I sure hope they see it that way.
More in Asia Times Online.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
What the NY Times said about airport security in 2001...
The quotation is taken from a long article, and it is not the editorial position of the NYT. Nonetheless, it would be reassuring if we were serious about security instead of serious about making impressions of politically correct security:
'Some officials with security firms said airport security in the United States might, in truth, need to follow the example of Ben-Gurion Airport, which makes no secret of singling out Arab passengers for greater scrutiny. In the security world, the practice is known euphemistically as "behavioral profiling," but Mr. Livingstone said it was mostly about ethnicity and playing the odds.
'"Ethnicity is the single most important determinant of who is going to cause a problem on an airplane," he said. "If you are going to give the same attention, because it is mandated, to a little old lady with blue hair, or to a young African-American male, for that matter, as you give to a Middle Easterner, you are undermining the system already."'
Hat tip to James Taranto in the WSJ.
'Some officials with security firms said airport security in the United States might, in truth, need to follow the example of Ben-Gurion Airport, which makes no secret of singling out Arab passengers for greater scrutiny. In the security world, the practice is known euphemistically as "behavioral profiling," but Mr. Livingstone said it was mostly about ethnicity and playing the odds.
'"Ethnicity is the single most important determinant of who is going to cause a problem on an airplane," he said. "If you are going to give the same attention, because it is mandated, to a little old lady with blue hair, or to a young African-American male, for that matter, as you give to a Middle Easterner, you are undermining the system already."'
Hat tip to James Taranto in the WSJ.
"The Special Assistant for Reality"
Every president needs one. Traditionally, they are childhood and college friends, and more importantly, the wife. The presidential bubble is inescapable, and the wife is sometimes the only one who can kick Mr. President's behind. The least successful presidents generally lack a wife with political or common sense, or in some cases, the president is too pig-headed to listen to her wisdom.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
"Bull Moose in Twilight"
Kathleen Dalton reviews Edmund Morris's Colonel Roosevelt.
The debate is whether TR was a true progressive or in the heart a reactionary aristocrat. What is missing in the review is an acknowledgement that Progressivism was an upper-crust movement that could not separate itself from its anti-democratic, anti-populist, and paternalistic tendencies.
The debate is whether TR was a true progressive or in the heart a reactionary aristocrat. What is missing in the review is an acknowledgement that Progressivism was an upper-crust movement that could not separate itself from its anti-democratic, anti-populist, and paternalistic tendencies.
"Washington as organizational genius"
Mark in Spokane comments on Ron Chernow's biography of our first and greatest public man:
'His leadership of the cabinet was characterized by open discussion with the department heads. He was insistent on the maintenance of records, even going so far as to require that all letters be recorded in triplicate. He was critical of others, but also critical of himself, demanding high standards for those who worked in his administration. Slow to come to decisions, he was perceptive and resolute once a decision was made. In the view of Jefferson, nobody else had better judgment. While not one to be either warm or effusive, Washington also never fell into the trap of adulation that would have trapped any other politician, as Chernow observes, in "idolatry." While Washington could be "cunning," he possess "no low scheming." He kept his promises, didn't scheme, and he respected the public that had placed him in office. Chernow recounts how, when asked how to function well in politics, Washington replied with the old saying that honesty was "the best policy."'
'His leadership of the cabinet was characterized by open discussion with the department heads. He was insistent on the maintenance of records, even going so far as to require that all letters be recorded in triplicate. He was critical of others, but also critical of himself, demanding high standards for those who worked in his administration. Slow to come to decisions, he was perceptive and resolute once a decision was made. In the view of Jefferson, nobody else had better judgment. While not one to be either warm or effusive, Washington also never fell into the trap of adulation that would have trapped any other politician, as Chernow observes, in "idolatry." While Washington could be "cunning," he possess "no low scheming." He kept his promises, didn't scheme, and he respected the public that had placed him in office. Chernow recounts how, when asked how to function well in politics, Washington replied with the old saying that honesty was "the best policy."'
Communist China's brutal step-child...
There's a truth that sets you free and a semi-truth that makes you cynical, and China's paternalistic protection of that devourer of human souls, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is of the latter.
More later on Korea, a frequent topic of this blog.
More later on Korea, a frequent topic of this blog.
"Life is like learning to play the violin in front of an audience."
So said Saul Bellow. My friend Jake has just started blogging at Grunge Candy.
"Ireland's Paradise Lost" [Post No. 3400]
Ross Douthat:
'Drive from Dublin to the western coast and back, as I did two months ago, and you’ll still find all the thatched-roof farmhouses, winding stone walls and placid sheep that the postcards would lead you to expect. But round every green hill, there’s a swath of miniature McMansions. Past every tumble-down castle, a cascade of condominiums. In sleepy fishing villages that date to the days of Grace O’Malley, Ireland’s Pirate Queen (she was the Sarah Palin of the 16th century), half the houses look the part — but the rest could have been thrown up by the Toll brothers.
'It’s as if there were only two eras in Irish history: the Middle Ages and the housing bubble.'
'Drive from Dublin to the western coast and back, as I did two months ago, and you’ll still find all the thatched-roof farmhouses, winding stone walls and placid sheep that the postcards would lead you to expect. But round every green hill, there’s a swath of miniature McMansions. Past every tumble-down castle, a cascade of condominiums. In sleepy fishing villages that date to the days of Grace O’Malley, Ireland’s Pirate Queen (she was the Sarah Palin of the 16th century), half the houses look the part — but the rest could have been thrown up by the Toll brothers.
'It’s as if there were only two eras in Irish history: the Middle Ages and the housing bubble.'
The fall of Margaret Thatcher 20 years ago...
And it took the Tory Party twenty years to recover from its own cannibalistic ways. She was taken down not by the voters, but by her own MPs.
Why is Massachusetts so full of "retired" Catholics now secularized?
I have not read The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture, but it is written by someone who loves the Church and saw its corruption from the inside.
"We need more rocks in the river."
Jonah Goldberg comments on Pope Benedict XVI and on what conservatives are and do.
Wm. McGurn identifies the orthodoxy of our times:
'They say ours is an age of skepticism. Yet it is hard to reconcile skepticism with the faith we see in the powers of this miracle sheath. Whatever the issue—sexually active teens, overpopulation in Asia, the AIDS tragedy in Africa, not to mention keeping sand out of Marine rifles in Iraq—the solution seems to start with latex.'
By saying the word "condom" in one sentence that did not condemn its use, Pope Benedict gets a few encouraging words from his "ultimate judges," the Fourth Estate.
Wm. McGurn identifies the orthodoxy of our times:
'They say ours is an age of skepticism. Yet it is hard to reconcile skepticism with the faith we see in the powers of this miracle sheath. Whatever the issue—sexually active teens, overpopulation in Asia, the AIDS tragedy in Africa, not to mention keeping sand out of Marine rifles in Iraq—the solution seems to start with latex.'
By saying the word "condom" in one sentence that did not condemn its use, Pope Benedict gets a few encouraging words from his "ultimate judges," the Fourth Estate.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
To condom or not to condom, that is not the question...
Are you losing sleep trying to decide whether to run for president in 2012?
Some people are.
Keep in mind that no one personally campaigned for president until Wm. Jennings Bryan, and Wm. McKinley responded by sitting on his front porch... and getting elected. Those were the days.
Our house is close to "political proof." We have no cable or satellite television. We have caller ID and don't pick up unless we feel like it. We listen to satellite radio. Thus, we study politics when we want to, usually on the web, but sometimes in other media. Wake me up after Labor Day, 2012.
Keep in mind that no one personally campaigned for president until Wm. Jennings Bryan, and Wm. McKinley responded by sitting on his front porch... and getting elected. Those were the days.
Our house is close to "political proof." We have no cable or satellite television. We have caller ID and don't pick up unless we feel like it. We listen to satellite radio. Thus, we study politics when we want to, usually on the web, but sometimes in other media. Wake me up after Labor Day, 2012.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Justice for detained terrorists? Justice for us?
A friend emails:
'I was scanning the headlines and I can't stop reading this story about the trial of terrorist Ahmed Ghailani. The DOJ, in an effort to appear fair and just to the world, gave Ghailani a civilian trial. Subsequently, he was found guilty of only one count of 281-- of course that one count was for murder of 250 people, yet he still will only get a 20 year sentence.
'As a lawyer, and I know this is not your area of expertise, what do you make of this? Of course this would always make good fodder for Burke to Kirk, but I would really like to get a sound legal perspective on this. I have little to no understanding on military tribunals vs. civilian courts and what the repercussions are. My gut tells me that putting international terrorist on trial in US court is a horrible mistake. Then again, why would a military trial be so much better?'
What little I know about military courts I largely heard from my law school friends in the JAG Corps, though I have posted on the trial of a lieutenant who refused to go to Iraq.
No system is perfect. Just trying to figure out the identity of the bad guys is hard enough, and protecting due process when the suspect is likely a conspirator and a killer is harder. The left, as usual, has great faith in the federal district courts and is suspicious of any other. The left, however, does not have a monopoly on such opposition.
This country declared independence because the British sought to centralize authority and try suspects in admiralty courts rather than before juries within the colonies. Juries in the 18th century were republics unto themselves, and the fear that debtors would be forced into trials in Halifax pressed the argument for independence. It is patriotic to question, if not also challenge, any attempt to restrict the right to a trial by civilian jury. And this is done by those left, center, and right.
But how just are military tribunals, and why would they be superior against terrorists? Again, I do not have an answer, but I can comment on the legal culture of the military. Soldiers and sailors generally have a coherent sense of justice based upon the experience of discipline and deprivation, much more so than civilian jurors, who often have little in common. Soldiers and sailors do not like incompetent officers, including JAG officers. They, like most of us, feel for the little guy and respect someone who is courageous and tough. They don't like cowards, and any trial would likely turn on whether the defendant can establish himself as a "freedom fighter" rather than a beast who blows up civilians as some sick protest. Under the rules of procedure and evidence, the military does not have to reveal all of its sources of intelligence to obtain a conviction.
One does not have to be a civil libertarian to see the dangers of abusing military tribunals in a long undeclared war against non-uniformed enemies in dysfunctional states. Nonetheless, the U.S. district courts would reveal many of our counter-terrorism tactics and sources during the several hundred trials that would be conducted. We will have to protect the witnesses as if we are going after hundreds of Mafia dons.
For this reason, John Yoo and others argue that national security requires us to hold the non-combatants without trial until hostilities end. Yoo has taken plenty of flak, and I won't say that his views are right. But what he has done is show that international treaties, customs, practice, statute, and case law allow the U.S. to do most of what we have been doing, even when the practices of interrogation and detention this decade are morally and politically unacceptable. He is hated because he exposes much of the criticism of U.S. policies as based upon moral posturing rather than established and enforceable law.
International criminal law is a mess and reflects aspiration more than reality. The U.S., as the world's cop, is not going to submit itself, its witnesses, or its captives to the International Criminal Court. The executive branch, until President Barack Obama, was reluctant to submit detained combatants to judgment by U.S. district courts. The wisdom of that policy cannot be fully known at this time.
But let's admit that most of the charges are more than difficult to prove. Conspiracy is the prosecutor's dream charge; with it you can pin murder on someone who was not there. The evidence, however, must be admissible, and the jury must buy it. Thus, the option of military tribunals means that more of the detainees would likely be convicted. Nonetheless, there is more incentive to keep them detained without trial than to try them. Habeas corpus might not be suspended, but it is slow, and few federal judges are going to spring someone suspected of blowing up U.S. citizens.
There will ultimately be little satisfaction in this matter for any party. We won't get sharia law as the terrorists want. Most of the detainees won't be released either to live in peace or to blow up infidels. Many will neither be tried nor released. The result of detaining hundreds of dangerous people for conspiracy to murder undermines the credibility of our justice system, though their release might destroy more than credibility. The first casualty of war is truth, and the final casualty near the end of any war is justice. "All the king's horses and all the king's men...." The worst part of studying law is finding out how many crimes as well as violations of due process have no adequate remedy.
UPDATE: Ann Althouse notes that restrictive laws of evidence have changed the very nature of criminal trials. Once upon a time, juries were little republics, and paternalistic legislatures and judges could not contain them in little bubbles of selective ignorance of fact and law in the name of objectivity.
UPDATE II: "Life is like learning to play the violin in front of an audience." So said Saul Bellow. My friend Jake has just started blogging at
Grunge Candy.
'I was scanning the headlines and I can't stop reading this story about the trial of terrorist Ahmed Ghailani. The DOJ, in an effort to appear fair and just to the world, gave Ghailani a civilian trial. Subsequently, he was found guilty of only one count of 281-- of course that one count was for murder of 250 people, yet he still will only get a 20 year sentence.
'As a lawyer, and I know this is not your area of expertise, what do you make of this? Of course this would always make good fodder for Burke to Kirk, but I would really like to get a sound legal perspective on this. I have little to no understanding on military tribunals vs. civilian courts and what the repercussions are. My gut tells me that putting international terrorist on trial in US court is a horrible mistake. Then again, why would a military trial be so much better?'
What little I know about military courts I largely heard from my law school friends in the JAG Corps, though I have posted on the trial of a lieutenant who refused to go to Iraq.
No system is perfect. Just trying to figure out the identity of the bad guys is hard enough, and protecting due process when the suspect is likely a conspirator and a killer is harder. The left, as usual, has great faith in the federal district courts and is suspicious of any other. The left, however, does not have a monopoly on such opposition.
This country declared independence because the British sought to centralize authority and try suspects in admiralty courts rather than before juries within the colonies. Juries in the 18th century were republics unto themselves, and the fear that debtors would be forced into trials in Halifax pressed the argument for independence. It is patriotic to question, if not also challenge, any attempt to restrict the right to a trial by civilian jury. And this is done by those left, center, and right.
But how just are military tribunals, and why would they be superior against terrorists? Again, I do not have an answer, but I can comment on the legal culture of the military. Soldiers and sailors generally have a coherent sense of justice based upon the experience of discipline and deprivation, much more so than civilian jurors, who often have little in common. Soldiers and sailors do not like incompetent officers, including JAG officers. They, like most of us, feel for the little guy and respect someone who is courageous and tough. They don't like cowards, and any trial would likely turn on whether the defendant can establish himself as a "freedom fighter" rather than a beast who blows up civilians as some sick protest. Under the rules of procedure and evidence, the military does not have to reveal all of its sources of intelligence to obtain a conviction.
One does not have to be a civil libertarian to see the dangers of abusing military tribunals in a long undeclared war against non-uniformed enemies in dysfunctional states. Nonetheless, the U.S. district courts would reveal many of our counter-terrorism tactics and sources during the several hundred trials that would be conducted. We will have to protect the witnesses as if we are going after hundreds of Mafia dons.
For this reason, John Yoo and others argue that national security requires us to hold the non-combatants without trial until hostilities end. Yoo has taken plenty of flak, and I won't say that his views are right. But what he has done is show that international treaties, customs, practice, statute, and case law allow the U.S. to do most of what we have been doing, even when the practices of interrogation and detention this decade are morally and politically unacceptable. He is hated because he exposes much of the criticism of U.S. policies as based upon moral posturing rather than established and enforceable law.
International criminal law is a mess and reflects aspiration more than reality. The U.S., as the world's cop, is not going to submit itself, its witnesses, or its captives to the International Criminal Court. The executive branch, until President Barack Obama, was reluctant to submit detained combatants to judgment by U.S. district courts. The wisdom of that policy cannot be fully known at this time.
But let's admit that most of the charges are more than difficult to prove. Conspiracy is the prosecutor's dream charge; with it you can pin murder on someone who was not there. The evidence, however, must be admissible, and the jury must buy it. Thus, the option of military tribunals means that more of the detainees would likely be convicted. Nonetheless, there is more incentive to keep them detained without trial than to try them. Habeas corpus might not be suspended, but it is slow, and few federal judges are going to spring someone suspected of blowing up U.S. citizens.
There will ultimately be little satisfaction in this matter for any party. We won't get sharia law as the terrorists want. Most of the detainees won't be released either to live in peace or to blow up infidels. Many will neither be tried nor released. The result of detaining hundreds of dangerous people for conspiracy to murder undermines the credibility of our justice system, though their release might destroy more than credibility. The first casualty of war is truth, and the final casualty near the end of any war is justice. "All the king's horses and all the king's men...." The worst part of studying law is finding out how many crimes as well as violations of due process have no adequate remedy.
UPDATE: Ann Althouse notes that restrictive laws of evidence have changed the very nature of criminal trials. Once upon a time, juries were little republics, and paternalistic legislatures and judges could not contain them in little bubbles of selective ignorance of fact and law in the name of objectivity.
UPDATE II: "Life is like learning to play the violin in front of an audience." So said Saul Bellow. My friend Jake has just started blogging at
Grunge Candy.
Atlanta public housing
I remember when the area around Atlanta's Fulton County Stadium was so scary you felt that one wrong turn could be your last. The source of much of the crime, including a homicide rate like D.C.'s, Detroit's, and Newark's, was public housing, which not only warehoused the powerless and their violent exploiters but frightened away private investment in anything within a mile of the projects.
Things have changed, not to perfection, but the improvement is discernable to the most casual observer. Renee Glover has been the catalyst.
Things have changed, not to perfection, but the improvement is discernable to the most casual observer. Renee Glover has been the catalyst.
"Don't Touch My Junk"
Charles Krauthammer, privacy, and airport security. The Israelis do a better job because they don't believe in equalitarian inconvenience for the sake of political correctness.
Krauthammer says:
'Don't touch my junk is the anthem of the modern man, the Tea Party patriot, the late-life libertarian, the midterm election voter. Don't touch my junk, Obamacare - get out of my doctor's examining room, I'm wearing a paper-thin gown slit down the back. Don't touch my junk, Google - Street View is cool, but get off my street. Don't touch my junk, you airport security goon - my package belongs to no one but me, and do you really think I'm a Nigerian nut job preparing for my 72-virgin orgy by blowing my johnson to kingdom come?'
Krauthammer says:
'Don't touch my junk is the anthem of the modern man, the Tea Party patriot, the late-life libertarian, the midterm election voter. Don't touch my junk, Obamacare - get out of my doctor's examining room, I'm wearing a paper-thin gown slit down the back. Don't touch my junk, Google - Street View is cool, but get off my street. Don't touch my junk, you airport security goon - my package belongs to no one but me, and do you really think I'm a Nigerian nut job preparing for my 72-virgin orgy by blowing my johnson to kingdom come?'
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
"Mr. Duffy Goes to Washington"
Jay Anderson posts about Wisconsin's new Congressman, a Catholic whose wife homeschools their six children.
Monday, November 15, 2010
"The Shadow Scholar"
Disturbing article by someone who plagiarizes academic papers for a living. An excerpt:
'At this point, there are few academic challenges that I find intimidating. You name it, I've been paid to write about it.
'Customers' orders are endlessly different yet strangely all the same. No matter what the subject, clients want to be assured that their assignment is in capable hands. It would be terrible to think that your Ivy League graduate thesis was riding on the work ethic and perspicacity of a public-university slacker. So part of my job is to be whatever my clients want me to be. I say yes when I am asked if I have a Ph.D. in sociology. I say yes when I am asked if I have professional training in industrial/organizational psychology. I say yes when asked if I have ever designed a perpetual-motion-powered time machine and documented my efforts in a peer-reviewed journal.'
The internet and email mean that teachers that do not have actual relationships with their students cannot know whether the students have mastered (or even studied) a subject. The "quality control" at our degree factories is a joke.
Hat tip to Instapundit.
'At this point, there are few academic challenges that I find intimidating. You name it, I've been paid to write about it.
'Customers' orders are endlessly different yet strangely all the same. No matter what the subject, clients want to be assured that their assignment is in capable hands. It would be terrible to think that your Ivy League graduate thesis was riding on the work ethic and perspicacity of a public-university slacker. So part of my job is to be whatever my clients want me to be. I say yes when I am asked if I have a Ph.D. in sociology. I say yes when I am asked if I have professional training in industrial/organizational psychology. I say yes when asked if I have ever designed a perpetual-motion-powered time machine and documented my efforts in a peer-reviewed journal.'
The internet and email mean that teachers that do not have actual relationships with their students cannot know whether the students have mastered (or even studied) a subject. The "quality control" at our degree factories is a joke.
Hat tip to Instapundit.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
"Obama's Gifts to the GOP"
An excerpt from Peggy Noonan's column today:
'Compromise is a tool you use to get the best legislation possible, but you have to persuade the big center that your way is the better way. We’re in an age where politicians assert, insist and leave. It’s all quick, blunt and dumb. But to win and hold the center you have to make your case, you have to show you’re philosophically serious, you have to show your logic, and connect it to a philosophy. You don’t sit around saying, “I like centrists so I compromise,” you say, “Here’s what we believe, here’s how we think and why.”'
(Last week's column had a great opening: "The people have spoken, the bastards.")
'Compromise is a tool you use to get the best legislation possible, but you have to persuade the big center that your way is the better way. We’re in an age where politicians assert, insist and leave. It’s all quick, blunt and dumb. But to win and hold the center you have to make your case, you have to show you’re philosophically serious, you have to show your logic, and connect it to a philosophy. You don’t sit around saying, “I like centrists so I compromise,” you say, “Here’s what we believe, here’s how we think and why.”'
(Last week's column had a great opening: "The people have spoken, the bastards.")
"Why the GOP Needs the Academic Elite"
Professor Bainbridge links to Nils August Andresen and quotes Russell Kirk.
Essentially, if it is bad to be governed by professors, it is worse to be governed by populists looking for the lowest political denominator.
Essentially, if it is bad to be governed by professors, it is worse to be governed by populists looking for the lowest political denominator.
Should juries in capital cases be limited to those who believe in the death penalty?
In colonial times, American juries were little republics unto themselves. They determined issues of fact and law.
Today, juries are given strict instructions and often not told the consequences of their verdicts prior to their deliberations. Judges are given strict mandates for sentencing. Courts thus have lost their autonomy and their abilities to provide moral leadership beyond the directives of the legislatures.
Norm Pattis discusses how a juror went against his conscience to vote to put a convicted murderer to death.
Today, juries are given strict instructions and often not told the consequences of their verdicts prior to their deliberations. Judges are given strict mandates for sentencing. Courts thus have lost their autonomy and their abilities to provide moral leadership beyond the directives of the legislatures.
Norm Pattis discusses how a juror went against his conscience to vote to put a convicted murderer to death.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Armistice, November 11, 1918
These were the terms. For those less historically inclined, a Canadian discusses poppies, war, and remembrance.
My Veterans' Day posts from 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006. Thanks and gratitude.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Obamacare and middle-class anxiety
President Barack Obama says that the recent electoral reversal is due to the economy and not to the healthcare bill. He can only wish.
Elections are determined by turnout and swing voters. Swing voters tend to be of the middle class, and the one thing which unites the middle class is the fear of falling.
The "middle class" is not well defined, but it's hard to sing the blues as long as you still have three types of insurance: health, life, and disability. The healthcare bill has made it certain that millions of Americans are going to lose the health-insurance plans they currently enjoy.
Most do not expect to be rescued by Uncle Sam any better than the poor citizens of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
If there is a bright side, the healthcare bill is so bad that the reform will have to be reformed, and perhaps our brilliant legislators will allow us peons to purchase catastrophic coverage across state lines without those impossible minimum coverages which wreck the insurance markets for most everyone except those associated with large institutional employers.
Elections are determined by turnout and swing voters. Swing voters tend to be of the middle class, and the one thing which unites the middle class is the fear of falling.
The "middle class" is not well defined, but it's hard to sing the blues as long as you still have three types of insurance: health, life, and disability. The healthcare bill has made it certain that millions of Americans are going to lose the health-insurance plans they currently enjoy.
Most do not expect to be rescued by Uncle Sam any better than the poor citizens of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
If there is a bright side, the healthcare bill is so bad that the reform will have to be reformed, and perhaps our brilliant legislators will allow us peons to purchase catastrophic coverage across state lines without those impossible minimum coverages which wreck the insurance markets for most everyone except those associated with large institutional employers.
The Fall of the Berlin Wall
Mancheism in politics is neither necessary nor healthy.
Joe Scarborough discusses how he befriended Ron Dellums and Maxine Waters while he represented northwest Florida in the U.S. Congress.
Civility is not impossible. It just requires the persistent politeness and a refusal to believe that those who disagree with you are evil.
Civility is not impossible. It just requires the persistent politeness and a refusal to believe that those who disagree with you are evil.
What is a "progressive"?
The article is inconclusive, but it is "Hamiltonian means for Jeffersonian ends" to put it politely and succinctly.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Who hates Woodrow Wilson?
If you type those words in the search engine, right now you will see a dozen pieces about Glenn Beck.
I know who Glenn Beck is, but I have never watched him on television and largely hear about his opinions from his critics. My father, as conservative as he is, calls Mr. Beck a "yeller" and changes the channel whenever he sees him. Mr. Beck's patriotic rhetorical style fusing God and country moves my father's thumb irresistably to the button on the remote control.
President Woodrow Wilson makes a seemingly perfect bogeyman for today's conservatives: He presided over the transition of the Democratic Party going from Populist (Wm. Jennings Bryan) to Progressive. He led America on its first land war across the Atlantic and seemingly stuffed Washington's Farewell Address into a cave. He implemented the Federal Reserve System, the national income tax, and Prohibition. He invented the idea of collective security through the League of Nations. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a conservative thinker of tremendous learning and great breadth of knowledge, would have agreed with Mr. Beck about President Wilson.
Russell Kirk, however, admired President Wilson and wrote in Enemies of the Permanent Things that Wilson was in the heart a conservative man given the task of holding the world together in dreadful times. This admiration was not reiterated in his later writings, however. I have read the long section of Enemies and compared it to his scathing criticisms of the first Gulf war and George H.W. Bush's internationalism and "new world order", and I cannot explain the incongruity. The incongruity does suggest, nonetheless, that President Wilson deserves very careful study, perhaps a balanced and nuanced biography by a conservative who does not despise him.
What's after big government?
That is, if we have the prudence to reduce the size and scope of government power without creating a series of train wrecks.
If you type "abolish the federal reserve" in the search engine, you will get plenty of hits, including many from the lunatic fringe.
If you type "abolish the federal reserve" in the search engine, you will get plenty of hits, including many from the lunatic fringe.
I don't advise such an action. President James Madison and the Jeffersonian Republicans allowed the charter of the first Bank of the United States to expire, and once war was declared in 1812, we found ourselves without a key tool to waging war. President Andrew Jackson destroyed the second Bank of the United States in 1832. Without a central bank, federal banks became manipulated through "pet banks," that is, crony capitalists. The Panic of 1837 resulted.
The Federal Reserve System is not purely a central bank, but a hybrid created in 1913 as a compromise after the tumults of financing the Old Confederate War, gyrations in commodities prices, and the Panics of 1873 and 1893. It has its flaws, but dismantling it during a recession might make us long for the "good old days" of the current economic-intestinal blockage.
Friday, November 05, 2010
The Anchoress, Peggy Noonan, and Sarah Palin
The Anchoress has been getting salvos of mean emails due to her criticism of Sarah Palin:
'Palin is perfectly capable of deft bladework, but too often chooses to attack when a parry-and-feint will do. Her methods may please her press-hating base but — as we see with Angle and O’Donnell — one needs more than principles and an echo-chamber-emboldened base in order to win an election.'
I must agree with the Anchoress, and I will defend her for being fair to Sarah Palin since the Governor's comet appeared in the August sky of 2008.
Peggy Noonan wrote a thoughtful column about this week's election results, but she called Governor Palin a "nincompoop," so she will be getting more blowback than the Anchoress. But, Ms. Noonan's main point was excellent:
'Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can't just bully them, you can't just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.'
I can only agree. A person can run for mayor of a city of 200 (people not employees) without executive experience, but if you want to represent 700,000 people in the U.S. Congress or be governor of a state, you should be able to claim a string of accomplishments showing that you can handle money, pressure, attention, conflicts, competition, and vast responsibility.
Governor Palin deserves plenty of constructive criticism. If we conservatives cannot give her an earful when she overstates an issue, oversimplifies a problem, or makes a gaffe, we are no better than the mainstream media and the left which gave Barack Obama (and Joe Biden) a free pass, to their own disillusionment today. Governor Palin showed tremendous raw political talent in 2008. I thought her first big speech was fantastic, but that what the Democrats said about Obama in 2004.
There is a part of Sarah Palin that I strongly dislike in any potential leader: self-pity. The greatest leaders heroically fight off self-pity as they battle their nation's enemies, and they are admired for their moral courage. Contrast George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower to Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Self-pity prevented the latter two, who are arguably smarter than the former two, from becoming heroic leaders.
I like Governor Palin, and with hard work and patience, she could become a great national leader, but I won't give her a free pass, and no one else should, for her sake and ours.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Islamo finance
It's not based on debt, but equity and shared risk.
Ironically, the Jews became Europe's bankers because Christian princes would not allow them to own land and seldom wanted them as business partners.
Ironically, the Jews became Europe's bankers because Christian princes would not allow them to own land and seldom wanted them as business partners.
Tweaking Obamacare
Democrats are not happy with Obamacare, though they won't likely say so. They view President Barack Obama's handling of the legislation to be gutless, being that he never publicly advocated a single-payer system and abandoned the public option when opposition was a murmur rather than a roar.
The Republicans in the House next year will likely enact a simple repeal and send the bill to the Senate, where it will die in committee and not face a presidential veto. After they do so, they might quietly and diplomatically work on some amendments which would improve the availability and costs of health insurance. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. has some good suggestions.
I have posted on health insurance often.
The Republicans in the House next year will likely enact a simple repeal and send the bill to the Senate, where it will die in committee and not face a presidential veto. After they do so, they might quietly and diplomatically work on some amendments which would improve the availability and costs of health insurance. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. has some good suggestions.
I have posted on health insurance often.
The Catholic Vote
In recent years, Catholics are generally voting with the majority. I am afraid we are being led more than we lead.
The same author, Joseph Bottum, has archived an older piece on Catholic scandals. The piece has a long shelf life, so I am linking it.
UPDATE: Pro-Life candidates did well this week, but they do best when they are accomplished people and not mere activists. Independents will vote for conservatives of good cheer who are committed to preserving our liberties and happen to be pro-life. Conservatives who identify with the Republican label and speak the pro-life message more than the message of message of liberty through limited government are too easy to label as zealots.
The same author, Joseph Bottum, has archived an older piece on Catholic scandals. The piece has a long shelf life, so I am linking it.
UPDATE: Pro-Life candidates did well this week, but they do best when they are accomplished people and not mere activists. Independents will vote for conservatives of good cheer who are committed to preserving our liberties and happen to be pro-life. Conservatives who identify with the Republican label and speak the pro-life message more than the message of message of liberty through limited government are too easy to label as zealots.
Refugees from satellite and cable television
We bought our current television when my wife was pregnant. She asked for it, though we had not owned a television since we were married,
and she got it. (Never argue with a pregnant lady.)
During the endless 2000 election, we flipped from network to network back in the days when MSNBC and FOX were interesting and CNN had not hit the skids. We watched college football and the World Series, and we admit we watched more than a few things that have little value. Our daughter did not watch much programming, though she did have plenty of movies from Charlotte's Web to the Marx Brothers to Mary Poppins.
One day in the spring of 2009, my wife said as a matter of fact that we were to disconnect our satellite. She said that she was on a supposedly innocuous station when a commercial came on that no child should see. She was not specific, but most readers know that only the Home Shopping Network has no rotten commercials because the whole enterprise is a perpetual (and perhaps infernal) jewelry commerical.
So we disconnected, and now we surf the web for news and rely on NetFlix for our movies, documentaries, and old shows. Going to my father's house (in another state) and watching an Alabama football game is now a big event. NOVA brings us a frequent science lesson, and Perry Mason teaches me how to get a witness to confess to a murder while in the courtroom. (I'm still working on my technique.)
Last night I surfed from Real Clear Politics to CNN to NPR to FOX to CBS to ABC News to Instapundit to Ann Althouse. (The bloggers are generally more interesting than the "professional" journalists. Is journalism really a profession?) Occasionally I played video of the election coverage from the web.
Overall, I think that since 2009 "less has been more" when it comes to television. The costs of being bombarded by audio-visual images not of my choosing are simply too high.
and she got it. (Never argue with a pregnant lady.)
During the endless 2000 election, we flipped from network to network back in the days when MSNBC and FOX were interesting and CNN had not hit the skids. We watched college football and the World Series, and we admit we watched more than a few things that have little value. Our daughter did not watch much programming, though she did have plenty of movies from Charlotte's Web to the Marx Brothers to Mary Poppins.
One day in the spring of 2009, my wife said as a matter of fact that we were to disconnect our satellite. She said that she was on a supposedly innocuous station when a commercial came on that no child should see. She was not specific, but most readers know that only the Home Shopping Network has no rotten commercials because the whole enterprise is a perpetual (and perhaps infernal) jewelry commerical.
So we disconnected, and now we surf the web for news and rely on NetFlix for our movies, documentaries, and old shows. Going to my father's house (in another state) and watching an Alabama football game is now a big event. NOVA brings us a frequent science lesson, and Perry Mason teaches me how to get a witness to confess to a murder while in the courtroom. (I'm still working on my technique.)
Last night I surfed from Real Clear Politics to CNN to NPR to FOX to CBS to ABC News to Instapundit to Ann Althouse. (The bloggers are generally more interesting than the "professional" journalists. Is journalism really a profession?) Occasionally I played video of the election coverage from the web.
Overall, I think that since 2009 "less has been more" when it comes to television. The costs of being bombarded by audio-visual images not of my choosing are simply too high.
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
After the election, I am relieved that no more "comprehensive" legislation will likely be enacted during the next two years, but politics is almost always the tip of the iceberg of culture. Fixating one's eyes on the tip of the iceberg is a good way have one's ship fatally damaged by ice beneath the waterline. I do not trust either party with federal authority, the tax power, or the loot.
[Quotation of Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr.]
[Quotation of Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
