraction (from fascism to communism) over common sense, traditional religion, poetry, music, architecture, practical sensibility, political economy, history, and mystery as a threat to civilization. Kirk is blasted by philosophers of the right and left because he truly believed that a sword hanging over the mantle, a fire, a drink, a painting, an old chair, and a good story of moral imagination were better than all the volumes of philosophy, good and bad, ever written. As D.H. Lawrence said of Nathaniel Hawthorne, "Authors lie, but a good story tells the truth."
I must agree, though many people of more philosophical and less mystical mind than mine will find the Kirk view dissatisfying if not horrible. To you I raise a glass and recite a line of Homer.
Remembering Kirk's The Roots of American Order, he responded in writing to one conservative critic who didn't think it was Catholic enough. Kirk noted that the critic only wished that America were more Catholic than it is, but America is what it is- a country whose cultural roots in the 17th and 18th centuries were largely Protestant. Kirk's speculative statement of what if America had been more like Maryland and less like New England was meant to refute the view, common among 19th-century Protestant commentators, that Catholicism was incapable of creating a modern, healthy, and prosperous civilization. Kirk had too much humility to think he had a crystal ball, but he didn't believe one needed to live in a Protestant country to be free and happy.
Kirk's lifetime achievement cannot be denied, that is, the retracing of the steps and paths of conservative thinking in the Anglo-American tradition. Conservative thinking is not anti-thetical to Western thinking or American thinking. Conservatives have always been part of the dialogue of the West. There are threads of what we modern Americans might call "conservative" thought going back to Moses, Aristotle, Cicero, and Blackstone, and from this same body of literature comes liberal and some radical thought. Nonetheless, conservative thought is indigenous to the West and to America and should not be crowded out of the academy and exiled to think-tanks.
Because Kirk and Kuehnelt-Leddihn could not agree on whether conservative thought is an ideology, I won't weigh in too much about it. I will say this: whenever "conservative" thought became crusted, rigid, harsh, merciless, intolerant, and insistent upon political dominance to procure its ends, Kirk believed that it ceased to be conservative."
I'll add sour, dour, cynical, self-serving, arrogant, deterministic, resentful, and self-pitying to the list in the paragraph above. Those of us who believe the world has a transcendent order created by a good God need not fear the tumults of politics, the fall of empires, the wrath of college professors, the herd falling off the cliff like the swine of Mark 9, or even the swords of mad ideologues such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We conservatives should be the happy battlers, not the curmudgeons. Here is my first post in 2005.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
How tough are the baby-boomers?
We sure inspire, don't we? Victor Davis Hanson says:
'If anyone wished to know what the baby-boomer generation would do when, in its full maturity, it hit its first self-created, big-time recession, I think we are seeing the hysterical results. After two decades of unprecedented economic growth, rampant consumer spending, and unimaginable borrowing to satisfy our insatiable appetites, we are suddenly going into even larger debt and printing trillions of dollars in paper money to ensure that someone else after we are gone pays the debt. As if the permanent solution to a financial panic and years of spending wealth we didn't create were a government take-over of the economy in the manner we currently witness in Spain, Italy, and Greece—or the high-tax, high-spend ethos of a bankrupt California.'
Leave it to dysfunctional boomers to try to borrow the world out of a recession and ignore everything our grandparents taught us.
'If anyone wished to know what the baby-boomer generation would do when, in its full maturity, it hit its first self-created, big-time recession, I think we are seeing the hysterical results. After two decades of unprecedented economic growth, rampant consumer spending, and unimaginable borrowing to satisfy our insatiable appetites, we are suddenly going into even larger debt and printing trillions of dollars in paper money to ensure that someone else after we are gone pays the debt. As if the permanent solution to a financial panic and years of spending wealth we didn't create were a government take-over of the economy in the manner we currently witness in Spain, Italy, and Greece—or the high-tax, high-spend ethos of a bankrupt California.'
Leave it to dysfunctional boomers to try to borrow the world out of a recession and ignore everything our grandparents taught us.
When the recession will end...
Not when lenders make money, but when investors make money. Read here from Arnold Kling:
'[Hyman] Minsky described this risk tolerance cycle in terms of three phases: hedge finance; speculative finance; and ponzi finance. During the hedge finance phase, investors are allergic to risk. You can say, "Here is a project that is probably going to offer some really nice returns," and the investors reply, "No, I don't want to touch it. I'm not buying anything that has a down side."During the speculative finance phase, investors make reasonable trade-offs between risk and return. During the ponzi finance phase, investors ignore risks. Giving subprime borrowers option ARM mortgages was ponzi finance in every sense of the word.
'Applying the Minsky framework to the current environment, I think it is pretty clear that we have gone from ponzi finance to hedge finance. Investors have unloaded risky assets in order to buy Treasury securities. The word of the day is de-leveraging, meaning that firms are trying to shed their excessive debt loads, build up cash reserves, and strengthen their capital.The instinct of policymakers is to fight this deleveraging process.'
Because the financial sector contributed millions of dollars to the political process, however, our elected officials and millions of others are convinced that we must save the bankers and financiers to save the economy. I think not.
'[Hyman] Minsky described this risk tolerance cycle in terms of three phases: hedge finance; speculative finance; and ponzi finance. During the hedge finance phase, investors are allergic to risk. You can say, "Here is a project that is probably going to offer some really nice returns," and the investors reply, "No, I don't want to touch it. I'm not buying anything that has a down side."During the speculative finance phase, investors make reasonable trade-offs between risk and return. During the ponzi finance phase, investors ignore risks. Giving subprime borrowers option ARM mortgages was ponzi finance in every sense of the word.
'Applying the Minsky framework to the current environment, I think it is pretty clear that we have gone from ponzi finance to hedge finance. Investors have unloaded risky assets in order to buy Treasury securities. The word of the day is de-leveraging, meaning that firms are trying to shed their excessive debt loads, build up cash reserves, and strengthen their capital.The instinct of policymakers is to fight this deleveraging process.'
Because the financial sector contributed millions of dollars to the political process, however, our elected officials and millions of others are convinced that we must save the bankers and financiers to save the economy. I think not.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Thoughts about NYC...
With mixed emotions, Pentimento writes about moving out of the city and coming back into it to take care of business:
'Still, I will miss New York terribly in so many ways. Most of all, I think, I'll miss New Yorkers. There is a beautiful kind of unspoken understandng among people of all origins here; people approach one another with a frank openness, mostly lacking in the preemptive suspicion and guarded hostility found elsewhere.'
As a Southerner I am intrigued by New York City. I have visited several times, but never long enough to call myself anything but a tourist. Nonetheless, sometimes I feel as if I'd like to live there, or better yet, be able to say I once lived there.
UPDATE: I remember watching Sophie's Choice, which was of course a sad and tragic movie, but the summer scenes of Brooklyn made think it would have been great to root for Pee Wee Reese and the Dodgers.
UPDATE 2: Your comments make me think of my own experiences in NYC. When I was a college freshman, I visited the City for the first time. I went with my college friend from Long Island, and we visited a classmate who lived in an apartment building next to Riverdale. I remember the big apartment building and the small apartments, her mother's commute downtown on the train, and the view of the Hudson. We walked down to the Hudson that cold day. It was beautiful, and I have a photo of it. At 18, it was a great adventure, along with the Radio City Music Hall, the World Trade Center, and all kinds of shops.
Do y'all like my 1932 photo of the sunset? (I had to say "y'all.") Click on it to magnify.
'Still, I will miss New York terribly in so many ways. Most of all, I think, I'll miss New Yorkers. There is a beautiful kind of unspoken understandng among people of all origins here; people approach one another with a frank openness, mostly lacking in the preemptive suspicion and guarded hostility found elsewhere.'
As a Southerner I am intrigued by New York City. I have visited several times, but never long enough to call myself anything but a tourist. Nonetheless, sometimes I feel as if I'd like to live there, or better yet, be able to say I once lived there.
UPDATE: I remember watching Sophie's Choice, which was of course a sad and tragic movie, but the summer scenes of Brooklyn made think it would have been great to root for Pee Wee Reese and the Dodgers.
UPDATE 2: Your comments make me think of my own experiences in NYC. When I was a college freshman, I visited the City for the first time. I went with my college friend from Long Island, and we visited a classmate who lived in an apartment building next to Riverdale. I remember the big apartment building and the small apartments, her mother's commute downtown on the train, and the view of the Hudson. We walked down to the Hudson that cold day. It was beautiful, and I have a photo of it. At 18, it was a great adventure, along with the Radio City Music Hall, the World Trade Center, and all kinds of shops.
Do y'all like my 1932 photo of the sunset? (I had to say "y'all.") Click on it to magnify.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"In Praise of George W. Bush"
No president is as good as his chief of staff says he is, but no president is as bad as the opposition party claims. George Weigel writes:
'I should like to praise him for his steadfast support of the pro-life cause, domestically and internationally.
'Thanks to President Bush, we have two more Supreme Court justices who likely know that Roe v. Wade was terrible constitutional judging, and dozens more federal district court and appellate court judges with similar convictions.
'Thanks to President Bush, the U.S. government drew an important moral line in stem cell research, even as the administration accelerated bioethically sound research strategies that have produced real results.
'Internationally, the Bush administration stood firm against the Gadarene rush to use international law to declare abortion an international human right and a necessary component of the emancipation of women; as one senior Vatican official put it to me, a year ago, “We know we’re never going to have another American administration as supportive of our core issues as the Bush administration has been.”
'I should like to praise the president for his work to rid Africa of the plagues of AIDS and malaria and to relieve the suffering of those afflicted with those awful diseases. George W. Bush may be an object of ridicule in certain U.S. zip codes; he is the subject of veneration among those in the “bottom billion” whose lives his policies have saved or enhanced.'
Read the whole thing. The first part is funny.
Peggy Noonan at the inauguration...
Ms. Noonan says:
'The MSNBC booth was near the Mall, and all day and night hundreds of people gathered and cheered the anchors and guests, and jumped up and down when the cameras scanned the crowd. People were holding cell phones and shouting "Mom, that's me on TV, in my white jacket, I'm waving!" The audio of the shows was boomed out in big speakers, and whenever a guest said the word "Obama" or "America," the crowd cheered. It was nice. It wasn't just Mr. Obama they were cheering, it was America. There was a low-key patriotic fervor. Someone asked if it was like the Reagan inaugural in 1981, and I said yes, but as if the feeling of those days had spilled out of homes and parties and onto the streets, where all could see it. A friend said, Was it Jacksonian? Yes, but nothing got trashed. It was a very special thing, this inaugural. No one who made it to Washington this week, old hand or new, ever experienced anything quite like it, all the peace and warmth in the bitter cold.
'Every time a nation does something big, the members of that nation who are 4 feet tall—the children who are 10 and 12—are looking up and absorbing. Forty years ago, in 1968, that grim and even-grimmer-in-retrospect year of war protests, race riots, taunts and assassinations, our 4-foot-tall citizens would have been justified in thinking that America is a scary place marked by considerable unhappiness and injustice. But the past week they could look up and see either harmony and happiness or peaceful acceptance and resolve. Washington was a town full of families and full of kids this week, and they must have picked up this: Anything is possible in America....
'That's what 4-foot-tall Americans must have learned this week. A generation that will come to adulthood in 2020 and 2030 and has in their heads this sense of optimism and America-love will likely be stronger for it. It augurs well.'
I must say that anything legal that makes 30 to 60 million Americans feel in their hearts and to their bones that their country is better than they ever imagined cannot be a completely bad thing, even if I didn't vote for the new president or his party. For whatever reason, I don't have the fear of the worst and the hair-trigger disgust for this administration that I had for Bill Clinton's the day he took office.
Yes, President Obama has already started the leftward tilt, and much bad policy will be implemented and even more proposed, but I am more confident than ever that the law of unintended consequences will negate much of the liberal agenda as well as the supposed mandate. The bourgeois-bohemian baby-boomers are about to discover that the country has left them. The 1960s are as dead as John Lennon and Jim Morrison. The boomers' supposed moment of triumph belongs to someone else, or perhaps they will finally discover they emasculated themselves a long time ago and must let younger folks run the country who didn't cut their political teeth despising lawful authority.
If you don't like the fact that I ooze patriotic sentiments during big national events, whether it's the funeral of Ronald Reagan or the inauguration of Barack Obama, Spengler greets the new American president with a full broadside (the warning shot was months ago).
'The MSNBC booth was near the Mall, and all day and night hundreds of people gathered and cheered the anchors and guests, and jumped up and down when the cameras scanned the crowd. People were holding cell phones and shouting "Mom, that's me on TV, in my white jacket, I'm waving!" The audio of the shows was boomed out in big speakers, and whenever a guest said the word "Obama" or "America," the crowd cheered. It was nice. It wasn't just Mr. Obama they were cheering, it was America. There was a low-key patriotic fervor. Someone asked if it was like the Reagan inaugural in 1981, and I said yes, but as if the feeling of those days had spilled out of homes and parties and onto the streets, where all could see it. A friend said, Was it Jacksonian? Yes, but nothing got trashed. It was a very special thing, this inaugural. No one who made it to Washington this week, old hand or new, ever experienced anything quite like it, all the peace and warmth in the bitter cold.
'Every time a nation does something big, the members of that nation who are 4 feet tall—the children who are 10 and 12—are looking up and absorbing. Forty years ago, in 1968, that grim and even-grimmer-in-retrospect year of war protests, race riots, taunts and assassinations, our 4-foot-tall citizens would have been justified in thinking that America is a scary place marked by considerable unhappiness and injustice. But the past week they could look up and see either harmony and happiness or peaceful acceptance and resolve. Washington was a town full of families and full of kids this week, and they must have picked up this: Anything is possible in America....
'That's what 4-foot-tall Americans must have learned this week. A generation that will come to adulthood in 2020 and 2030 and has in their heads this sense of optimism and America-love will likely be stronger for it. It augurs well.'
I must say that anything legal that makes 30 to 60 million Americans feel in their hearts and to their bones that their country is better than they ever imagined cannot be a completely bad thing, even if I didn't vote for the new president or his party. For whatever reason, I don't have the fear of the worst and the hair-trigger disgust for this administration that I had for Bill Clinton's the day he took office.
Yes, President Obama has already started the leftward tilt, and much bad policy will be implemented and even more proposed, but I am more confident than ever that the law of unintended consequences will negate much of the liberal agenda as well as the supposed mandate. The bourgeois-bohemian baby-boomers are about to discover that the country has left them. The 1960s are as dead as John Lennon and Jim Morrison. The boomers' supposed moment of triumph belongs to someone else, or perhaps they will finally discover they emasculated themselves a long time ago and must let younger folks run the country who didn't cut their political teeth despising lawful authority.
If you don't like the fact that I ooze patriotic sentiments during big national events, whether it's the funeral of Ronald Reagan or the inauguration of Barack Obama, Spengler greets the new American president with a full broadside (the warning shot was months ago).
Simple wisdom...
"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher.
Hat tip: Instapundit
Monday, January 19, 2009
Me and the Zionist conspiracy...
Mort Zuckerman writes a nice piece on Israel's right to defend itself. Maybe I was just lucky enough to go to school during the 1960s and 1970s with lots of Jews and take Old Testament from a Christian who loved the Jews. I was taught by my mother and my professors that the Jews are God's chosen people; we as Christians should be grateful that we have been "grafted in" to the tree of faith. The Torah says: "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you." I for one, won't curse the Jews.
Zuckerman says:
'[I]t was Hamas's intention that at least thousands of Israelis would die from its 7,000 rockets. Would it fit the doctrine of proportionality if Israel were to respond with 7,000 missiles against Gaza civilians? Or must it wait until the number of dead is piled high enough to justify a "proportioned" response. And what of the emotional trauma inflicted on the living? Men, women, and children have 15 seconds to reach a bunker, which they must do several times a day. They must live with the constant fear of death and maiming.
'Would America sit back if, over three years, 7,000 rockets and missiles were launched at our citizens from Mexico or Canada? We would attack these missile sites and wipe them out. End of story. The "disproportionate" criticism is a cop-out. Hamas sought this battle. It was Hamas that broke the six-month truce organized by Egypt. Both Fatah and Egypt urged its continuance; the current violence would have been avoided, as Abbas stated, had Hamas not fired its missiles.
'Tony Blair, now the special envoy of the Mideast quartet, concedes he understands the consequences now more than when he was prime minister of Britain: "I would hesitate to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians after the nightmare Israel has faced since the Gaza withdrawal." He recognizes that Hamas has sabotaged years of negotiation. "Land for peace," he warns, "is in itself not sufficient. Not less important is the character of the Palestinian state."
'Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya has made it clear what kind of state his Palestine would be. Hamas seeks nothing less than an Islamic state as its covenant describes: "To raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." To that end, Hamas has turned Gaza into a home for every brand of radical Islamist engaged in a holy war that sanctifies bloodshed, glorifies murder, and educates children to die as shahids —martyrs. There was to be no Israel alongside a Palestinian state. Over and over again Haniya has said that Hamas will never recognize Israel nor honor any of the existing agreements with the infidels. Its founder, Abdul Aziz Rantizi, is explicit: "We will not leave one Jew in Palestine."'
Unless one is a pacifist, Israel, by any standard of the West since Saint Augustine, has the right to self-defense.
Zuckerman says:
'[I]t was Hamas's intention that at least thousands of Israelis would die from its 7,000 rockets. Would it fit the doctrine of proportionality if Israel were to respond with 7,000 missiles against Gaza civilians? Or must it wait until the number of dead is piled high enough to justify a "proportioned" response. And what of the emotional trauma inflicted on the living? Men, women, and children have 15 seconds to reach a bunker, which they must do several times a day. They must live with the constant fear of death and maiming.
'Would America sit back if, over three years, 7,000 rockets and missiles were launched at our citizens from Mexico or Canada? We would attack these missile sites and wipe them out. End of story. The "disproportionate" criticism is a cop-out. Hamas sought this battle. It was Hamas that broke the six-month truce organized by Egypt. Both Fatah and Egypt urged its continuance; the current violence would have been avoided, as Abbas stated, had Hamas not fired its missiles.
'Tony Blair, now the special envoy of the Mideast quartet, concedes he understands the consequences now more than when he was prime minister of Britain: "I would hesitate to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians after the nightmare Israel has faced since the Gaza withdrawal." He recognizes that Hamas has sabotaged years of negotiation. "Land for peace," he warns, "is in itself not sufficient. Not less important is the character of the Palestinian state."
'Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya has made it clear what kind of state his Palestine would be. Hamas seeks nothing less than an Islamic state as its covenant describes: "To raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." To that end, Hamas has turned Gaza into a home for every brand of radical Islamist engaged in a holy war that sanctifies bloodshed, glorifies murder, and educates children to die as shahids —martyrs. There was to be no Israel alongside a Palestinian state. Over and over again Haniya has said that Hamas will never recognize Israel nor honor any of the existing agreements with the infidels. Its founder, Abdul Aziz Rantizi, is explicit: "We will not leave one Jew in Palestine."'
Unless one is a pacifist, Israel, by any standard of the West since Saint Augustine, has the right to self-defense.
Open-minded to the point of fascism?
Rabbi Yonason Goldson writes:
'Sometimes, however, we can be so open minded that our brains fall out. Indeed, the larger issue now, as then, is whether our personal-rights mentality has given birth to an amoral culture that is systematically becoming mandated by law. Even now, those activists who have announced their intention to turn their backs on Reverend Warren when he delivers his invocation are within their rights to do so and should not be legislated against. But what they consistently fail to realize is that respect for differing opinions that are reached through reason and integrity is essential to the survival of a free and democratic society.
'Do we really want to live in the kind of lobotomized society where there is no greater sin than judgmentalism? By definition, where there is no judgment there is no justice. By intuition, where there is no civil discourse there is no civilization. To bash each other over the head with legalistic bludgeons is to act like cavemen, and it leads down the road to social chaos far more directly than it does toward social utopia. It doesn't allow much room for personal freedom, either.'
I remember telling one of my friends in grad school, a Southerner of conservative instincts, that no great civilization was ever built on relativism, that relativism can only exist in a civilization stable enough to afford it. He didn't agree. He wanted to have all the glories of Western civilization with the conservatives' respect for law and order, and the liberals' sense of entitlement, and the libertarians' acceptance of the outrageous. We live in such a society today, but if all respect and veneration for tradition, law, and order is lost, we will be taken over by ideologues of some sort who will destroy all our freedoms. Liberty without order is anarchy, and anarchy, despite the romantic notions of teenagers and adults who never grew up, always leads to the strong exploiting the weak.
'Sometimes, however, we can be so open minded that our brains fall out. Indeed, the larger issue now, as then, is whether our personal-rights mentality has given birth to an amoral culture that is systematically becoming mandated by law. Even now, those activists who have announced their intention to turn their backs on Reverend Warren when he delivers his invocation are within their rights to do so and should not be legislated against. But what they consistently fail to realize is that respect for differing opinions that are reached through reason and integrity is essential to the survival of a free and democratic society.
'Do we really want to live in the kind of lobotomized society where there is no greater sin than judgmentalism? By definition, where there is no judgment there is no justice. By intuition, where there is no civil discourse there is no civilization. To bash each other over the head with legalistic bludgeons is to act like cavemen, and it leads down the road to social chaos far more directly than it does toward social utopia. It doesn't allow much room for personal freedom, either.'
I remember telling one of my friends in grad school, a Southerner of conservative instincts, that no great civilization was ever built on relativism, that relativism can only exist in a civilization stable enough to afford it. He didn't agree. He wanted to have all the glories of Western civilization with the conservatives' respect for law and order, and the liberals' sense of entitlement, and the libertarians' acceptance of the outrageous. We live in such a society today, but if all respect and veneration for tradition, law, and order is lost, we will be taken over by ideologues of some sort who will destroy all our freedoms. Liberty without order is anarchy, and anarchy, despite the romantic notions of teenagers and adults who never grew up, always leads to the strong exploiting the weak.
Liberation, Civil Rights, and MLK v. Ethnicity and Nihilism
An excerpt from a recent Spengler piece Asia Times Online:
'Why have so many branches of the human family lost the will to live? And what does the despair of Stone Age peoples in New Guinea have in common with the despair of modern peoples who choose not to reproduce?
'The answer, I believe, is that mortality becomes unbearable in the face of modernity. Sentience of morality distinguishes us from lower animals. From the sentience of mortality arises culture - the capacity to order our behavior consciously rather than by instinct. Unlike animals, human beings require more than progeny: they require progeny who remember them.
'To overcome mortality we create culture, a dialogue among generations that links the dead with the yet unborn. Even the Neanderthals buried their dead with grave-gifts, a token of belief of life beyond the grave. Whether or not we pray to a personal god or confess a particular religion, the existential question remains the same.
'Without the hope of immortality we cannot bear mortality. Cultures that have lost the hope of immortality also lose the will to live. Culture is the stuff out of which we weave the perception of immortality. With sad frequency, ethnic groups will die rather than abandon their way of life. Historic tragedy occurs on the grand scale when economic or strategic circumstances undercut the material conditions of the life of a people, which nonetheless cannot accept assimilation into another culture. That is when entire peoples fight to the death.'
Our tendency in America is to view every liberation movement as akin to our own revolution, humanistic aspirations, and civil rights movements. However, if you look at the leadership of "liberation" movements around the world, you will see more nihilism and anarchism than love of life. Historically, Americans don't want to die for our country; we want to live for our country. Samuel Adams, George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Nathan Hale, Sam Watkins, Elish Hunt Rhodes, Alvin York, Roger Young, Audie Murphy, and hundreds of thousands of others did not aspire to die for country, but to live for it.
Thus, I must distinguish the movement led by Martin Luther King from movements both now and gone which seek to include him and his ideas of liberation. MLK wanted to live. He wanted his people to want to live. He wanted his children to want to live. Not as slaves but as free men of dignity. Suicide was not a goal or a method. Killing others was not a goal or a method. Revenge was not a goal or a method.
Spengler notes in another column, "Suicide by Israel,"
'A policeman's nightmare is the prospective suicide who forces the constable to shoot in self-defense. No matter how justified the killing, others always will wonder whether the shooter had an opportunity to avoid a fatal outcome.
'Peoples commit suicide as much as do individuals. The geopolitical cognate of "suicide by policeman" is Hamas' attempted suicide by Israel.'
In yet another column he criticizes the tendency of Americans to see the Palestinians in similar light to American blacks during the civil rights movement. The analogy does not hold up, I believe, because love of death was never part of the civil rights movement. Indeed, the success of the civil rights movement was directly proportional to its similarities to America's ideals as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, FDR's Four Freedoms, and other statements of our democratic aspirations. The Palestinian leadership, especially that of Hamas, has more in common with Che Guevara, the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, Shining Path, the Bader-Meinhof Gang, the Red Brigades, and the Khymer Rouge than with Martin Luther King.
'Why have so many branches of the human family lost the will to live? And what does the despair of Stone Age peoples in New Guinea have in common with the despair of modern peoples who choose not to reproduce?
'The answer, I believe, is that mortality becomes unbearable in the face of modernity. Sentience of morality distinguishes us from lower animals. From the sentience of mortality arises culture - the capacity to order our behavior consciously rather than by instinct. Unlike animals, human beings require more than progeny: they require progeny who remember them.
'To overcome mortality we create culture, a dialogue among generations that links the dead with the yet unborn. Even the Neanderthals buried their dead with grave-gifts, a token of belief of life beyond the grave. Whether or not we pray to a personal god or confess a particular religion, the existential question remains the same.
'Without the hope of immortality we cannot bear mortality. Cultures that have lost the hope of immortality also lose the will to live. Culture is the stuff out of which we weave the perception of immortality. With sad frequency, ethnic groups will die rather than abandon their way of life. Historic tragedy occurs on the grand scale when economic or strategic circumstances undercut the material conditions of the life of a people, which nonetheless cannot accept assimilation into another culture. That is when entire peoples fight to the death.'
Our tendency in America is to view every liberation movement as akin to our own revolution, humanistic aspirations, and civil rights movements. However, if you look at the leadership of "liberation" movements around the world, you will see more nihilism and anarchism than love of life. Historically, Americans don't want to die for our country; we want to live for our country. Samuel Adams, George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Nathan Hale, Sam Watkins, Elish Hunt Rhodes, Alvin York, Roger Young, Audie Murphy, and hundreds of thousands of others did not aspire to die for country, but to live for it.
Thus, I must distinguish the movement led by Martin Luther King from movements both now and gone which seek to include him and his ideas of liberation. MLK wanted to live. He wanted his people to want to live. He wanted his children to want to live. Not as slaves but as free men of dignity. Suicide was not a goal or a method. Killing others was not a goal or a method. Revenge was not a goal or a method.
Spengler notes in another column, "Suicide by Israel,"
'A policeman's nightmare is the prospective suicide who forces the constable to shoot in self-defense. No matter how justified the killing, others always will wonder whether the shooter had an opportunity to avoid a fatal outcome.
'Peoples commit suicide as much as do individuals. The geopolitical cognate of "suicide by policeman" is Hamas' attempted suicide by Israel.'
In yet another column he criticizes the tendency of Americans to see the Palestinians in similar light to American blacks during the civil rights movement. The analogy does not hold up, I believe, because love of death was never part of the civil rights movement. Indeed, the success of the civil rights movement was directly proportional to its similarities to America's ideals as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, FDR's Four Freedoms, and other statements of our democratic aspirations. The Palestinian leadership, especially that of Hamas, has more in common with Che Guevara, the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, Shining Path, the Bader-Meinhof Gang, the Red Brigades, and the Khymer Rouge than with Martin Luther King.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Is overreaction going to prolong the recession?
Axel Merk believes it likely:
'Actively participating in credit allocation within the private sector, the Fed jeopardizes the capitalist foundation the US economy is built on. As a result of these actions, the US may be on its way to becoming a modern incarnation of a planned economy.
'To understand what is so frightening with recent Fed activity, consider that most central banks focus on interest rates, inflation and money supply to promote price stability (and maximum employment in the Fed's case).
'Generally, they all influence credit creation by managing the cost of borrowing. Central banks may employ slightly different levers and targets; and while some central banks are better than others at achieving their goals, what they have in common is that they traditionally focus on government debt, mostly short-term Treasuries, to achieve their goals.
'This is very much by design as good central bank policy leads to an environment of price stability fostering long-term economic prosperity. On the other hand, bad central bank policy may lead to inflation, wide swings in economic activity or unnecessarily high unemployment. However, free market forces will push the private sector to make the best of it.
'It's when policymakers start subsidizing ailing sectors of the economy that distortions are created that will come back to haunt us. Traditionally, for better or worse, elected officials decide on the socio-economic fabric of society. Now, the Fed decides which areas of the economy need to be propped up.
'The hysteria that has been created by policymakers and the media has allowed the Fed to pursue its recent unorthodox policies. In late September, the world financial system looked rather dire; the government was able to play a role to avoid a disorderly collapse; but the government's role should have been limited to allowing an orderly adjustment of the excesses of the credit bubble. Instead, the latest salvo to promote the bailouts is that payrolls have dropped by the largest amount since World War II.'
The Federal Reserve System cannot change the fact that Americans borrowed far more money than is wise for twenty years, that the dot-com bubble failed to impose discipline on borrowing, that Uncle Sam is now borrowed to capacity due to Congressional spending and the war since 9/11.
What we need now are interest rates that actually reflect the costs of borrowing money. Otherwise, all banks and creditors are perpetuating the fraud that borrowing has no real costs. This fraud, sponsored by Congress, the President, the Fed, and the lenders, is what led us (and me) to this point.
As for me, you could not get me to borrow right now to buy anything. Neither the Fed nor Congress is going to save the economy by cheapening credit. Only fools will borrow. Only fools will lend to most of the borrowers at this point.
'Actively participating in credit allocation within the private sector, the Fed jeopardizes the capitalist foundation the US economy is built on. As a result of these actions, the US may be on its way to becoming a modern incarnation of a planned economy.
'To understand what is so frightening with recent Fed activity, consider that most central banks focus on interest rates, inflation and money supply to promote price stability (and maximum employment in the Fed's case).
'Generally, they all influence credit creation by managing the cost of borrowing. Central banks may employ slightly different levers and targets; and while some central banks are better than others at achieving their goals, what they have in common is that they traditionally focus on government debt, mostly short-term Treasuries, to achieve their goals.
'This is very much by design as good central bank policy leads to an environment of price stability fostering long-term economic prosperity. On the other hand, bad central bank policy may lead to inflation, wide swings in economic activity or unnecessarily high unemployment. However, free market forces will push the private sector to make the best of it.
'It's when policymakers start subsidizing ailing sectors of the economy that distortions are created that will come back to haunt us. Traditionally, for better or worse, elected officials decide on the socio-economic fabric of society. Now, the Fed decides which areas of the economy need to be propped up.
'The hysteria that has been created by policymakers and the media has allowed the Fed to pursue its recent unorthodox policies. In late September, the world financial system looked rather dire; the government was able to play a role to avoid a disorderly collapse; but the government's role should have been limited to allowing an orderly adjustment of the excesses of the credit bubble. Instead, the latest salvo to promote the bailouts is that payrolls have dropped by the largest amount since World War II.'
The Federal Reserve System cannot change the fact that Americans borrowed far more money than is wise for twenty years, that the dot-com bubble failed to impose discipline on borrowing, that Uncle Sam is now borrowed to capacity due to Congressional spending and the war since 9/11.
What we need now are interest rates that actually reflect the costs of borrowing money. Otherwise, all banks and creditors are perpetuating the fraud that borrowing has no real costs. This fraud, sponsored by Congress, the President, the Fed, and the lenders, is what led us (and me) to this point.
As for me, you could not get me to borrow right now to buy anything. Neither the Fed nor Congress is going to save the economy by cheapening credit. Only fools will borrow. Only fools will lend to most of the borrowers at this point.
UPDATE: I haven't borrowed any money for anything since last summer, and I must say that I won't borrow any more money for the foreseeable future no matter how low the interest rates go. Borrowing is bad business, as is, for now, lending. Saving is good business. We'll see when or if anyone in Washington decides it's time to reward or stimulate savings.
"Suspend Your Disbelief"
Peggy Noonan writes about the coming celebration of this Republic:
'A young Obama staffer comes for breakfast, roots in the pockets of his overcoat, and spills two BlackBerrys onto the tablecloth. He has just been given a tour of the West Wing. He had been warned so many times that it's smaller than you think that he's struck by how big it is. And the Oval Office. It doesn't matter how many times you've seen it in the movies, the sight of it catches the throat. This is the real one.
'This week in the transition headquarters, the president-elect walked by a row of offices. Someone had given him a basketball; he dribbled it as he walked down the hall. Suddenly a young veteran of the campaign turned to another and said, "The black guy with the basketball is the next president." For them it's a rolling realization: You know it, lose it in the flow, realize it again, and suddenly it's new again. The aide says, "He's in a line with Washington and Lincoln, and luminaries like JFK and Reagan." He shakes his head wonderingly. I have seen new guys say this about new presidents most of my professional life. I never see it that I'm not moved. To this day.'
I plan to watch the inauguration on Tuesday from the senior center in my community. I want to watch the faces of elderly black women, the kind who were teenagers in the 1950s and 1960s, and see their joy.
'A young Obama staffer comes for breakfast, roots in the pockets of his overcoat, and spills two BlackBerrys onto the tablecloth. He has just been given a tour of the West Wing. He had been warned so many times that it's smaller than you think that he's struck by how big it is. And the Oval Office. It doesn't matter how many times you've seen it in the movies, the sight of it catches the throat. This is the real one.
'This week in the transition headquarters, the president-elect walked by a row of offices. Someone had given him a basketball; he dribbled it as he walked down the hall. Suddenly a young veteran of the campaign turned to another and said, "The black guy with the basketball is the next president." For them it's a rolling realization: You know it, lose it in the flow, realize it again, and suddenly it's new again. The aide says, "He's in a line with Washington and Lincoln, and luminaries like JFK and Reagan." He shakes his head wonderingly. I have seen new guys say this about new presidents most of my professional life. I never see it that I'm not moved. To this day.'
I plan to watch the inauguration on Tuesday from the senior center in my community. I want to watch the faces of elderly black women, the kind who were teenagers in the 1950s and 1960s, and see their joy.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Cardinal Manning remembered
Pat McNamara's blog recalls a "radical authoritarian" who grew up in the Anglican Church, graduated from Oxford University, and converted to Catholicism. As a Catholic, he became champion of the working people but never allowed radical politics to undermine his Christian orthodoxy.
Hat tip to Dr. Pentimento. She just posted a link to Pat McNamara, archivist for the Archdiocese of Brooklyn, a professor of history, and someone I'd likely buy a beer for if I ever get to the western end of Long Island again.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Theology of the Body I: Nuptial Love: Full, Free, Faithful, and Fruitful
I offered this Bible study on the Theology of the Body a few weeks ago to about ten teenagers at my parish. I wish I had time to write out more of what was said and discussed. I hope some of you find this outline useful. More on the Theology of the Body here. Its greatest teacher was a certain Polish priest named Karol Wojtyla.Opening Prayer: Anima Christi – St. Ignatius Loyola
Soul of Christ, sanctify me. Body of Christ, save me. Blood of Christ, inebriate me. Water from the side of Christ, wash me. Passion of Christ, strengthen me. O good Jesus, hear me. Within your wounds, hide me. Suffer me not to be separated from Thee. From the malignant enemy, defend me. At the hour of death, call me. And bid me come to Thee, That with Thy saints I may praise Thee forever. Amen.
Introduction:
How many of you want to be loved, loving, happy, and fulfilled one, two, three or more decades from now? How many of you want to be consumed and immersed in the love of a spouse? How many of you, if not married in twenty years, would like to be consumed and immersed in the fellowship and love of the Church and living your life all-out for God as Saint Paul did? For the next four Mondays, we are going to discuss Christ’s Body, the Church’s Body, Your Body, and how they teach us all about Love. God fulfills His purposes in persons with bodies who obey the will of God. Pope John Paul II called this the “Theology of the Body.”
Scriptures re Who are we? What are we? What is the Covenant? What is the Incarnate Nature of God? What is the divine image of God in which we are created? What about boys and girls?
Genesis 1:26-31 “Man in His own image.”
Genesis 2:7-9 “Formed man out of dust.” Tree of Life
Genesis 2:15-17 “Tree of knowledge of good and evil”
Genesis 2:18-25 “Naked and not ashamed.”
Genesis 3 The Fall
Genesis 4:7 “Sin is lurking at your door, but you must master it.”
Genesis 7:12-17 “Two by two.”
Genesis 24:67 “He took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”
Genesis 29:20 Jacob’s love for Rachel.
Luke 1:26-38 The Annunciation
Luke 1:39-45 The Visitation, 1:46-55 The Magnificat
Theology of the Body- Major Points:
Love of the Holy Trinity transforms us into what God intended Adam and Eve to be.
4Fs: FULL, FREE, FAITHFUL, and FRUITFUL
How is the Holy Trinity all four Fs? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
How is the Blessed Mother’s love all four Fs?
How is Christ’s love for the Church all four Fs?
How is your favorite priest’s love all four Fs?
How is your parent’s love all four Fs?
Do you know a nun or monk who lives all four Fs?
Do you have a friend who lives all four Fs? (If not, that is why there is a communion of saints!)
NUPTIAL LOVE
God’s calling you to make a total gift of yourself through marriage or celibacy.
What is celibacy? “Celibacy” means you belong to all. As single people you are celibate people, though you have not made a vow of permanent celibacy. As you master yourself and discern your vocation, that is, your calling in life, you respond by committing yourself to loving the entire world (4F) in permanent celibacy or by giving yourself totally (4F) to your spouse. In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve were “naked and unashamed.” In Genesis 3, they were cast out of the Garden of Eden. Their lack of faith cost them everything.
SACRAMENTAL LOVE
In the sacraments, you have intimacy with God:
Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation
Reconciliation, Healing through Anointing
Marriage, Holy Orders
How is 4F Love lived in each sacrament?
Looking at the Catechism:
2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.
2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.
2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. "Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.
Saint for Discussion: Saint Joseph- chaste spouse of the Mother of God.
For Further Discussion:
Have you ever thought of yourself as “celibate” until the day you marry? Can you see how celibacy can be liberating?
Has anyone ever told you that no matter whether you are celibate or married, you must learn to “master yourself?” What does that mean?
If marriage is a sacramental state for which you must prepare, not unlike First Communion or Confirmation, what can you do now to prepare? What makes a person ready for marriage? Is it all an accident?
Temptation is everywhere. Bad choices are everywhere. Who can help you stay out of trouble? What tools has God given you to stay on your proper path to your vocation?
How can the sacraments I know now, Communion, Reconciliation, Anointing, Baptism, Confirmation, prepare me for my vocation and the next sacrament, that is, Marriage or Holy Orders?
Do I have a plan on how I might develop my vocation, or am I hoping to bump into perfection and be immediately embraced by it?
Closing Prayer: The Prayer of St. Francis
Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
It is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen
Monday, January 12, 2009
Another thought about suffering...
'God in His infinite goodness sometimes sees fit to test our courage and love by depriving us of the things which it seems to us would be advantageous to our souls; and if He finds us earnest in their pursuit, yet humble, tranquil and resigned to do without them if He wishes us to, He will give us more blessings than we should have had in the possession of what we craved.'
-- St. Philip Neri
-- St. Philip Neri
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Requiescat in Pace
He was simply one of the most articulate Catholic priests of our time, a person whose theological reflections informed his politics, but with the sort of humility that can convert those unlikely to be converted. This blog has cited First Things and his other writings a number of times.
Michael Sean Winters has an excellent tribute in Slate.
Hat Tip to Pentimento.
"Say They Aren't So"
Victor Davis Hanson looks at some of the ironies of 2008-09.
An excerpt:
'Sarah Palin perhaps flubbed the interview[s] with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, at least in the clips that were edited for TV. She also drops her g’s and says things like “you betcha” and “pal’in around”.
'She surely didn’t give snap answers on foreign policy matters. In no short order, a woman who had five kids, a 16-year political career, and a successful governorship was reduced to a white-trash hack, the mother of a promiscuous teen, as awful rumors, trafficked in by liberal professionals, swirled about her own most recent pregnancy.
'The mainstream media’s narrative was thus that glibness matters, 16 years of Alaskan politics don’t quite cut it for national office, and a candidate’s personal life is fair game, as the moose-hunting ex-mayor of Wasilla and her life-story attest.
'Or is that entirely true? I could make the hypocritical contrast with the gaffe-o-matic Joe Biden, but instead read below.
'These same egalitarians in the media, however, do not seem to have a problem with Caroline Kennedy, soon perhaps to be anointed Senator from New York.
'But on the basis of what? Political experience—zero.
'Past elections? Zilch.
'Eloquence? Nope. Ms. Kennedy drones on with “you know” and “I mean” dozens of times per minute. In comparison, Sarah Palin sounds like Demosthenes or Cicero.
'Full disclosure? Hardly. We know nothing about Caroline’s vast fortune—where it exactly came from and how it is used. We learned far more about poor Mr. Palin’s decrepit old prop airplane than Ms. Kennedy’s stock portfolio and past contributions.
'Perhaps the difference is good citizenship? I doubt it. Palin ran for offices; Kennedy often passed on voting entirely.
'Is it doctrinaire politics? Again, I doubt it. Palin has taken on Republicans in Alaska, entrenched males, and indeed, on matters of energy, her own running mate John McCain.
'Kennedy? I don’t think there a liberal dogma or progressive politician she has ever questioned.
'We laugh about Palin’s Idaho work-your-way-through-college sports journalism degree, especially perhaps in comparison to Kennedy’s Ivy League pedigree. But the latter is too often affirmative action for silk-stocking East Coast grandees. Take away money and nomenclature, and I doubt Kennedy would have gotten into such schools on her own merits. I offer such an unsupported generalization on the basis of her elocution: I turned out about 100 classics majors and MA students during 21 years at CSU Fresno, and without exception every single one (mostly poor or minority students without parents who went to college) in interviews sounded far more knowledgeable and grammatical than does Ms. Kennedy.
'The irony in all this? Too obvious to state….'
I myself am happy that Caroline Kennedy has not embarrassed herself any more than she has in fifty years of being on camera. Saying "you know" more than a college football player during a short interview is bad for an Ivy Leaguer, but it beats all but a few people having equal exposure. Nonetheless, New Yorkers deserve something better than a limousine liberal in the U.S. Senate. They need someone of integrity and commitment who can expose the silliness of the showboating Charles Schumer.
An excerpt:
'Sarah Palin perhaps flubbed the interview[s] with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, at least in the clips that were edited for TV. She also drops her g’s and says things like “you betcha” and “pal’in around”.
'She surely didn’t give snap answers on foreign policy matters. In no short order, a woman who had five kids, a 16-year political career, and a successful governorship was reduced to a white-trash hack, the mother of a promiscuous teen, as awful rumors, trafficked in by liberal professionals, swirled about her own most recent pregnancy.
'The mainstream media’s narrative was thus that glibness matters, 16 years of Alaskan politics don’t quite cut it for national office, and a candidate’s personal life is fair game, as the moose-hunting ex-mayor of Wasilla and her life-story attest.
'Or is that entirely true? I could make the hypocritical contrast with the gaffe-o-matic Joe Biden, but instead read below.
'These same egalitarians in the media, however, do not seem to have a problem with Caroline Kennedy, soon perhaps to be anointed Senator from New York.
'But on the basis of what? Political experience—zero.
'Past elections? Zilch.
'Eloquence? Nope. Ms. Kennedy drones on with “you know” and “I mean” dozens of times per minute. In comparison, Sarah Palin sounds like Demosthenes or Cicero.
'Full disclosure? Hardly. We know nothing about Caroline’s vast fortune—where it exactly came from and how it is used. We learned far more about poor Mr. Palin’s decrepit old prop airplane than Ms. Kennedy’s stock portfolio and past contributions.
'Perhaps the difference is good citizenship? I doubt it. Palin ran for offices; Kennedy often passed on voting entirely.
'Is it doctrinaire politics? Again, I doubt it. Palin has taken on Republicans in Alaska, entrenched males, and indeed, on matters of energy, her own running mate John McCain.
'Kennedy? I don’t think there a liberal dogma or progressive politician she has ever questioned.
'We laugh about Palin’s Idaho work-your-way-through-college sports journalism degree, especially perhaps in comparison to Kennedy’s Ivy League pedigree. But the latter is too often affirmative action for silk-stocking East Coast grandees. Take away money and nomenclature, and I doubt Kennedy would have gotten into such schools on her own merits. I offer such an unsupported generalization on the basis of her elocution: I turned out about 100 classics majors and MA students during 21 years at CSU Fresno, and without exception every single one (mostly poor or minority students without parents who went to college) in interviews sounded far more knowledgeable and grammatical than does Ms. Kennedy.
'The irony in all this? Too obvious to state….'
I myself am happy that Caroline Kennedy has not embarrassed herself any more than she has in fifty years of being on camera. Saying "you know" more than a college football player during a short interview is bad for an Ivy Leaguer, but it beats all but a few people having equal exposure. Nonetheless, New Yorkers deserve something better than a limousine liberal in the U.S. Senate. They need someone of integrity and commitment who can expose the silliness of the showboating Charles Schumer.
Friday, January 09, 2009
"Yes, Israel Can Win in Gaza"
For centuries, combatants have claimed universal civilian support for their cause, no matter how many civilians are killed. History rarely verifies such claims.
How is it that Israelis are accurately targeting Hamas leaders, troops, and weapons? It's not all electronic intelligence. The Palestinians, those claimed by their leaders to be committed to killing all the Jews, seem to be phoning in the whereabouts of Israel's enemies.
Does anyone expect our news media to say that military action can have anything but bad consequences for the militarily superior force fighting the home-grown "freedom fighters," wherever they might be? History is not kind to "freedom fighters," not nearly as kind as 20th-century historians. "Freedom fighters," even those I'm inclined to like, have the frequent fate of dying violent deaths.
Edward Luttwak says:
'A targeting accuracy of 75% -- by the lowest estimate -- cannot have been merely obtained by overhead photography from satellites or reconnaissance aircraft, because few Hamas objectives were classic "high-contrast" targets such as bunkers or headquarters. Most targets were small groups of people in nondescript civilian vehicles that blend in with traffic, or inside unremarkable buildings. Nor could telephone intercepts have yielded much intelligence, because all Palestinians know that the Israelis have long combined voice recognition with cellular-grid location in order to aim missiles very accurately at single vehicles in traffic, or even at individuals standing about with their cellphones switched off.
'So how did Israel do it? The only possible explanation is that people in Gaza have been informing the Israelis exactly where Hamas fighters and leaders are hiding, and where weapons are stored. No doubt some informers are merely corrupt, paid agents earning a living. But others must choose to provide intelligence because they oppose Hamas, whose extremism inflicts poverty, suffering and now death on the civilian population for the sake of launching mostly ineffectual rockets into Israel. Hamas completely disregards the day-to-day welfare of all Gazans in order to pursue its millenarian vision of an Islamic Palestine.'
Those who take up arms against lawful authority, even a lawful authority whose legitimacy is questioned and whose methods are despised, generally fail to earn the respect and protection of those who are not anarchists. What has Hamas done for the Palestinians besides raise false expectations among the young that the Jews can be exterminated? Blowing up buses, shooting rockets into Israeli villages, and ambushing unlucky Israeli soldiers hurt morale, but the Israelis, despite frustration and an active pacifist faction, have not yet determined to commit national suicide.
Having conducted a half-assed war against Hezbollah in 2006, Israel is going to take out Hamas' ability to make effective war against Israel. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are going to claim "solidarity" with the Palestinians and look the other way while Hamas' leadership, soldiers, and arms are destroyed by the IDF. Hezbollah is going to declare jihad for the millionth time and save its weapons and troops for another day. The Palestinians have fewer true friends than the late Shah of Iran.
The news media, from New York to Tokyo, are going to proclaim that Israel's counterattack was both bloody to civilians and militarily ineffective. But I predict the rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza will largely be eliminated within 90 days.
How is it that Israelis are accurately targeting Hamas leaders, troops, and weapons? It's not all electronic intelligence. The Palestinians, those claimed by their leaders to be committed to killing all the Jews, seem to be phoning in the whereabouts of Israel's enemies.
Does anyone expect our news media to say that military action can have anything but bad consequences for the militarily superior force fighting the home-grown "freedom fighters," wherever they might be? History is not kind to "freedom fighters," not nearly as kind as 20th-century historians. "Freedom fighters," even those I'm inclined to like, have the frequent fate of dying violent deaths.
Edward Luttwak says:
'A targeting accuracy of 75% -- by the lowest estimate -- cannot have been merely obtained by overhead photography from satellites or reconnaissance aircraft, because few Hamas objectives were classic "high-contrast" targets such as bunkers or headquarters. Most targets were small groups of people in nondescript civilian vehicles that blend in with traffic, or inside unremarkable buildings. Nor could telephone intercepts have yielded much intelligence, because all Palestinians know that the Israelis have long combined voice recognition with cellular-grid location in order to aim missiles very accurately at single vehicles in traffic, or even at individuals standing about with their cellphones switched off.
'So how did Israel do it? The only possible explanation is that people in Gaza have been informing the Israelis exactly where Hamas fighters and leaders are hiding, and where weapons are stored. No doubt some informers are merely corrupt, paid agents earning a living. But others must choose to provide intelligence because they oppose Hamas, whose extremism inflicts poverty, suffering and now death on the civilian population for the sake of launching mostly ineffectual rockets into Israel. Hamas completely disregards the day-to-day welfare of all Gazans in order to pursue its millenarian vision of an Islamic Palestine.'
Those who take up arms against lawful authority, even a lawful authority whose legitimacy is questioned and whose methods are despised, generally fail to earn the respect and protection of those who are not anarchists. What has Hamas done for the Palestinians besides raise false expectations among the young that the Jews can be exterminated? Blowing up buses, shooting rockets into Israeli villages, and ambushing unlucky Israeli soldiers hurt morale, but the Israelis, despite frustration and an active pacifist faction, have not yet determined to commit national suicide.
Having conducted a half-assed war against Hezbollah in 2006, Israel is going to take out Hamas' ability to make effective war against Israel. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are going to claim "solidarity" with the Palestinians and look the other way while Hamas' leadership, soldiers, and arms are destroyed by the IDF. Hezbollah is going to declare jihad for the millionth time and save its weapons and troops for another day. The Palestinians have fewer true friends than the late Shah of Iran.
The news media, from New York to Tokyo, are going to proclaim that Israel's counterattack was both bloody to civilians and militarily ineffective. But I predict the rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza will largely be eliminated within 90 days.
Is my optimism misplaced?
Peggy Noonan writes about the recent luncheon of the presidents and the coming inauguration, and she speaks of a gloomy mood I don't feel. I guess it's because I'm still working my tail off and expect to do so in 2009.
Nonetheless, my belief about the economy is that we have many obsolete business plans but plenty of good people capable of innovation in business, capital formation, capital allocation, manufacturing, engineering, and product development. This recession is going to last a while because labor markets, not capital markets, will remain clogged. If you received a job offer in another state that included a 50% raise in pay, you would want to take it, but you would have trouble selling your house. Instead of moving on to the new frontier, you'd likely support two households for a year or two, unless you wanted to tell your mortgagee to take your house and keep it.
As for the gloom and fear, I think urban folks whose incomes were based upon obsolete business plans such as GM, traditional media, and the over-recycling of money to create additional consumer credit and housing money, are in for a long transition. Ultimately, the country was built was entrepreneurs, and it will be rebuilt by entrepreneurs, so long as Uncle Sam does not hinder capital formation and punish capital gains. But recessions always cause plenty of Americans to do two things: move west and/or start their own businesses. Waiting for General Motors to become profitable and to reopen the local plant is not a safe bet. You'd do better to invent a better mousetrap and market it.
We will see if the new administration becomes part of the problem or part of the solution. Perhaps much of both.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Who's No. 1?
The team that beat the Crimson Tide decisively, of course!
Rick Reilly says of Utah:
'Utah ran the table, beat everybody set in front of them, including Ala-damn-bama in no less than the Sugar Bowl, and gets the bagel.
'Oh, by the way? It was Utah's eighth straight bowl win, the nation's longest streak. Among the losers during that run? Let's see USC, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, and now the legendary Houndstooth Hats.
'"What else do we have to prove?" asks Utah's magical quarterback, Brian Johnson. Good question. He and the Utes essentially whipped Alabama at home. Handed Nick Saban a garlic necklace to wear the entire off-season. Stepped on his team's neck 21-0 in the first three possessions and never looked back. Let's see. Who was it that was losing to Alabama until nearly six minutes into the fourth quarter? Oh, yeah. Florida.'
More here.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Christmas in Cuba...
Yoani Sánchez says:
'Today could be the 3rd of June or the 9th of September, because there are hardly any signs that it is Christmas. Few, very few, offer holiday greetings in the street. Compared to December 25th of last year, this is a lifeless day with fewer expectations for the future. More than twelve months have passed since we predicted–in the privacy of family and friends–anticipated reforms that have turned out to be a mobile phone or a room in a hotel that we can’t afford.
'Today the rooster will crow for a people whose actions are reduced to the deliberately complacent verb: to wait. Meanwhile, my address book fills with the phone numbers of friends who have emigrated and our president jumps like a caged cat when they speak to him of imprisoned dissidents. What little progress we’ve made in 2008! What a ridiculous marching in place we’ve managed, right up to December.'
On another post she discusses her experience as a student and parent in Cuba's schools:
'We watch out for anyone approaching our children lecherously, but few take into account the groping that is focused on minds and not on bodies. The ideological slant of Cuban education has reached an alarming point, even for those of us who were taught under the same methods. Simply looking at a textbook or reviewing the system for assessing students, one can see doctrine gaining ground at the expense of knowledge. In my son’s classroom, six photos of “Olive Green Leader” adorn the walls, while the report cards include grades for participation in political and patriotic activities.
'It calls to mind my time as a Little Pioneer, reading a communique or shouting slogans, and I can’t get past feeling myself abused. But the feeling is much stronger when I see that Teo—at thirteen—has learned which opinions should not be expressed at school to avoid problems. To discover my own mask, extended now to the face of my son, is more painful than the abuse that was targeted at me.'
'Today could be the 3rd of June or the 9th of September, because there are hardly any signs that it is Christmas. Few, very few, offer holiday greetings in the street. Compared to December 25th of last year, this is a lifeless day with fewer expectations for the future. More than twelve months have passed since we predicted–in the privacy of family and friends–anticipated reforms that have turned out to be a mobile phone or a room in a hotel that we can’t afford.
'Today the rooster will crow for a people whose actions are reduced to the deliberately complacent verb: to wait. Meanwhile, my address book fills with the phone numbers of friends who have emigrated and our president jumps like a caged cat when they speak to him of imprisoned dissidents. What little progress we’ve made in 2008! What a ridiculous marching in place we’ve managed, right up to December.'
On another post she discusses her experience as a student and parent in Cuba's schools:
'We watch out for anyone approaching our children lecherously, but few take into account the groping that is focused on minds and not on bodies. The ideological slant of Cuban education has reached an alarming point, even for those of us who were taught under the same methods. Simply looking at a textbook or reviewing the system for assessing students, one can see doctrine gaining ground at the expense of knowledge. In my son’s classroom, six photos of “Olive Green Leader” adorn the walls, while the report cards include grades for participation in political and patriotic activities.
'It calls to mind my time as a Little Pioneer, reading a communique or shouting slogans, and I can’t get past feeling myself abused. But the feeling is much stronger when I see that Teo—at thirteen—has learned which opinions should not be expressed at school to avoid problems. To discover my own mask, extended now to the face of my son, is more painful than the abuse that was targeted at me.'
Did HGTV cause the housing bubble?
Perhaps yes. Jim Sollisch says:
'And yet on episode after episode for this entire irrational decade, HGTV pumped up the housing bubble by parading the most mediocre, unworthy-looking homeowners into our living rooms to watch while they put their tacky, run-of-the-mill tract homes on the market for twice what they paid and then went out and bought houses with price tags too obscene to repeat. You couldn't watch these shows without concluding that you must be an idiot and a loser if you lived in a house you could actually afford.'
'And yet on episode after episode for this entire irrational decade, HGTV pumped up the housing bubble by parading the most mediocre, unworthy-looking homeowners into our living rooms to watch while they put their tacky, run-of-the-mill tract homes on the market for twice what they paid and then went out and bought houses with price tags too obscene to repeat. You couldn't watch these shows without concluding that you must be an idiot and a loser if you lived in a house you could actually afford.'
Peggy Noonan on the new year...
"In With the New, and Out, Once Again, With the Inevitable." An excerpt:
'At a certain point in the '00s, I began to notice, on the east side of Manhattan, that the 3-week-old infants, out for the first time in their sleek black Mercedes-like strollers, were amazingly, almost alarmingly, perfect. Perfect round heads, huge perfect eyes, none of the dents, bruises and imperfections that are normal and that tend to accompany birth. I would ask friends: Why are babies perfect now, how did that happen? The answers were the usual: a healthy, well-fed populace, etc. Then a friend said: "These are the children of the scheduled C-sections of the affluent. They are scooped out, perfect." They were little superbabies whose handsome, investment banking, asset-bundling, financial-instrument-creating parents commanded even Nature.
'But the death of Lehman Brothers was "the day Wall Street died," as the Journal put it this week, and the day the great abundance did, essentially, too. That is a very big thing to happen in a single year. The proper attitude with which to approach the new reality? Consider it "a nudge from God," a priest said this week. Consider him to be telling us what's important and what's not, what you need and what you don't, what—who—can be relied on, and can't.'
'At a certain point in the '00s, I began to notice, on the east side of Manhattan, that the 3-week-old infants, out for the first time in their sleek black Mercedes-like strollers, were amazingly, almost alarmingly, perfect. Perfect round heads, huge perfect eyes, none of the dents, bruises and imperfections that are normal and that tend to accompany birth. I would ask friends: Why are babies perfect now, how did that happen? The answers were the usual: a healthy, well-fed populace, etc. Then a friend said: "These are the children of the scheduled C-sections of the affluent. They are scooped out, perfect." They were little superbabies whose handsome, investment banking, asset-bundling, financial-instrument-creating parents commanded even Nature.
'But the death of Lehman Brothers was "the day Wall Street died," as the Journal put it this week, and the day the great abundance did, essentially, too. That is a very big thing to happen in a single year. The proper attitude with which to approach the new reality? Consider it "a nudge from God," a priest said this week. Consider him to be telling us what's important and what's not, what you need and what you don't, what—who—can be relied on, and can't.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
