My apologies for my overlong hiatus from reviewing Heather MacDonald's screed, or perhaps screech. A veritable avalanche of work is upon me and I am struggling valiantly to dig out from under.
Until my return here is a sample of the dreaded soul-numbing faith-founded sensibility she fears is corrupting our otherwise tame existence. Courtesy of the poet Burns, his A Prayer in the Prospect of Death.
O Thou unknown, Almighty Cause
Of all my hope and fear!
In whose dread presence, ere an hour,
Perhaps I must appear!
If I have wander'd in those paths
Of life I ought to shun --
As something, loudly, in my breast,
Remonstrates I have done --
Thou know'st that Thou hast formed me
With passions wild and strong;
And list'ning to their witching voice
Has often led me wrong.
Where human weakness has come short,
Or frailty steps aside,
Do Thou, All-good - for such Thou art --
In shades of darkness hide.
Where with intention I have err'd,
No other plea I have,
But, Thou art good; and Goodness still
Delighteth to forgive.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
So It's President Rudy, Then
Almost 2 years before the next Inauguration Day, every poll and every bit of conventional wisdom agrees: Rudy Da Man to lead Team GOP to victory.
He skates to the nomination: head evangelical honcho Dr. James Dobson hates John McCain for calling certain Christians "agents of intolerance," libertarianish tax freedomers hate John McCain for voting against the first and decisive round of Bush tax cuts, and Rush Limbaugh hates John McCain for McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, and a couple dozen well-deserved other things.
Such unanimity is rare in the Republican Party. John McCain is a consensus builder, let's give him that.
Mitt Romney's single term as governor of Massachusetts and a few years as steward for the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, although estimable, make Barack Obama, who at least served in his state legislature, look like an elder statesman. Plus Romney subscribes to Mormonism, which unfortunately, Harrison Ford never made a movie about. Mitt would have better luck if he were Amish---although that would make it tough for Putin or the mullahs to get him on the red phone and he'd have to take a rowboat to summit meetings. But with one of those cool black hats and some whiskers, he'd look positively Lincolnesque.
The 2008 general election will be even easier for His Rudyness, because if there's one thing collectivists hate more than their opponents, it's each other. Most of America despises Mistress Hillary, even those who pretend to like her. Barackorama will find out that leading the free world is even harder than quitting smoking, although it's nearly a dead heat. He'll succeed at neither, if only because he's crazy to try both at the same time.
And if there's anybody who's no Jack Kennedy, it's John Edwards, who not only chased ambulances but caught them. He used the ensuing millions to score an entry-level job as a US senator, but after 6 agonizing years of clockwatching, bailed to send his resume out full time from a monstrous enviro-unfriendly compound instead. Forget about Jack Kennedy---Edwards isn't even a John Kerry, to whom "a lifetime of" certainly applies, even if "public service" doesn't.
So for now, it's President Rudy. Much can happen in two years, and the prostate cancer that sidelined Rudy from sending Mrs. Clinton to well-deserved political obscurity in the 2000 New York senate race could become a factor again. I meself am good with Sen. McCain, who is wrong on all the little things, but not the important ones. Such faint praise was heaped on Winston Churchill, and all he did was save the world.
But as a Republican, I wish we had some bench strength with guys like Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh: they're superbly qualified and probably not nuts. Their politics are often not the same as mine, but neither are heir apparent Rudy's, and the GOP has a lot, and too much, riding on our new quarterback's arm, head, and prostate gland.
He skates to the nomination: head evangelical honcho Dr. James Dobson hates John McCain for calling certain Christians "agents of intolerance," libertarianish tax freedomers hate John McCain for voting against the first and decisive round of Bush tax cuts, and Rush Limbaugh hates John McCain for McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, and a couple dozen well-deserved other things.
Such unanimity is rare in the Republican Party. John McCain is a consensus builder, let's give him that.
Mitt Romney's single term as governor of Massachusetts and a few years as steward for the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, although estimable, make Barack Obama, who at least served in his state legislature, look like an elder statesman. Plus Romney subscribes to Mormonism, which unfortunately, Harrison Ford never made a movie about. Mitt would have better luck if he were Amish---although that would make it tough for Putin or the mullahs to get him on the red phone and he'd have to take a rowboat to summit meetings. But with one of those cool black hats and some whiskers, he'd look positively Lincolnesque.
The 2008 general election will be even easier for His Rudyness, because if there's one thing collectivists hate more than their opponents, it's each other. Most of America despises Mistress Hillary, even those who pretend to like her. Barackorama will find out that leading the free world is even harder than quitting smoking, although it's nearly a dead heat. He'll succeed at neither, if only because he's crazy to try both at the same time.
And if there's anybody who's no Jack Kennedy, it's John Edwards, who not only chased ambulances but caught them. He used the ensuing millions to score an entry-level job as a US senator, but after 6 agonizing years of clockwatching, bailed to send his resume out full time from a monstrous enviro-unfriendly compound instead. Forget about Jack Kennedy---Edwards isn't even a John Kerry, to whom "a lifetime of" certainly applies, even if "public service" doesn't.
So for now, it's President Rudy. Much can happen in two years, and the prostate cancer that sidelined Rudy from sending Mrs. Clinton to well-deserved political obscurity in the 2000 New York senate race could become a factor again. I meself am good with Sen. McCain, who is wrong on all the little things, but not the important ones. Such faint praise was heaped on Winston Churchill, and all he did was save the world.
But as a Republican, I wish we had some bench strength with guys like Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh: they're superbly qualified and probably not nuts. Their politics are often not the same as mine, but neither are heir apparent Rudy's, and the GOP has a lot, and too much, riding on our new quarterback's arm, head, and prostate gland.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
An Apt Comparison?
In a recent post at my blog (mdvoutlook.com), I ruminated about an article that argued that Rudy Giuliani is a new kind of social conservative. I wasn’t completely swayed by the author’s argument, but it is clear to me that Giuliani is in many ways a very solid conservative. For those who are troubled by his being labeled a “social liberal” I think that moniker is misleading.
Let’s compare him to another “social liberal” who has run for office in the last several years and has a track record governing America’s most populous state, California. Yes, I speak of Arnold (you know you’ve reached a special status in American culture you’re on a first name basis with everyone).
Actually there is no comparison. Arnold may be a “social liberal” but he is much worse. His kind is the bane of all conservatives, the “moderate.” Moderates are a strange breed; they claim to be down the middle, neither left nor right. Pragmatic is a word they often use to describe themselves. They have no time for ideology, and they think they possess a special gnosis that the more ideologically minded are blind to. From what I’ve seen of these types of politicians they always come down on the liberal side of the political spectrum when it comes to public policy. They are more secular-oriented than not and as such are easily rankled by religious conservatives.
Arnold is a classic "moderate." He talked a good game when he became governor, but when push came to shove, he had no conservative principles to keep him from moving left. At this point he doesn’t look all that much of an improvement over Gray Davis.
Rudy may take some socially liberal positions on a few issues, but that is where his liberalism ends. In my mind they are out of place with the rest of his worldview, but this may be an inconsistency many conservatives will be able to live with. He is by nature and philosophy a solid conservative everywhere else, and how he governed NYC reflected that. Will it be enough to secure the nomination? We’ll see, but that so many social conservatives are willing to seriously consider him is a testament to his conservative bona fides.
Let’s compare him to another “social liberal” who has run for office in the last several years and has a track record governing America’s most populous state, California. Yes, I speak of Arnold (you know you’ve reached a special status in American culture you’re on a first name basis with everyone).
Actually there is no comparison. Arnold may be a “social liberal” but he is much worse. His kind is the bane of all conservatives, the “moderate.” Moderates are a strange breed; they claim to be down the middle, neither left nor right. Pragmatic is a word they often use to describe themselves. They have no time for ideology, and they think they possess a special gnosis that the more ideologically minded are blind to. From what I’ve seen of these types of politicians they always come down on the liberal side of the political spectrum when it comes to public policy. They are more secular-oriented than not and as such are easily rankled by religious conservatives.
Arnold is a classic "moderate." He talked a good game when he became governor, but when push came to shove, he had no conservative principles to keep him from moving left. At this point he doesn’t look all that much of an improvement over Gray Davis.
Rudy may take some socially liberal positions on a few issues, but that is where his liberalism ends. In my mind they are out of place with the rest of his worldview, but this may be an inconsistency many conservatives will be able to live with. He is by nature and philosophy a solid conservative everywhere else, and how he governed NYC reflected that. Will it be enough to secure the nomination? We’ll see, but that so many social conservatives are willing to seriously consider him is a testament to his conservative bona fides.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Amazing "Amazing Grace"
An early scene in Amazing Grace establishes the film's themes in a way that is more subtle than it may initially seem.Young William Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd) confronts a man who is beating an exhausted horse as it lies inert in the mud, in an impossible and heartless attempt to get it to do its appointed work. But it is not simply Wilberforce's compassion that is at work here—that would be an insufferable cliche. Instead of responding to the man's threatening reaction with anger or accusations or pleas for sympathy for the exhausted animal, Wilberforce confronts him with straight facts, pure reason, and an appeal to the man's self-interest: he tells the man that if he lets the horse rest for a half hour or so, it will be ready to carry on.
The man grudgingly realizes the sense in this, and drops his whip into the mud.
This is precisely what Wilberforce would go on to do as a Member of Parliament and the man who led the Empire to abolish slavery. His great cause was to bring to light the facts of slavery and persuade his countrymen to do the right thing.
Amazing Grace is certainly suffused with religion, but it is not a "religious film." Issues and consequences of religious faith appear precisely where they belong in this particular story (and in all observations of human works): at the heart of the characters' motivations. Most of the film deals directly not with religion but with politics. And the treatment of politics is thoroughly intelligent and insightful.
Amazing Grace tells the story of the late-eighteenth century English Member of Parliament William Wilberforce, who as a young man finds his religious conscience so seared by the existence of slavery in his society that he turns away from a career in the religious ministry, which he would greatly prefer to undertake, in favor of a career in politics, where he can manifest his love for God by making the world a better place.
This is both scripturally sound and historically accurate. Wilberforce did indeed help to make the world a much better place.
The film shows the transition from a society in which a small aristocracy ruled without much influence from the general public, to one in which the public's opinion mattered immensely. This is a manifestation of the world-changing effects of Protestantism, and Amazing Grace shows that relationship by depicting the central place of Wilberforce's evangelical zeal in motivating his entirely quixotic ambition to end the slave trade throughout the British Empire.
It is quixotic because slavery is so ingrained into the British economy that almost everyone has an interest in keeping it going. Hence, at first there is overwhemling opposition to Wilberforce's ambitious proposal. He has to struggle for years before he can even get close to victory.
The filmmakers' skill in telling this story is impressive. The screenplay, by Stephen Knight, jumps back and forth through time to keep the story's themes at the forefront. The cinematography of Remi Adefarasin skillfully uses light and dark to bring out the story's themes.
During the scenes depicting Wilberforce's long years of struggle, light and dark visual compositions convey the measure of his optimism and pessimism, respectively. That's at least a convention and at worst a cliche in the movies, but it makes sense here and is done with sufficient skill that it doesn't obtrude. In addition, given that the great majority of the film portrays times of struggle, the darker scenes predominate greatly and thus afford a basically consistent look.
This theme of light and darkness is taken up in the narrative in the story of John Newton, an Englishman and former slaveship captain who converted to Christianity and became an evangelistic preacher. Newton wrote the beloved hymn "Amazing Grace," and its prominent line, "I . . . was blind, but now I see," is used in the film to great effect, when Newton loses his sight but speaks to Wilberforce of his real ability to see. In depicting this character, Albert Finney once again shows his great brilliance as an actor in depicting both Newton's towering strength and his harrowing doubts and personal guilt. Newton's life is indeed, as the film makes clear, a powerful illustration of each person's need for a Savior.
A particularly effective use of this interaction of light and dark occurs in a scene in which Wilberforce expresses to his wife-to-be, Barbara, his doubts that he and his forces will ever be able to end the slave trade. As he speaks, Wilberforce twice takes a new candle, melts the bottom over the expiring flame of one that is about to go out, and sets the new one firmly in place of the old. It is a beautiful image that is easy to miss, but it means much in the context of the film. Renewal of the struggle, the need to shed light on injustice, the replacement of one strategy with another, and the power of just a little light—all of these themes are reflected in and reinforced by this humble, even mundane image.
Director Michael Apted contributes his usual solid, dependable, and basically self-effacing work. It is very effective here, as he concentrates on eliciting persuasive and affecting performances from the film's immensely talented cast. Ioan Gruffudd's performance is impeccable, and his skills are quite up to the task not only of depicting Wilberforce but also of not being blown off the screen by superb performers such as Finney, Michael Gambon (as the MP Lord Charles Fox), Benedict Cumberbatch (whose performance as Pitt the Younger is superb), Romola Garai (in an effectively understated turn as Barbara), Bill Paterson (excellent as wily Scots MP Lord Dundas), and Rufus Sewell in his standout performance as Wilberforce's friend and inspiration, Thomas Clarkson.
Adding further interest is the film's intelligent and comprehensible depiction of the politics of the time. The conservatives, of course, are those who will not even consider any alteration to the institution of slavery. Their concern (one that seemed valid at the time but was proven entirely illusory immediately after abolition) is that such a basic change will bring vast social disorder, poverty, and defeat in an imminent war with the French.
The radicals, represented by Clarkson, are too impatient to accept gradual change and require an immediate transformation of English society such that the entire aristocracy will be thrown out immediately, as is happening in France.
The liberals, Wilberforce and his allies, want change but recognize that they must find a way to do it such that both liberty and order will be maximized. A more perfect illustration of the essence of classical liberalism would be difficult to imagine. In an important and impassioned scene, Clarkson argues with Wilberforce about the need for thorough, immediate change. Wilberforce points out that prudence and justice require that things be done in an orderly way. Ultimately, both the radicals and the conservatives come to see things Wilberforce's way—or at least give in to it.
In his reaction to the French Revolution, Wilberforce shares the thinking of the great British political philosopher and parliamentarian Edmund Burke, one of the first great modern liberals. Perhaps the most startling thing about Amazing Grace is its vivid illustration of the Christian foundations of true liberalism. In Christianity as in the world in general, reason and compassion are always in tension. In Christianity, however, as Amazing Grace and the life of William Wilberforce demonstrate vividly, they are ultimately in harmony. In any particular case, it is up to the body of believers to find where the two come together, in the greatest balance of liberty and order, for in that balance is improvement of the human condition made most consistent and endurable.
Most Highly Recommended.
From Karnick on Culture.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Amazing Grace
Don't mean to step on ST's turf, but as this review in CT says, you should take the time and go see the new movie Amazing Grace, the story of the abolitionist William Wilberforce, whose efforts as a British MP finally ended the slave trade in the British Empire. The movie doesn't shy away at all from Wilberforce's evangelical faith and manages at the same time not to bludgeon you with it, either. It's not a perfect film, but it's quite good and I think may point interestingly toward where Evangelicalism is headed over the next generation or so. But more on that later...just go see the movie.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
LTG Mike Dunn on Doug Feith and the NDU
Following on my earlier post on that silly New York Times front-page nonstory on Doug Feith's contract to teach at the National Defense University, Lieutenant General Mike Dunn, USAF (Ret.), sent the following letter to the Times. The Times is far too uninterested in actual facts to publish the letter, and so I reproduce it here.
February 17, 2007
Dear New York Times Editors,
I read your piece (15 Feb) on former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith realized it must have been a slow-news day. For a paper that prides itself on bringing its readers "all the news that is fit to print," you failed on that piece. What I found most interesting is that you strung a long list on innuendos together to paint a skewed picture of both Mr. Feith and the National Defense University ... and then put the piece on your front page.
It is instructive to look at the facts: First, Mr. Feith, several TV media pundits, and your downtown print rivals - the Wall Street Journal - have debunked the DOD IG report ... which states that questioning intelligence is not the prerogative of policy officials or senior leaders. If it is not their prerogative, it clearly should be.
Secondly, you imply it was improper for the National Defense University to seek someone of Mr. Feith's credentials to lecture and research at NDU. How else are our future leaders going to learn how policy is developed, the rationale behind policy decisions, or what inside alternative considerations might be? You conveniently leave out the fact that Mr. Feith has lectured at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, many other universities, and is presently a distinguished professor at Georgetown University. You also failed to mention that Mr. Feith had lectured at NDU many times in the past. His class critiques have been complimentary; his knowledge of the policy issues facing this country was and is better than any lecturer we had during my tenure as President.
Thirdly, you interviewed me last May for almost 2 hours about the "supposed" impropriety of NDU being a repository for Mr. Feith's and Secretary Wolfowitz's personal papers. You never mentioned that NDU has the personal papers of almost every Chairman of the Joint Chiefs since General Maxwell Taylor, including General Powell's. And NDU also stores the papers of other senior distinguished generals. We are honored to have these collections ... as historians of the future will have access to a treasure-trove of first-hand information for research and reflection. It certainly was not in your agenda to point out the General (Ret) Wesley Clark graciously donated his papers to the university ... and wrote his first book at the university.
Finally and most importantly (and in deference to Secretary White) you imply that NDU ought to avoid controversy in its selection of professors and that choosing someone less qualified might better serve the interests of our nation ... in a time of war. I dispute this point. It might be OK in civilian universities. But our future military and diplomatic leaders deserve the best. And that is what we sought with the selection of Mr. Feith.
Michael M. Dunn
Lt General (Ret)
Former President, National Defense University
February 17, 2007
Dear New York Times Editors,
I read your piece (15 Feb) on former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith realized it must have been a slow-news day. For a paper that prides itself on bringing its readers "all the news that is fit to print," you failed on that piece. What I found most interesting is that you strung a long list on innuendos together to paint a skewed picture of both Mr. Feith and the National Defense University ... and then put the piece on your front page.
It is instructive to look at the facts: First, Mr. Feith, several TV media pundits, and your downtown print rivals - the Wall Street Journal - have debunked the DOD IG report ... which states that questioning intelligence is not the prerogative of policy officials or senior leaders. If it is not their prerogative, it clearly should be.
Secondly, you imply it was improper for the National Defense University to seek someone of Mr. Feith's credentials to lecture and research at NDU. How else are our future leaders going to learn how policy is developed, the rationale behind policy decisions, or what inside alternative considerations might be? You conveniently leave out the fact that Mr. Feith has lectured at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, many other universities, and is presently a distinguished professor at Georgetown University. You also failed to mention that Mr. Feith had lectured at NDU many times in the past. His class critiques have been complimentary; his knowledge of the policy issues facing this country was and is better than any lecturer we had during my tenure as President.
Thirdly, you interviewed me last May for almost 2 hours about the "supposed" impropriety of NDU being a repository for Mr. Feith's and Secretary Wolfowitz's personal papers. You never mentioned that NDU has the personal papers of almost every Chairman of the Joint Chiefs since General Maxwell Taylor, including General Powell's. And NDU also stores the papers of other senior distinguished generals. We are honored to have these collections ... as historians of the future will have access to a treasure-trove of first-hand information for research and reflection. It certainly was not in your agenda to point out the General (Ret) Wesley Clark graciously donated his papers to the university ... and wrote his first book at the university.
Finally and most importantly (and in deference to Secretary White) you imply that NDU ought to avoid controversy in its selection of professors and that choosing someone less qualified might better serve the interests of our nation ... in a time of war. I dispute this point. It might be OK in civilian universities. But our future military and diplomatic leaders deserve the best. And that is what we sought with the selection of Mr. Feith.
Michael M. Dunn
Lt General (Ret)
Former President, National Defense University
Hot Air from America's Icebox
First Al Franken, now this.
Over at NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard has hopped on the Drudge-highlighted story from a couple of days ago that the University of Minnesota is going to favor Al Gore with an honorary degree in climatology for his execrable documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. He is justifiably flabbergasted that 90 minutes of utter piffle can earn one an advanced degree, an Oscar, and a Nobel Peace Prize. But I think he's taking the Gophers a bit too seriously here.
My husband earned his law degree from Minnesota while I spent three years as a research fellow in the School of Public Health. Not only did I have a personal interest in this item, I knew that it usually pays to look a little deeper and find the punch line that lurks in pretty much any story originating in the Twin Cities. With this one it's easy; you need look no further than the original story from the U's student newspaper, the Minnesota Daily. Get past the breathy quotes from the climate change groupies that Sheppard highlights, and read to the last paragraph (slightly rearranged to suit my sense of comic timing) to put this silly little episode in perspective:
Over at NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard has hopped on the Drudge-highlighted story from a couple of days ago that the University of Minnesota is going to favor Al Gore with an honorary degree in climatology for his execrable documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. He is justifiably flabbergasted that 90 minutes of utter piffle can earn one an advanced degree, an Oscar, and a Nobel Peace Prize. But I think he's taking the Gophers a bit too seriously here.
My husband earned his law degree from Minnesota while I spent three years as a research fellow in the School of Public Health. Not only did I have a personal interest in this item, I knew that it usually pays to look a little deeper and find the punch line that lurks in pretty much any story originating in the Twin Cities. With this one it's easy; you need look no further than the original story from the U's student newspaper, the Minnesota Daily. Get past the breathy quotes from the climate change groupies that Sheppard highlights, and read to the last paragraph (slightly rearranged to suit my sense of comic timing) to put this silly little episode in perspective:
The University has given 223 honorary degrees to date. Past recipients include Sandra Day O'Connor, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schultz, and Yanni.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
What Did Conservatives Get Right?
I was challenged by a friend on the other side of the great ideological divide to come up with the high points of conservatism's record over the last 50 or so years. My thoughtful answer was that there's a continuum, that both the New Deal and the undesirability of confiscatory levels of taxation have captured the center, that Nixon was a liberal and that Bill Clinton was not unconservative, but that was apparently unsatisfactory. (I thought it was we righties who are the simplistic Manichaeans, seeing everything in terms of black and white, but not so, not so.)
I despise laundry lists, but I do credit the ability of conservatives, when asked, to actually answer a direct question. (Oooo, I should have included that one.) And so:
---That the constantly rising tide of taxation needed to be reversed, as it stifles hard work, entrepreneurship, innovation, and ultimately, prosperity.
---That the constantly rising tide of regulation needed to be halted, as compliance begins to elbow out actual production.
---That deregulation largely results in lower prices for consumers (energy, telephones, airlines).
---That communism was an ideological tyranny, an enemy of freedom and of man's spirit, and needed to be opposed and rolled back at every opportunity. (The Strategic Defense Initiative, "Star Wars," drove liberals nuts but drove the Soviet Union to suicide.)
---That autocrats like the Shah are better and more able to reform than totalitarian ideologies like the one that now operates Iran. (We may thank the late Jeane Kirkpatrick for that one.)
---That, per Washington's Farewell Address, religion is not an enemy, but an irreplacable ally for any republic that depends first and foremost on individual self-governance.
---That the family is the core platoon of society (there is a provable higher incidence of almost every social pathology in its absence), and that the welfare system was destroying it and individual initiative as well.
---That affirmative action is at best neutral in the short term, that its greater access is offset by things like lower graduation rates and suspicion of minorities' genuine achievement.
---That in the long term, emphasizing the discrimination against groups as trumping individual effort and achievement has resulted in an epidemic hopelessness and a destructive racial divide.
---That choice in schools (vouchers) is the only real solution to resegregation. (One can be sure that if conservatives had such a monopoly on the schools and the education establishment [without whose money and volunteers the Democratic Party would die], good liberals everywhere would be in favor of such freedom.)
---That Milton Friedman's Earned Income Credit is a truly beautiful thing, where if you work harder (or work at all), even for low wages, you end up with more money, to spend as you will. What a concept.
---That despite the flaws of things like Three Strikes, locking up pathologically habitual offenders keeps them off the streets and it's a mathematical certainty, borne out by the stats, that crime rates decrease.
---That a person has a right to defend kith and kin, even with a gun if necessary.
---That the 55 mile an hour speed limit totally, clearly, and unimpeachably sucked.
If all conservatives ever accomplished was the last one, I'd say it was all worth it. Please feel free to jump in; I'm going to make a printout when it's done, because there are so many things we take for granted after Reagan and Gingrich that people need to be reminded of just now.
On both sides of the great divide.
I despise laundry lists, but I do credit the ability of conservatives, when asked, to actually answer a direct question. (Oooo, I should have included that one.) And so:
---That the constantly rising tide of taxation needed to be reversed, as it stifles hard work, entrepreneurship, innovation, and ultimately, prosperity.
---That the constantly rising tide of regulation needed to be halted, as compliance begins to elbow out actual production.
---That deregulation largely results in lower prices for consumers (energy, telephones, airlines).
---That communism was an ideological tyranny, an enemy of freedom and of man's spirit, and needed to be opposed and rolled back at every opportunity. (The Strategic Defense Initiative, "Star Wars," drove liberals nuts but drove the Soviet Union to suicide.)
---That autocrats like the Shah are better and more able to reform than totalitarian ideologies like the one that now operates Iran. (We may thank the late Jeane Kirkpatrick for that one.)
---That, per Washington's Farewell Address, religion is not an enemy, but an irreplacable ally for any republic that depends first and foremost on individual self-governance.
---That the family is the core platoon of society (there is a provable higher incidence of almost every social pathology in its absence), and that the welfare system was destroying it and individual initiative as well.
---That affirmative action is at best neutral in the short term, that its greater access is offset by things like lower graduation rates and suspicion of minorities' genuine achievement.
---That in the long term, emphasizing the discrimination against groups as trumping individual effort and achievement has resulted in an epidemic hopelessness and a destructive racial divide.
---That choice in schools (vouchers) is the only real solution to resegregation. (One can be sure that if conservatives had such a monopoly on the schools and the education establishment [without whose money and volunteers the Democratic Party would die], good liberals everywhere would be in favor of such freedom.)
---That Milton Friedman's Earned Income Credit is a truly beautiful thing, where if you work harder (or work at all), even for low wages, you end up with more money, to spend as you will. What a concept.
---That despite the flaws of things like Three Strikes, locking up pathologically habitual offenders keeps them off the streets and it's a mathematical certainty, borne out by the stats, that crime rates decrease.
---That a person has a right to defend kith and kin, even with a gun if necessary.
---That the 55 mile an hour speed limit totally, clearly, and unimpeachably sucked.
If all conservatives ever accomplished was the last one, I'd say it was all worth it. Please feel free to jump in; I'm going to make a printout when it's done, because there are so many things we take for granted after Reagan and Gingrich that people need to be reminded of just now.
On both sides of the great divide.
You Say Shameless, I Say Shamless
Shameless, shamless, shlamshlame, whatever. Sorry for the misspelling in the heading of the post below; but it does seem a bit Freudian, in that my writings indeed are devoid of sham (in my humble view, anyway), while the rantings of the Levin/Rockefeller crowd are anything but.
Shamless Self-Promotion
My essay on Doug Feith, the CIA consensus, and the IG/Carl Levin/Jay Rockefeller axis can be found here. Comments welcome.
Can Pro-Lifers Vote for Giuliani?
Well, of course they can. But should they? Of that, I am much less sure and this essay doesn't go any distance toward convincing me. Kyle-Anne Shiver suggests that, in fact, the President doesn't have all that much to do with the question of abortion, save his role in nominating judges who are likely to overturn Roe v. Wade (she says "strict constructionist") and dealing at the margins with some abortion legislation. I'm not sure that's right - or at least it's incomplete.
The President has some control, for instance, over our aid budgets - one of the things that just makes the pro-abortion crowd hopping mad is how successive Republican administrations have tied American foreign aid up in ways that prevents it from expanding "reproductive rights." If Giuliani is President, do you think he'll continue the current administration's policy in that area? Why would he?
More importantly, Shiver herself recognizes that the President will have the opportunity to decide whether to veto bills funding abortions or embryonic stem-cell research (actually, she doesn't mention the latter), but, as she notes, Giuliani hasn't committed to vetoing those bills. Indeed, it's hard to see why he would - in his incarnation as Mayor, he was in favor of public funding of even the most grotesque forms of abortion procedures. If he's as hard-headed as she says, will he change his mind on this as well?
And, finally, there's something she just misses here. Suppose, now, that the Supreme Court one day overrules Roe v. Wade. (It's unlikely to happen in one fell swoop, but stick with me). The debates then turn to the legislatures - both federal and state. On the federal level, Congress can mandate that the states allow abortion merely by saying that they have to in order to keep their health-care funding. Would a President Giuliani veto such legislation? Color me doubtful. Perhaps more importantly, at the national level, having a pro-choice President will matter in those debates. The Presidency is the single most important bully pulpit in the nation and if he's firmly in the pro-choice camp, he's likely to sway things his way.
So this pro-lifer ain't convinced and Giuliani still isn't on my list of possibles...
The President has some control, for instance, over our aid budgets - one of the things that just makes the pro-abortion crowd hopping mad is how successive Republican administrations have tied American foreign aid up in ways that prevents it from expanding "reproductive rights." If Giuliani is President, do you think he'll continue the current administration's policy in that area? Why would he?
More importantly, Shiver herself recognizes that the President will have the opportunity to decide whether to veto bills funding abortions or embryonic stem-cell research (actually, she doesn't mention the latter), but, as she notes, Giuliani hasn't committed to vetoing those bills. Indeed, it's hard to see why he would - in his incarnation as Mayor, he was in favor of public funding of even the most grotesque forms of abortion procedures. If he's as hard-headed as she says, will he change his mind on this as well?
And, finally, there's something she just misses here. Suppose, now, that the Supreme Court one day overrules Roe v. Wade. (It's unlikely to happen in one fell swoop, but stick with me). The debates then turn to the legislatures - both federal and state. On the federal level, Congress can mandate that the states allow abortion merely by saying that they have to in order to keep their health-care funding. Would a President Giuliani veto such legislation? Color me doubtful. Perhaps more importantly, at the national level, having a pro-choice President will matter in those debates. The Presidency is the single most important bully pulpit in the nation and if he's firmly in the pro-choice camp, he's likely to sway things his way.
So this pro-lifer ain't convinced and Giuliani still isn't on my list of possibles...
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Black Conservatives Getting Some Love
Well, not really. But they may be getting a little respect. I came across an article by noted black conservative scholar John McWhorter a few weeks ago that warmed my heart. He writes about a play running in a small theater in Philadelphia where one of the main characters is about him. The play’s black conservative character, much to McWhorter’s surprise, is portrayed as a normal person. As he well puts it:
This is tremendous news. Black victimology and alienation have been the default position of politically correct black thinking for the last 30 years or more. This mentality has done nothing but impoverish a poor minority of this community in both soul and money, and has made the climb up the economic ladder that much more difficult for many of the others. In effect Black Americans have imposed this on themselves, and race hustlers who call themselves Black leaders have exploited it for their own profitable ends. It looks like this is finally changing.
One indication of this culturally speaking is a new show I’ve been watching on the ABC Family Channel called “Lincoln Heights.” At the center of the show are a black cop and his family who move back to his old neighborhood, i.e. The Hood, and deal with the struggles of raising a solid family unit in the midst of (mostly) black cultural breakdown. The family is solidly middle class, and the parents raise the children to resist a black culture that mocks civilized behavior.
Specific to the point of a growing diversity of black thought, last night’s episode dealt with the son learning that being “authentically black” doesn’t mean being a hoodlum. Each episode conveys something like that. Honesty, integrity, respect, all solid middle class, dare I say bourgeoisie, values are proudly on display and promoted in the face of black cultural decay by this black family on TV. It has taken some time, but maybe Martin Luther King’s dream of “one day” is finally being taken seriously by those whose ancestors lived the nightmare.
This is a symptom of a larger trend that we ought to keep in mind during Black History Month: a range of views beyond the left are becoming more easily accepted in the black community. This is crucial, because a discussion in which anyone with right-of-center views is dismissed as a moral pervert is not a healthy one.
The viewpoint increasingly questioned is that poverty and other ills in black America cannot be expected to change significantly short of a seismic transformation in how America operates. Under this analysis, we must hope that whites will undergo a "realization" after which there will be no racist biases whatsoever, that low-skill job facilities will relocate to dangerous inner cities, and so on. The assumption is, broadly, that black America must seek a "revolution" of some kind.
Increasing numbers of black people are realizing that this will never occur, and that it doesn't need to: it is possible to help people to help themselves within the current system. There is a proliferation of local organizations shunting low-skilled people into lasting work, helping ex-cons negotiate their way back into the system, and educating students of color well, on shoestring budgets.
That is, itself, the revolution, and important black people are with it. No one can accuse Bill Cosby of being "not really black" and yet he has taken to the road with a message of responsibility. Juan Williams, outspoken liberal and darling of National Public Radio, has written a book arguing that too many black leaders have focused on grievance rather than building. Essentially there are no new leaders in the race-baiting vein of Reverend Al Sharpton.
This is tremendous news. Black victimology and alienation have been the default position of politically correct black thinking for the last 30 years or more. This mentality has done nothing but impoverish a poor minority of this community in both soul and money, and has made the climb up the economic ladder that much more difficult for many of the others. In effect Black Americans have imposed this on themselves, and race hustlers who call themselves Black leaders have exploited it for their own profitable ends. It looks like this is finally changing.
One indication of this culturally speaking is a new show I’ve been watching on the ABC Family Channel called “Lincoln Heights.” At the center of the show are a black cop and his family who move back to his old neighborhood, i.e. The Hood, and deal with the struggles of raising a solid family unit in the midst of (mostly) black cultural breakdown. The family is solidly middle class, and the parents raise the children to resist a black culture that mocks civilized behavior.
Specific to the point of a growing diversity of black thought, last night’s episode dealt with the son learning that being “authentically black” doesn’t mean being a hoodlum. Each episode conveys something like that. Honesty, integrity, respect, all solid middle class, dare I say bourgeoisie, values are proudly on display and promoted in the face of black cultural decay by this black family on TV. It has taken some time, but maybe Martin Luther King’s dream of “one day” is finally being taken seriously by those whose ancestors lived the nightmare.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
A Liberal Against Leftism, or: I am a scumbag
(Executive Summary: If justice becomes our primary concern, we'll all be in jail and there will be nobody left to feed or protect us.)
A buddy of mine recently wrote that conservatives have been wrong about virtually everything over the last 50 years. A strong and sweeping statement, but that's cool. I like strong and sweeping, as it often holds more truth than weak and mealy-mouthed.
It's hard to know what conservative means. If it means opposing radical change, then yeah, I plead guilty. If being a conservative means opposing all progress, well, I wouldn't want to be caught dead in a field with one.
Conservative commonly means defending the status quo, and since the world is not as good as it can be, conservativism cannot be the embodiment of good. And where conservative can become a catchall for all the imperfect or even bad in the status quo, liberalism can be a catchall for all things good.
It's clear that America as a whole has embraced the New Deal as a good and desirable safety net for the weakest among us, so liberalism in the FDR sense has captured and defines the American center. Even Edmund Burke, the philosophical godfather of conservatives, acknowledged the need for change as essential to the life of a nation or a people, and both he and the reputed apostle of capitalism, Adam Smith, saw the need to make provision for the poor as both a moral and practical imperative. We may properly call them classical liberals.
Many conservatives think of themselves as classical liberals, at least the best of them, and in economics, free markets and personal enterprise are often referred to as neo-liberal. The conservatives in Australia are known as the Liberal Party. Rhetorically, when liberal equals good, everybody wants to be a liberal.
Hey, I'm a liberal. I can live with that.
What's troubled me about the current vocabulary is that there is a difference between liberal and left. Conservative is routinely used in contradistinction to both, which lessens its accuracy. By that standard, almost anything can become conservative. For instance, the radical Islamic revolutionary mullahs in Iran, although also anti-liberal, are now "right-wing" in the common media parlance. But conservative might be most properly used in contradistinction to radicalism, and Iran's in particular.
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in spirit is/was liberal for instance, to lift the lowest, and as one of FDR's Four Freedoms, it pursues the freedom from want. One of the two children secreted under the robes of Dickens' Ghost of Christmas Present was Want.
The other was Ignorance. Had Dickens lived another 100 years later, he'd've had to include their evil triplet, leftism, which combines and maximizes the worst features of both. Its willful ignorance of human nature serves only to increase, not alleviate, human want.
What Hugo Chavez is up to in Venezuela right now, bringing the economy under control of the state, is leftist, radical, and supposedly in the name of justice, of homogenization. This equals that equals you equals me. Because he has decreed what everything should cost, the grocery store shelves are empty of everything that people tend to like and can still afford. All that's left is filet mignon and canned turnips, the sublime and the ridiculous.
What the classical liberal seeks to liberate is the human potential, our individual talents and pursuit of our individual excellences, but leftism is another kettle of fish altogether. If America is not a melting pot but a seafood salad or a cioppino, think of putting one in your Cuisinart. Ick. They're trying to feed us Purina Human Chow, and no matter how tasty it is at first, it's disgusting after a mouthful or two.
The question becomes whether progressivism as a politics, when its end becomes justice and not charity, saps its host society of its dynamism and cohesion.
And so, per Edmund Burke, I find myself a conservative and a liberal on the same day. Conservativism, when used in its best sense, is not opposed to change but to radical change, which is why, unlike the more radical Thomas Jefferson, the French Revolution scared the bejesus out of Burke.
Although the tension is often unbearable, change and status quo must remain in tension, so we may sort out babies and bathwater. So I'm conservative not out of dogma, but because as Burke would note, once the baby's tossed, you seldom get it back. The inevitable consequence of radicalism, of leftism, and of Chavez and Marxism in particular, is that babies get tossed, usually off the highest floor.
By disposition, conservatives don't do anything, which is their failing and their virtue. They aren't creative towards the problems of our condition. Not progressive, if you will.
On the other hand, that's not their role. It's not fair to judge them on what they "do," but on what they by persuasion or obstruction prevent. You might say conservatives are the condoms of the human race. History doesn't reveal its alternatives, and prophylactics don't come with a printout with all the bad things that didn't happen because of them.
I can live with that, too.
A buddy of mine recently wrote that conservatives have been wrong about virtually everything over the last 50 years. A strong and sweeping statement, but that's cool. I like strong and sweeping, as it often holds more truth than weak and mealy-mouthed.
It's hard to know what conservative means. If it means opposing radical change, then yeah, I plead guilty. If being a conservative means opposing all progress, well, I wouldn't want to be caught dead in a field with one.
Conservative commonly means defending the status quo, and since the world is not as good as it can be, conservativism cannot be the embodiment of good. And where conservative can become a catchall for all the imperfect or even bad in the status quo, liberalism can be a catchall for all things good.
It's clear that America as a whole has embraced the New Deal as a good and desirable safety net for the weakest among us, so liberalism in the FDR sense has captured and defines the American center. Even Edmund Burke, the philosophical godfather of conservatives, acknowledged the need for change as essential to the life of a nation or a people, and both he and the reputed apostle of capitalism, Adam Smith, saw the need to make provision for the poor as both a moral and practical imperative. We may properly call them classical liberals.
Many conservatives think of themselves as classical liberals, at least the best of them, and in economics, free markets and personal enterprise are often referred to as neo-liberal. The conservatives in Australia are known as the Liberal Party. Rhetorically, when liberal equals good, everybody wants to be a liberal.
Hey, I'm a liberal. I can live with that.
What's troubled me about the current vocabulary is that there is a difference between liberal and left. Conservative is routinely used in contradistinction to both, which lessens its accuracy. By that standard, almost anything can become conservative. For instance, the radical Islamic revolutionary mullahs in Iran, although also anti-liberal, are now "right-wing" in the common media parlance. But conservative might be most properly used in contradistinction to radicalism, and Iran's in particular.
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in spirit is/was liberal for instance, to lift the lowest, and as one of FDR's Four Freedoms, it pursues the freedom from want. One of the two children secreted under the robes of Dickens' Ghost of Christmas Present was Want.
The other was Ignorance. Had Dickens lived another 100 years later, he'd've had to include their evil triplet, leftism, which combines and maximizes the worst features of both. Its willful ignorance of human nature serves only to increase, not alleviate, human want.
What Hugo Chavez is up to in Venezuela right now, bringing the economy under control of the state, is leftist, radical, and supposedly in the name of justice, of homogenization. This equals that equals you equals me. Because he has decreed what everything should cost, the grocery store shelves are empty of everything that people tend to like and can still afford. All that's left is filet mignon and canned turnips, the sublime and the ridiculous.
What the classical liberal seeks to liberate is the human potential, our individual talents and pursuit of our individual excellences, but leftism is another kettle of fish altogether. If America is not a melting pot but a seafood salad or a cioppino, think of putting one in your Cuisinart. Ick. They're trying to feed us Purina Human Chow, and no matter how tasty it is at first, it's disgusting after a mouthful or two.
The question becomes whether progressivism as a politics, when its end becomes justice and not charity, saps its host society of its dynamism and cohesion.
And so, per Edmund Burke, I find myself a conservative and a liberal on the same day. Conservativism, when used in its best sense, is not opposed to change but to radical change, which is why, unlike the more radical Thomas Jefferson, the French Revolution scared the bejesus out of Burke.
Although the tension is often unbearable, change and status quo must remain in tension, so we may sort out babies and bathwater. So I'm conservative not out of dogma, but because as Burke would note, once the baby's tossed, you seldom get it back. The inevitable consequence of radicalism, of leftism, and of Chavez and Marxism in particular, is that babies get tossed, usually off the highest floor.
By disposition, conservatives don't do anything, which is their failing and their virtue. They aren't creative towards the problems of our condition. Not progressive, if you will.
On the other hand, that's not their role. It's not fair to judge them on what they "do," but on what they by persuasion or obstruction prevent. You might say conservatives are the condoms of the human race. History doesn't reveal its alternatives, and prophylactics don't come with a printout with all the bad things that didn't happen because of them.
I can live with that, too.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Al Franken Century
Via Drudge, the Minnesota GOP takes a swipe at newly-announced US Senate candidate (I'll spare us all a photo):
(OK, that one's probably a ringer, but the netroots love to manipulate the Amazon ratings, and so Stuart one got an unreality-based 4 1/2 stars.)
Franken has built a few credentials, mainly---to his credit---going on USO tours and devising a frighteningly clever rhetorical riff called Midwest Values. As an comic actor and writer, Franken played dumb for a living, and then as a political provocateur played intelligent for a living. As unconvincing as he's been as either dumb or smart, he's scratched out success at both by never overestimating the intelligence of the American people.
To underestimate this Harvard cum laude grad is to underestimate one of the greatest talents of all in a democracy. There is no one in America who has calculated and developed his mediocrity better than Al Franken.
"Franken offers Minnesotans nothing but polarization and vitriolic personal attacks."Which, if the "netroots" like the Daily Kos have indeed taken over the Democratic Party, means that Franken should breeze through the primary. Although based on the unwatchable Stuart Saves His Family (I tried the other day, hard, but no luck), one might dismiss him as a clown and not a very good one, those who dig his politics can even be brought around to embrace his execrable art, judging by this Amazon review (sic):
"This has to be one of the absolute best movies I have ever seen! Al Frankin is genious! I am so excited he is from Minnesota and I hope fulheartedly he intends on running for United States Senator from our state."
(OK, that one's probably a ringer, but the netroots love to manipulate the Amazon ratings, and so Stuart one got an unreality-based 4 1/2 stars.)
Franken has built a few credentials, mainly---to his credit---going on USO tours and devising a frighteningly clever rhetorical riff called Midwest Values. As an comic actor and writer, Franken played dumb for a living, and then as a political provocateur played intelligent for a living. As unconvincing as he's been as either dumb or smart, he's scratched out success at both by never overestimating the intelligence of the American people.
To underestimate this Harvard cum laude grad is to underestimate one of the greatest talents of all in a democracy. There is no one in America who has calculated and developed his mediocrity better than Al Franken.
Front Page News Fit To Print
Ah, the New York Times. Gotta love 'em. Today's front page (the print edition no less) informs us that "Ex-Defense Official Hired, Briefly, by a Pentagon School."
It seems that Doug Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, after leaving the Pentagon began a book project and also signed a contract to teach at the National Defense University. Before his first course began, the leadership of the NDU changed, and announced that a top-to-bottom review of all contracts would be undertaken, and that no activities could be approved for some weeks. Feith needed to enroll students in his new course, but could not be given assurance that the course in fact would be approved. And so Feith---who needed the time anyway to work on his book, which was taking a good deal more time than anticipated---and the NDU agreed simply to cancel his contract.
But that is not the impression that the ink-stained wretches at the NYT undertook to give. No indeed: Feith's contract with the NDU, you see, was canceled "three days after" the Times reporter asked NDU about the matter. Not only does the article offer utterly no evidence of anything negative, it fails even to allege any such thing. Instead, the article gives us a lot of verbiage hinting at something slimy without ever telling us precisely what that might be.
The story clearly is yet another attempt by the NYT to make Feith friendless (or radioactive), as part of the larger effort to smear anyone involved in the Bush Administration Iraq policy. (Full disclosure: Feith and I have been good friends for over 25 years.) Feith truly is a gentleman and a scholar, but no matter: At the NYT, a teaching contract at the NDU now is front-page News Fit to Print. And they wonder why no one not already part of their choir takes them seriously.
It seems that Doug Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, after leaving the Pentagon began a book project and also signed a contract to teach at the National Defense University. Before his first course began, the leadership of the NDU changed, and announced that a top-to-bottom review of all contracts would be undertaken, and that no activities could be approved for some weeks. Feith needed to enroll students in his new course, but could not be given assurance that the course in fact would be approved. And so Feith---who needed the time anyway to work on his book, which was taking a good deal more time than anticipated---and the NDU agreed simply to cancel his contract.
But that is not the impression that the ink-stained wretches at the NYT undertook to give. No indeed: Feith's contract with the NDU, you see, was canceled "three days after" the Times reporter asked NDU about the matter. Not only does the article offer utterly no evidence of anything negative, it fails even to allege any such thing. Instead, the article gives us a lot of verbiage hinting at something slimy without ever telling us precisely what that might be.
The story clearly is yet another attempt by the NYT to make Feith friendless (or radioactive), as part of the larger effort to smear anyone involved in the Bush Administration Iraq policy. (Full disclosure: Feith and I have been good friends for over 25 years.) Feith truly is a gentleman and a scholar, but no matter: At the NYT, a teaching contract at the NDU now is front-page News Fit to Print. And they wonder why no one not already part of their choir takes them seriously.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Something New: Political Satire from the Right
Set your DVR for Sunday night, 10:00 p.m. EST, Fox News Channel. Joel Surnow, producer of Fox’s hit series “24” is test marketing a right-leaning political satire show. The left has all the biting, sardonic political humor on the tube. It’s nice to see we actually may get a little bit of humor balance.
This really should be a hit, because the left is so easy to make fun of. And conservatives generally don’t tend to skewer their political and cultural opponents with the bile so characteristic of the left. As Dennis Prager points out, the right believes the left is wrong, while the left believes the right is evil. And if evil is too strong a word for you, how about morally inferior.
Here is a brief description from the man himself:
How much more effective it is to reveal the stupidity and moral vacuousness of lionizing Che Guevara as culturally hip with comparisons to Mao and Hitler, than just riling against it with perfectly correct assertions. This should be some good fun. Hopefully it will get enough ratings to stick.
This really should be a hit, because the left is so easy to make fun of. And conservatives generally don’t tend to skewer their political and cultural opponents with the bile so characteristic of the left. As Dennis Prager points out, the right believes the left is wrong, while the left believes the right is evil. And if evil is too strong a word for you, how about morally inferior.
Here is a brief description from the man himself:
"We're calling it news with a sense of humor," said Surnow, producer of Fox's "24." "It's a show that satirizes the targets that have been missed by the mainstream satirists on TV."
One seg discusses the timeless popularity on campus of T-shirts bearing the iconic image of Che Guevara. "We spin it into a campus T-shirt salesman who also sells T-shirts of Mao and Hitler," said co-producer Manny Coto.
How much more effective it is to reveal the stupidity and moral vacuousness of lionizing Che Guevara as culturally hip with comparisons to Mao and Hitler, than just riling against it with perfectly correct assertions. This should be some good fun. Hopefully it will get enough ratings to stick.
Let 'Em Freeze In the Queue
I see that the esteemed governor of the great state of Wisconsin, the Great Jim Doyle, wants to impose an excise tax of 2.5 percent on oil (and, presumably, refined products) sold in and/or for Wisconsin consumers, with an added constraint that the tax not be passed along in prices. This is because profits are enormous, and why shouldn't the evil oil companies pay for Wisconsin roads?
Wow. Forget whether the state accountants would be able to sort out the myriad influences on gasoline prices. Forget whether, analogously, the oil companies ought to get a subsidy when profits are low in the endless boom-bust cycle that is the oil market. Focus instead on the implications of this nostrum for Wisconsin drivers: If market conditions (relative demand and supply elasticities) otherwise would yield an increase in prices, then the no-passthrough requirement is a form of price control regulation of the gasoline market, with all of the problems and absurdities attendant upon it. Spot shortages and gasoline lines. Rerouting of supplies away from Wisconsin; not a bad idea, as I don't live there, and what better justice could there be for the Marxist sophisticates in Madison? Etc. Such destructive silliness is what federalism is for, and the entertainment value alone would be worth the agony of listening to Doyle's excuses.
Wow. Forget whether the state accountants would be able to sort out the myriad influences on gasoline prices. Forget whether, analogously, the oil companies ought to get a subsidy when profits are low in the endless boom-bust cycle that is the oil market. Focus instead on the implications of this nostrum for Wisconsin drivers: If market conditions (relative demand and supply elasticities) otherwise would yield an increase in prices, then the no-passthrough requirement is a form of price control regulation of the gasoline market, with all of the problems and absurdities attendant upon it. Spot shortages and gasoline lines. Rerouting of supplies away from Wisconsin; not a bad idea, as I don't live there, and what better justice could there be for the Marxist sophisticates in Madison? Etc. Such destructive silliness is what federalism is for, and the entertainment value alone would be worth the agony of listening to Doyle's excuses.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Journalism At CNN
I noticed this morning while at the gym---they had the TV tuned to CNN and I had no choice in the matter---that below a "report" on Mitt Romney the caption read "Mitt Romney The Mormon Candidate."
Will the ineffable Obama be labeled "The Black Candidate"? Or Hillary "The Woman Candidate?" How about Rudy: "The Italian Stallion?" Edwards: "The Ambulance Chaser Candidate." I can't wait for the first Asian: "The Manchurian Candidate." Etc.
It really is quite amazing. Back in the days of BrokawJennngsRather the bias was more subtle, and therefore more amusing. Yet another of life's little pleasures down the drain.
Will the ineffable Obama be labeled "The Black Candidate"? Or Hillary "The Woman Candidate?" How about Rudy: "The Italian Stallion?" Edwards: "The Ambulance Chaser Candidate." I can't wait for the first Asian: "The Manchurian Candidate." Etc.
It really is quite amazing. Back in the days of BrokawJennngsRather the bias was more subtle, and therefore more amusing. Yet another of life's little pleasures down the drain.
A Gallimaufry of Galimatias - III
Heather MacDonald:
Mr. Novak cheerfully and tolerantly predicted that I might not follow his analysis of how free will coexists with God's omniscience and omnipotence. Alas, he was right. I feel like a primitive still trying to figure out the decimal system, when what is required is a leap into the realm of quantum physics. I do not understand how by "permitting" human choices that in his "simultaneous present" he has already willed, God passes responsibility for tragedy onto fallible humans... I understand even less how humans "choose" to become victims of natural disasters or accidents wholly outside of their control.
I am not up to the intellectual challenge that Mr. Novak presents. I take some solace, however, in the fact that after his sophisticated treatments of human time and divine timelessness, of human choice and divine permission of human choice, he returns to the principle that I have always assumed underlies the Christian concept of God: that He has absolute power over the world and could make it otherwise in an instant.
This is so horribly distorted as to be hypnotic. It is like looking through a prism where natural form is slanted and you acclimate yourself to a new shape for everything. When every word is dead wrong, it actually creates an illusion of cohesion.
Let us follow again our system of breaking the misrepresentations down into points:
1) She says she is bothered by the contradiction between God's omniscience and human free will. This is a classic question posed by philosophers: if God knows in advance what you will choose do you really have a choice? Personally I never got why that's a problem, but since Saadya Gaon (10th Century) and Maimonides (12th Century) troubled to answer it, I guess they consider it a valid question.
But for someone arguing as an atheist, a question like this is a total fraud. It is a question against a particular Jewish and Christian tenet, namely that God knows the future. What does that have to do with an atheist deciding if there is a God?
If the question bothers her, let her decide that God has no foreknowledge. That does not alter the basic structure of belief, which says there is a God who set up life as a testing ground for humans and will reward and punish their free choices.
If you can't see free choice coexisting with foreknowledge, then drop foreknowledge. How do you get from there to dropping the basic principle that your choices of right and wrong matter?
2) Take that from another angle: does she believe she has free choice or does she SENSE her choice is circumscribed? Of course she believes she has choices. That is her intuition; it forms the premise of her argument.
So if she feels she has a choice and the idea of God creates a presumption that the very choice she senses is the purpose of life, then she has no innate quarrel against theism. If anything, her intuition rebels against the idea of foreknowledge BECAUSE she feels she HAS a true power of moral choice.
But foreknowledge plays no role in the moral demands of religion on the individual. It is a theological detail that serves mainly to create confusion for believers. So why should that concern her at all?
What she ends up doing, in essence, is using a flaw in the irrelevant idea of foreknowledge to impugn the ultimately relevant issue of humans having real choices of right and wrong - and being accountable for those choices.
3) Her saying she is not sophisticated enough to figure it out - a clearly snarky bit of disingenuousness - is presented as a reason why she cannot accept God.
This a totally fraudulent argument. Can she understand the idea that a God created the world and man chooses between right and wrong? Clearly, yes. So what can't she understand? How other aspects of God comport with this scenario.
Fine, so you don't understand. Work harder at pondering. But how does your not understanding that detail relieve you of your duty to the essential task of choosing right over wrong? You have no piece of evidence undermining that construct.
4) I think it's pretty crazy to say that humans "choose" to become victims of natural disasters and if Novak really said that, I join her in disagreement.
However, there is no philosophical reason on the theist side to say that natural disaster has to be a choice. (If Christianity says such a thing, it is not to answer a philosophical need essential to the principle of belief in a God who grades us on application of free will.)
There is no reason natural disaster cannot be natural. Just as the body is designed to run out of life at some point, there can be various movements within the nature of the planet that cause death if encountered. Why is a world that has periodic avalanches harder to understand than a body made of cells that sometimes become cancerous?
5) Indeed even the word "tragedy" is a loaded word designed to obfuscate logic. That is to say, tragedy is itself a subjective construct. From a standpoint of reason, my mother's death at age thirty is no more a tragedy than her mother's death at seventy-five. The sense of tragedy is created by the expectation that people live to an age between seventy and eighty. What if all people lived to thirty? Would we sense tragedy in that? Certainly not; thirty years would become the standard unit.
Had my mother known in advance she could only live thirty years but they would include a happy marriage for eleven of them and four healthy children, would she have refused that life? Hardly: she had a wonderful, though abbreviated, life.
In fact, her soul might have known before birth and made that choice; what do we know about such things? The point is that the tragedy is only relative to an erroneous hope we had that hers would be a seventy-five year life. God does not need to pass the blame for her foreshortened life onto anybody. He reserves the right to deliver a thirty-year life to the world. Would we prefer she was not born?
How does death at thirty militate against a Creator more than death at seventy?
6) She wriggles like an eel to get to the juicy premise she hopes to demolish. "That He has absolute power over the world and could make it otherwise in an instant." This sets up the potential for all sorts of complaints.
But this itself is not really true. Well, it is true, but not in a sense that has any reality. Technically, He can. But for all practical purposes He can't.
Let me explain. If GM makes a certain car model, it confirms two preexisting decisions. One, to make cars as a business. Two, to make this car as a model. Can they stop it? Yes, if they eliminate a well-thought-out product, essentially vetoing a prior decision. Or by shutting their business down completely, vetoing the entire business concept. If you come with a complaint about the windshield wipers, should they junk the car model? No, they should fix the wipers.
God already decided to make a world, and He decided to make it with earthquakes and hurricanes built into the design structure. Is that negotiable? Definitely not. If every believer on the planet prayed simultaneously for earthquakes to disappear forever, no rational religion would expect that prayer to be considered. God CAN'T do that because He won't. That decision has been made and built in; it is beyond the purview of 'possible' change short of shutting down the whole world.
Any idea of changes in policy effected through human behavior or through prayer must be limited to details outside the basic formula of the world's existence. It might be possible to pray the earthquake should occur only when so-and-so is out of town, for example.
Mr. Novak cheerfully and tolerantly predicted that I might not follow his analysis of how free will coexists with God's omniscience and omnipotence. Alas, he was right. I feel like a primitive still trying to figure out the decimal system, when what is required is a leap into the realm of quantum physics. I do not understand how by "permitting" human choices that in his "simultaneous present" he has already willed, God passes responsibility for tragedy onto fallible humans... I understand even less how humans "choose" to become victims of natural disasters or accidents wholly outside of their control.
I am not up to the intellectual challenge that Mr. Novak presents. I take some solace, however, in the fact that after his sophisticated treatments of human time and divine timelessness, of human choice and divine permission of human choice, he returns to the principle that I have always assumed underlies the Christian concept of God: that He has absolute power over the world and could make it otherwise in an instant.
This is so horribly distorted as to be hypnotic. It is like looking through a prism where natural form is slanted and you acclimate yourself to a new shape for everything. When every word is dead wrong, it actually creates an illusion of cohesion.
Let us follow again our system of breaking the misrepresentations down into points:
1) She says she is bothered by the contradiction between God's omniscience and human free will. This is a classic question posed by philosophers: if God knows in advance what you will choose do you really have a choice? Personally I never got why that's a problem, but since Saadya Gaon (10th Century) and Maimonides (12th Century) troubled to answer it, I guess they consider it a valid question.
But for someone arguing as an atheist, a question like this is a total fraud. It is a question against a particular Jewish and Christian tenet, namely that God knows the future. What does that have to do with an atheist deciding if there is a God?
If the question bothers her, let her decide that God has no foreknowledge. That does not alter the basic structure of belief, which says there is a God who set up life as a testing ground for humans and will reward and punish their free choices.
If you can't see free choice coexisting with foreknowledge, then drop foreknowledge. How do you get from there to dropping the basic principle that your choices of right and wrong matter?
2) Take that from another angle: does she believe she has free choice or does she SENSE her choice is circumscribed? Of course she believes she has choices. That is her intuition; it forms the premise of her argument.
So if she feels she has a choice and the idea of God creates a presumption that the very choice she senses is the purpose of life, then she has no innate quarrel against theism. If anything, her intuition rebels against the idea of foreknowledge BECAUSE she feels she HAS a true power of moral choice.
But foreknowledge plays no role in the moral demands of religion on the individual. It is a theological detail that serves mainly to create confusion for believers. So why should that concern her at all?
What she ends up doing, in essence, is using a flaw in the irrelevant idea of foreknowledge to impugn the ultimately relevant issue of humans having real choices of right and wrong - and being accountable for those choices.
3) Her saying she is not sophisticated enough to figure it out - a clearly snarky bit of disingenuousness - is presented as a reason why she cannot accept God.
This a totally fraudulent argument. Can she understand the idea that a God created the world and man chooses between right and wrong? Clearly, yes. So what can't she understand? How other aspects of God comport with this scenario.
Fine, so you don't understand. Work harder at pondering. But how does your not understanding that detail relieve you of your duty to the essential task of choosing right over wrong? You have no piece of evidence undermining that construct.
4) I think it's pretty crazy to say that humans "choose" to become victims of natural disasters and if Novak really said that, I join her in disagreement.
However, there is no philosophical reason on the theist side to say that natural disaster has to be a choice. (If Christianity says such a thing, it is not to answer a philosophical need essential to the principle of belief in a God who grades us on application of free will.)
There is no reason natural disaster cannot be natural. Just as the body is designed to run out of life at some point, there can be various movements within the nature of the planet that cause death if encountered. Why is a world that has periodic avalanches harder to understand than a body made of cells that sometimes become cancerous?
5) Indeed even the word "tragedy" is a loaded word designed to obfuscate logic. That is to say, tragedy is itself a subjective construct. From a standpoint of reason, my mother's death at age thirty is no more a tragedy than her mother's death at seventy-five. The sense of tragedy is created by the expectation that people live to an age between seventy and eighty. What if all people lived to thirty? Would we sense tragedy in that? Certainly not; thirty years would become the standard unit.
Had my mother known in advance she could only live thirty years but they would include a happy marriage for eleven of them and four healthy children, would she have refused that life? Hardly: she had a wonderful, though abbreviated, life.
In fact, her soul might have known before birth and made that choice; what do we know about such things? The point is that the tragedy is only relative to an erroneous hope we had that hers would be a seventy-five year life. God does not need to pass the blame for her foreshortened life onto anybody. He reserves the right to deliver a thirty-year life to the world. Would we prefer she was not born?
How does death at thirty militate against a Creator more than death at seventy?
6) She wriggles like an eel to get to the juicy premise she hopes to demolish. "That He has absolute power over the world and could make it otherwise in an instant." This sets up the potential for all sorts of complaints.
But this itself is not really true. Well, it is true, but not in a sense that has any reality. Technically, He can. But for all practical purposes He can't.
Let me explain. If GM makes a certain car model, it confirms two preexisting decisions. One, to make cars as a business. Two, to make this car as a model. Can they stop it? Yes, if they eliminate a well-thought-out product, essentially vetoing a prior decision. Or by shutting their business down completely, vetoing the entire business concept. If you come with a complaint about the windshield wipers, should they junk the car model? No, they should fix the wipers.
God already decided to make a world, and He decided to make it with earthquakes and hurricanes built into the design structure. Is that negotiable? Definitely not. If every believer on the planet prayed simultaneously for earthquakes to disappear forever, no rational religion would expect that prayer to be considered. God CAN'T do that because He won't. That decision has been made and built in; it is beyond the purview of 'possible' change short of shutting down the whole world.
Any idea of changes in policy effected through human behavior or through prayer must be limited to details outside the basic formula of the world's existence. It might be possible to pray the earthquake should occur only when so-and-so is out of town, for example.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Welcome to the Club, Sisters!
It's not to say the Dixie Chicks didn't deserve the Grammy award for Album of the Year. They're over-the-top talented not only vocally but instrumentally, and they'd been nominated twice before.
But it's also safe to say that most members of the academy would prefer a colonoscopy over hearing country music. If they listened to the album at all, they dutifully popped the free promo CD in the day before the ballots were due. Most couldn't pick out Charley Pride at an Edgar Winter lookalike contest, but everybody knows the Dixie Chicks hate Bush, and that's qualification enough.
To everybody else outside the circle of the culturally anointed, it was laughably predictable that the Dixies would become the first country act ever to receive the honor.
Yes, Glen Campbell won it once, but his Jimmy Webb pop was about as country as Brokeback Mountain was a western. O Brother, Where Art Thou? was a George Clooney movie soundtrack, and though the twangy Bonnie Raitt won a few years back, too, you'll more likely find her at an abortion rally than on red state radio. The Dixie Chicks are now officially in the club. If there's one thing your fellow artists can respect more than your art, it's your politics. If they're the same as theirs.
And boy, did the Chicks speak Truth to Power---well, actually it was more like they insulted Power behind its back with the Atlantic Ocean in between---but word got back anyway, and their toothless Bush-voting slob audience stayed away in droves. So mebbe---just mebbe, mind you---Grammy decided to make it up to them, so much so that they gave 'em Song of the Year too:
Mad as hell. Good. Through with doubt, nothing left to figure out. Bingo! Sounds like a lot of liberals, especially the 2008 Democrat presidential candidates. First one to be honest enough to make it their campaign song ought to get the nomination. Oh, how they'll sing along. They could have written the words themselves.
Which brings us to the equally courageous and talented 50 Cent, who alienated his own core audience by announcing that except for the felony conviction that made him ineligible to vote, he'd have gone for Dubya.
And when fellow minstrel Kanye West made headlines with "George Bush doesn't care about black people" on a nationally-televised Hurricane Katrina fundraiser, it was the righteous Mr. Cent who got his boy's back, although you didn't hear about that for some reason, even though 50 Cent was a far hotter star at the time.
So put the word out---somebody somewhere ought to scrape up some bling for Fitty somehow, I dunno, mebbe the Speaking Truth to Power medallion at the Country Music Awards. Let's get him a new audience. Let's be there for him. Sure, he's a rapper, but he's one of us. Like the culturally anointed, we toothless Bush-voting slobs got to look out for our own, too, or else all is lost.
But it's also safe to say that most members of the academy would prefer a colonoscopy over hearing country music. If they listened to the album at all, they dutifully popped the free promo CD in the day before the ballots were due. Most couldn't pick out Charley Pride at an Edgar Winter lookalike contest, but everybody knows the Dixie Chicks hate Bush, and that's qualification enough.
To everybody else outside the circle of the culturally anointed, it was laughably predictable that the Dixies would become the first country act ever to receive the honor.
Yes, Glen Campbell won it once, but his Jimmy Webb pop was about as country as Brokeback Mountain was a western. O Brother, Where Art Thou? was a George Clooney movie soundtrack, and though the twangy Bonnie Raitt won a few years back, too, you'll more likely find her at an abortion rally than on red state radio. The Dixie Chicks are now officially in the club. If there's one thing your fellow artists can respect more than your art, it's your politics. If they're the same as theirs.
And boy, did the Chicks speak Truth to Power---well, actually it was more like they insulted Power behind its back with the Atlantic Ocean in between---but word got back anyway, and their toothless Bush-voting slob audience stayed away in droves. So mebbe---just mebbe, mind you---Grammy decided to make it up to them, so much so that they gave 'em Song of the Year too:
I'm through with doubt,
There's nothing left for me to figure out,
I've paid a price, and I'll keep paying
I'm not ready to make nice,
I'm not ready to back down,
I'm still mad as hell
Mad as hell. Good. Through with doubt, nothing left to figure out. Bingo! Sounds like a lot of liberals, especially the 2008 Democrat presidential candidates. First one to be honest enough to make it their campaign song ought to get the nomination. Oh, how they'll sing along. They could have written the words themselves.
Which brings us to the equally courageous and talented 50 Cent, who alienated his own core audience by announcing that except for the felony conviction that made him ineligible to vote, he'd have gone for Dubya.
And when fellow minstrel Kanye West made headlines with "George Bush doesn't care about black people" on a nationally-televised Hurricane Katrina fundraiser, it was the righteous Mr. Cent who got his boy's back, although you didn't hear about that for some reason, even though 50 Cent was a far hotter star at the time.
So put the word out---somebody somewhere ought to scrape up some bling for Fitty somehow, I dunno, mebbe the Speaking Truth to Power medallion at the Country Music Awards. Let's get him a new audience. Let's be there for him. Sure, he's a rapper, but he's one of us. Like the culturally anointed, we toothless Bush-voting slobs got to look out for our own, too, or else all is lost.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
A Gallimaufry of Galimatias - II
Heather MacDonald:
Michael Novak's explication of Christianity's joys and mysteries underscores a powerful truth: that millions of human beings, struck with sometimes inconceivable tragedy, have shown astounding courage and grace in the face of tribulation, thanks to their belief that God loves them. Many other Christians have eased human suffering through their seemingly boundless charity and self-sacrifice. Their good works have uplifted countless lives.
Yet Mr. Novak's exegesis of God's ways persuades me that to create anything like a just, decent society, human beings would do well to run as fast as possible from the divine model of governance and power. Only by following our innate sense of fairness and compassion can we hope to wrench the human world from the arbitrariness and injustice that is its natural state.
These two paragraphs alone are so weaselly and manipulatively fraudulent as to discredit her from a presumption of good faith. The following points should be made.
1) If the record shows that Christianity is producing all this courage and grace, but Michael Novak's exegesis of God's ways is problematic, that proves one thing at most: that Michael Novak is not the best exegete. The evidence from performance far outweighs the concerns raised by one guy's poor debating presentation. Assume that you need to seek out a better teacher.
2) Furthermore, if the performance is good but the exegesis SEEMS weak, why not consider the possibility that you're the one who is a little thick?
3) If the performance is good, then even assuming that Novak's exegesis is 100% accurate in its depiction of the system creating that performance, why would you "run as fast as possible" away from this model? For whatever reason this bad idea produces good results; why run away?
4) If arbitrariness and injustice is the natural state of the world, how can any innate human sense cure that?
5) A variation on that point: If there is no higher spiritual reality, how can humans have an innate sense higher than the prevailing reality?
6) If arbitrariness and injustice is the natural state of the world, and religion is a bad idea on top of that, how can religious people eclipse nature to produce 'seemingly boundless' charity and self-sacrifice?
In fact - and here a surfeit of irony washes over us - the main conclusion emerging from Heather's set of premises is this: religion is false, but since the natural state of life is guided by self-interest and thus arbitrary and unjust, the best strategy for beating the system is to sell people the false message of religion. This creates an illusion of something higher, thus obviating the evolutionary impulse towards arbitrary and antisocial self-interest.
It would be funny if it wasn't tragic.
(To be continued.)
Michael Novak's explication of Christianity's joys and mysteries underscores a powerful truth: that millions of human beings, struck with sometimes inconceivable tragedy, have shown astounding courage and grace in the face of tribulation, thanks to their belief that God loves them. Many other Christians have eased human suffering through their seemingly boundless charity and self-sacrifice. Their good works have uplifted countless lives.
Yet Mr. Novak's exegesis of God's ways persuades me that to create anything like a just, decent society, human beings would do well to run as fast as possible from the divine model of governance and power. Only by following our innate sense of fairness and compassion can we hope to wrench the human world from the arbitrariness and injustice that is its natural state.
These two paragraphs alone are so weaselly and manipulatively fraudulent as to discredit her from a presumption of good faith. The following points should be made.
1) If the record shows that Christianity is producing all this courage and grace, but Michael Novak's exegesis of God's ways is problematic, that proves one thing at most: that Michael Novak is not the best exegete. The evidence from performance far outweighs the concerns raised by one guy's poor debating presentation. Assume that you need to seek out a better teacher.
2) Furthermore, if the performance is good but the exegesis SEEMS weak, why not consider the possibility that you're the one who is a little thick?
3) If the performance is good, then even assuming that Novak's exegesis is 100% accurate in its depiction of the system creating that performance, why would you "run as fast as possible" away from this model? For whatever reason this bad idea produces good results; why run away?
4) If arbitrariness and injustice is the natural state of the world, how can any innate human sense cure that?
5) A variation on that point: If there is no higher spiritual reality, how can humans have an innate sense higher than the prevailing reality?
6) If arbitrariness and injustice is the natural state of the world, and religion is a bad idea on top of that, how can religious people eclipse nature to produce 'seemingly boundless' charity and self-sacrifice?
In fact - and here a surfeit of irony washes over us - the main conclusion emerging from Heather's set of premises is this: religion is false, but since the natural state of life is guided by self-interest and thus arbitrary and unjust, the best strategy for beating the system is to sell people the false message of religion. This creates an illusion of something higher, thus obviating the evolutionary impulse towards arbitrary and antisocial self-interest.
It would be funny if it wasn't tragic.
(To be continued.)
A Gallimaufry of Galimatias - I
The debate between Heather MacDonald and Michael Novak in the December and January issues of American Spectator was to me a source of annoyance. Ostensibly, Ms. MacDonald represented the prevailing atheist view while Novak, a Catholic, was representing the class of believers.
Neither of them can lay claim to this qualification: I took the religious side in a debate with the late Sidney Hook that is published in a standard college philosophy textbook.
So I would like to begin a series of responses to Heather. She is probably a lovely gal, but her arguments are a gallimaufry of galimatias.
This is the introduction. Next segment we will begin to examine her points. (I will focus only on the January issue where her ideas have presumably been sharpened by the broad opening volley in December.)
Neither of them can lay claim to this qualification: I took the religious side in a debate with the late Sidney Hook that is published in a standard college philosophy textbook.
So I would like to begin a series of responses to Heather. She is probably a lovely gal, but her arguments are a gallimaufry of galimatias.
This is the introduction. Next segment we will begin to examine her points. (I will focus only on the January issue where her ideas have presumably been sharpened by the broad opening volley in December.)
Tiger Woods: Wimp?
It’s official: Tiger Woods won’t be playing at the Nissan Open next week in L.A. (Where he was born and raised, by the way.) If you are at all familiar with golf you no doubt know that Mr. Woods has won seven PGA golf tournaments in a row. That is the second best string of consecutive victories in the history of golf, four behind the 11 in a row won by Byron Nelson in 1945.
Tiger is all about history and records and being the best ever. He hasn’t stated the reason he isn’t playing, but maybe the fact that over his career Riviera (the course where the Nissan Open is played every year) has eaten his lunch has something to do with it.
In 11 appearances he has never won there, and if you’ve seen him play in the event he looks positively mortal. Compare this with the second least effective tournament he has played in without winning, the Barclays Classic, with four winless appearances, and you can see just how humbling this tournament is for arguably the greatest golfer of all time.
The Nissan open is the one tournament, the one thing in golf Tiger has not conquered, and this week he has admitted to the world that he can’t. The record is more important to Tiger than facing down this Goliath in his golf life. Fair enough. But seeing something in golf humble the greatest kind of makes a struggling single digit handicapper like me feel good.
Tiger is all about history and records and being the best ever. He hasn’t stated the reason he isn’t playing, but maybe the fact that over his career Riviera (the course where the Nissan Open is played every year) has eaten his lunch has something to do with it.
In 11 appearances he has never won there, and if you’ve seen him play in the event he looks positively mortal. Compare this with the second least effective tournament he has played in without winning, the Barclays Classic, with four winless appearances, and you can see just how humbling this tournament is for arguably the greatest golfer of all time.
The Nissan open is the one tournament, the one thing in golf Tiger has not conquered, and this week he has admitted to the world that he can’t. The record is more important to Tiger than facing down this Goliath in his golf life. Fair enough. But seeing something in golf humble the greatest kind of makes a struggling single digit handicapper like me feel good.
Friday, February 09, 2007
More on Cloture
My good friend Jim Elliott gets it wrong again in his argument (comment below on my post on ending debate) that Comrade Reid wanted only to have a vote on (presumably) the Biden-Warner resolution. And those evil Republicans refused to allow it, thus preventing a debate on the Senate floor.
Sorry, Jim. McConnell wanted debate not only on Biden-Warner, but also on alternative language from McCain and others, that would have forced the Dems to vote up or down on more than merely "supporting the troops" or similar eyewash. Appropriately, McConnell refused to play Reid's game; if Reid would not allow debate on alternatives, then the Republicans would not allow a one-sided debate on only the Biden-Warner resolution.
And so I repeat: It is the Democrats who do not want a debate on the surge; they merely want to throw bones to the political left while avoiding responsibility for the effects.
Sorry, Jim. McConnell wanted debate not only on Biden-Warner, but also on alternative language from McCain and others, that would have forced the Dems to vote up or down on more than merely "supporting the troops" or similar eyewash. Appropriately, McConnell refused to play Reid's game; if Reid would not allow debate on alternatives, then the Republicans would not allow a one-sided debate on only the Biden-Warner resolution.
And so I repeat: It is the Democrats who do not want a debate on the surge; they merely want to throw bones to the political left while avoiding responsibility for the effects.
What's Really Behind "Babel"
I wonder, however, if they would be so enthused if they realized exactly what is going on in the film.
As you perhaps already know, Babel stars Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett and tells four separate stories, set in four different countries, that ultimately interlink and affect one another. The central story is the shooting of American tourist Cate Blanchett in Morocco, and her husband's frantic efforts to get medical help for her in that economically undeveloped area of the world.
An obvious theme of all four stories is the difficulties people have in communicating with one another, and not just across cultures but even (and perhaps most importantly) within families. That's really an enormous cliche of our times, however, and hardly worth the acclaim heaped on the film. Another evident theme is the nearness of violence and death to each of us every moment of every day. Ditto the cliched nature of that one.
In addition, the film deals with trendy issues such as the War on Terror and War in Iraq, immigration, and income inequality, all without taking any explicit political stands (a smart move on the part of the writers and director). That probably accounts in large part for the critical acclaim, along with the screenwriters' and director's skill in presenting the four stories.
But what few people seem to have noticed is what sets everything in motion in the film: parents neglecting their children as the adults pursue their own wandering interests. In each of the stories, parents' failure to look after their children results in tragedy and contributes crucially to the central incident of the film, the shooting of Blanchett's character.
I don't have an opinion on whether the filmmakers did this in order to make a statement. I rather think not. However, it is indeed there and is the one really interesting and fully true observation in the film.
So here we have what turns out to be a postmodern pro-family film. Sounds like a winner to me.
From Karnick on Culture.
Global Warming: Please, Don’t Let the Facts Get in the Way
I find myself continually annoyed at the absolute certitude cultural elites have toward global warming and man’s causation. In almost every media presentation dealing with the issue all questions are banished, and to question the “consensus” is tantamount to heresy. Why just the other day on NPR I heard a reporter/prosecutor sound amazed that the Bush administration ever had the temerity to question the science behind global warming.
Unfortunately this will not change anytime soon, because environmentalists have strategically foisted upon the world a 50 to 100 year playing field. It’s going to take quite some time before in all likelihood global warming is proven to be another in a series of environmentalist hysterias that prove false. Voices of reason and skepticism (“deniers” to the faithful) will continue to shout in the wilderness and one day they will be heard.
I was very impressed with an article by one of these stout souls, the indomitable George F. Will. You read stuff like this and it makes the global warming fear mongering that much more grating. Will’s logic is impossible to deny:
One paragraph in this splendid article hit me like a ton of bricks:
Accurate weather records are a relatively recent phenomenon. I know in the Chicago area where I currently reside, it is only since the 1880s that weather records have been kept. Yet somehow we are supposed to know without a shadow of a doubt, beyond any possibility of debate, that over the tens of thousands of years or more that our climate has been similar to what it is now, that one degree over a hundred years is a portent of our demise. And we, little capitalists that we are, have caused this! The hubris of such a mentality literally takes my breath away.
Unfortunately this will not change anytime soon, because environmentalists have strategically foisted upon the world a 50 to 100 year playing field. It’s going to take quite some time before in all likelihood global warming is proven to be another in a series of environmentalist hysterias that prove false. Voices of reason and skepticism (“deniers” to the faithful) will continue to shout in the wilderness and one day they will be heard.
I was very impressed with an article by one of these stout souls, the indomitable George F. Will. You read stuff like this and it makes the global warming fear mongering that much more grating. Will’s logic is impossible to deny:
Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.This question is one that the hysteria mongers would rather most Americans not address. In order to make a trade off, human beings have to be convinced that the value of the trade is worth it. The only way Americans would be willing to radically alter their lifestyles is if they have the lifestyle scared out of them. The global warming fanatics and their allies in the media are doing their best.
Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?
One paragraph in this splendid article hit me like a ton of bricks:
It could cost tens of trillions (in expenditures and foregone economic growth, here and in less-favored parts of the planet) to try to fine-tune the planet's temperature. We cannot know if these trillions would purchase benefits commensurate with the benefits that would have come from social wealth that was not produced.It boggles the mind that certain people actually think they have the power and knowledge and utter certainty to “fine-tune the planet’s temperature.” Let that sink in a bit. The earth’s weather patterns and climate are almost infinitely complex, with multitudinous variables that we barely understand.
Accurate weather records are a relatively recent phenomenon. I know in the Chicago area where I currently reside, it is only since the 1880s that weather records have been kept. Yet somehow we are supposed to know without a shadow of a doubt, beyond any possibility of debate, that over the tens of thousands of years or more that our climate has been similar to what it is now, that one degree over a hundred years is a portent of our demise. And we, little capitalists that we are, have caused this! The hubris of such a mentality literally takes my breath away.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Who Is Cutting Off Debate?
I see that seven Republican senators, having joined in a successful effort to block Harry Reid's resolution on the Iraq surge---nonbinding, of course---now are scrambling to force further debate, as the newspaper headlines accused the Republicans of "cutting off the debate" by refusing to vote for cloture.
Huh? Cloture by definition would end the debate, and the unified Republican stance against cloture continued it. So, as usual, the headlines in the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times and a number of others, well, lied; and the magnificent seven capitulated. And they wonder why the Republican base has abandoned them.
Huh? Cloture by definition would end the debate, and the unified Republican stance against cloture continued it. So, as usual, the headlines in the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times and a number of others, well, lied; and the magnificent seven capitulated. And they wonder why the Republican base has abandoned them.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Uncommon Ties
As a general rule, I don't come out here to hawk my wares. Folks know that I do a weekly column for The American Spectator and another for Human Events, and my readers find their way there without me mechanizing The News Walk to get them thither.
But the piece I did for Common Ties this week might well be worth a visit even if you can do without my vaporings on matters political and cultural. Common Ties is the wonderful web magazine that buys only true life experiences. They were gracious enough to pay me for a reminiscence about events from my childhood, including the day in 1968 when my mother, Rachel Homnick (Ruth to her friends), passed away.
There is a beautiful picture of her on her wedding day accompanying the article.
But the piece I did for Common Ties this week might well be worth a visit even if you can do without my vaporings on matters political and cultural. Common Ties is the wonderful web magazine that buys only true life experiences. They were gracious enough to pay me for a reminiscence about events from my childhood, including the day in 1968 when my mother, Rachel Homnick (Ruth to her friends), passed away.
There is a beautiful picture of her on her wedding day accompanying the article.
"Supernatural" Debate About Religion
Last Thursday night's episode of the CW drama Supernatural included some interesting Christian-oriented discussion. Sam and Dean Winchester, a pair of brothers who hunt preternatural monsters, encounter a series of murders committed by people who say an angel told them to perform the killings. The angel wants these people killed, it appears, because they are horrendous evildoers—or potential ones. In at least two of the cases, the murder was called for to prevent the person from committing a crime, and the brothers' investigation confirms that these incidents were indeed about to take place.
Much of the episode takes place in a church and its grounds, including a crypt in the basement. The central interest of the episode is the two characters' discussions about belief in God. Dean, the older brother is a believer in demons and vampires but not in angels and God. He represents an aggressive atheism. Sam disagrees strongly:
Dean: Look, I'll admit I'm a bit of a skeptic, but since when are you all "Mr. 700 Club"? No, seriously, from the git-go you've been willing to buy this "angel" crap. I mean, what's next? Are you going to start praying every day?
Sam: I do.
Dean (shocked): What?
Sam: I do pray every day. I have for a long time.
Dean (face shows disbelief, then grudging acceptance): The things you learn about a guy. . . .
Dean states explicitly and indeed dogmatically that there is no God and no meaning in the world. He says that he requires hard proof that there is God, although he doesn't need any hard proof that God doesn't exist.
Later in the episode, Sam sees the angel himself. Dean is skeptical, of course, and asks for details. After describing what he saw and heard, Sam says, "This feeling washed over me, like peace, like grace."
Sam says that he has been given an assignment to kill an as-yet-unknown evildoer, and he soon encounters the target. Dean intervenes and says that he'll do the job himself, leaving Sam behind.
Sam is no fool, however, and determines that the "angel" is in fact the ghost of a former priest in the parish. A bit of interesting, offbeat theological discussion between Sam and a priest follows, and the ghost is put to rest by a performance of the Catholic Last Rites.
Dean, meanwhile, has gone after the person Sam was told to kill. It turns out that the person was about to commit a rape, which Dean intervenes to prevent. The man tries to escape, and in the ensuing automobile chase he is killed in a distinctively unusual accident, impaled by a metal post. Surveying the scene, Dean looks on in evident wonder.
Afterward, Sam and Dean discuss the implacations of the events. Sam confesses that he was fooled by the ghost: "I just wanted to believe so badly. It's so damn hard to do this, what we do, all alone. There's so much evil in the world, I feel like I could drown in it. . . . I needed to think that there was something else watching, too, you know? Some higher power, some greater good, and that maybe . . . I could be saved."
Dean sympathizes and acknowledges that the events of the episode were so extraordinary as to shake his beliefs.
Dean: "I don't know what to call it."
Sam: "What? Dean, what did you see?"
Dean: "Maybe . . . God's will."
From Karnick on Culture.
In Defense of McCain
John McCain faces one serious problem in his run for the Republican nomination. He's perceived as a maverick. He's not a team player and he doesn't mind running against his team's play if he feels the need. In a parliamentary body, this is a major liability. You need your players disciplined and working together. It's a mark against John McCain, the senator.
This maverick quality, however, is not a mark against John McCain the would-be president. Executive qualities are very different from parliamentarian qualities, which may be why proficient senators are sometimes not very good presidential candidates. McCain may simply be a president trapped in a senator's body.
Other than that, what are the knocks against McCain?
He got bad advice in 2000 to run against evangelicals and try to divide them from Catholics. That's easily corrected. He hired Pat Hynes. Hynes is very savvy about the religious voter and in fact is one himself.
Another knock is that he wasn't always in step on Iraq policy. That doesn't look too bad right now. He said we needed more troops and he was right.
The only serious nick I can see on the guy is that he may not be a convinced tax cutter.
McCain is already substantially pro-life with an established pro-life voting record. The fact that he isn't pristine in that area is hardly worth mentioning since Giuliani is more liberal there than he is.
And the war hero stuff? That wouldn't hurt a bit right now.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Salvo, Salvo: Baker, Karnick
Salvo is a very cool magazine that just happens to have brought on your beloved commentators Samuel "L." Karnick and Hunter Baker. We wrote for the first quarterly issue and my essay is finally available via .PDF on the web.
I give you my own "Grave New World."
Mr. Karnick's "Five Myths Crafted by Hollywood" remains behind the subscription wall.
This mag deserves your attention. They had the good sense to make me a Contributing Editor and Mr. Karnick a standing Columnist.
Besides, how can you not like a mag dedicated to:
I give you my own "Grave New World."
Mr. Karnick's "Five Myths Crafted by Hollywood" remains behind the subscription wall.
This mag deserves your attention. They had the good sense to make me a Contributing Editor and Mr. Karnick a standing Columnist.
Besides, how can you not like a mag dedicated to:
Blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death.
Critiquing art, music, film, television, and literature, interrupting mass media influence, and questioning the sanity of our consumerist lifestyle.
Countering destructive ideologies, replacing revisionist fictions with undeniable facts, and paring away political correctness.
Debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence.
Giuly, Giuly, Giuly
As a social conservative, as a Dobson apologist, as a Colson fan, as a man who has been in love with Alan Keyes in the past, I am surprisingly enthusiastic about the idea of Rudy in the White House.Yes, he's socially liberal. Yes, he won't be anybody's moral crusader. That's alright with me.
If the man understands the real nature of the office AND follows his career-long law and order instincts, then there is arguably no one better for the White House than Rudy G. He is articulate, effective, and widely admired.
He saved New York. I dare say he can pull Iraq out of the crapper, too.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Hail to the Prince!
Right-wing radio was pretty embarrassing today, with a number of commentators questioning the selection of Prince as the Super Bowl halftime act. Most hadn't even heard of him, but rest assured anyone who's not old, dead or white probably has.
Black music, an umbrella of R&B (that's old school rhythm and blues for the pale set), hip-hop, and dance music, is by far the most popular genre in American pop, and Prince is a giant, both as a creative influence and a performer himself.
And although not quite in his prime at 47, he's not a museum piece either, and with some flashy guitar chops, can also rock with the best of 'em. Last year's fare, the British Rolling Stones, plays American music at least, but Irishmen U2, who played 2002, don't even have that going for them.
So hooray for the red, white and blue, and three cheers for Prince, who turned in perhaps the best halftime ever. I was genuinely entertained, and I'm neither a fan of the genre or Prince in particular. But I know great when I see it, and Prince was smokin', with not only his own dance/rock catalogue, but some nice touches of Creedence Clearwater and Jimi Hendrix, too.
On a sad note, the usually silver-throated Billy Joel rendered a heavily tarnished Star Spangled Banner. He'd have been a fine choice for halftime himself in the future, but based on yesterday, any Simon Crowell worth his salt would have to give him the boot.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Super Bowl Close-out
I sparred with Wlady P. over the American Spectator site over the NFL playoffs and managed to win the majority of the picks versus the esteemed editor, including the final call. He went Bears. I went Indy. In a fit of ego, I offer my own final thoughts cross-posted at the AmSpec site:
Wlady, it's only a very small comfort that I've had such a large edge on you in the NFL postseason. After all, I was the guy who drank the Alan Keyes' Kool-Aid and licked the sugary dust off the rim of the pitcher. You were tolerant, but wisely skeptical.
I do have a few ending thoughts. Manning was masterful, but I'm not sure he deserved to be the MVP, except maybe if you consider it a lifetime achievement award or a nod toward his on-field play-calling.
I remain spell-bound by the clutch quality of Dominic Rhodes' play. Until part-way through the last quarter I felt the Bears could win the game, but Rhodes just kept driving knives into the heart of that stalwart Urlacher-led defense. Addai is the future, but Rhodes was Mr. Right Now. He killed the clock and he kept the ball moving. Manning seemed a little too ready to risk unnecessary interceptions to hit the big ones.
You also have to consider Bob Sanders for the Indy defense. That unit changed utterly with his presence in the playoffs and he looked very strong again tonight. His tackling was sure and so was his coverage. His interception was also a key determinant of the game's outcome.
Wlady, it's only a very small comfort that I've had such a large edge on you in the NFL postseason. After all, I was the guy who drank the Alan Keyes' Kool-Aid and licked the sugary dust off the rim of the pitcher. You were tolerant, but wisely skeptical.
I do have a few ending thoughts. Manning was masterful, but I'm not sure he deserved to be the MVP, except maybe if you consider it a lifetime achievement award or a nod toward his on-field play-calling.
I remain spell-bound by the clutch quality of Dominic Rhodes' play. Until part-way through the last quarter I felt the Bears could win the game, but Rhodes just kept driving knives into the heart of that stalwart Urlacher-led defense. Addai is the future, but Rhodes was Mr. Right Now. He killed the clock and he kept the ball moving. Manning seemed a little too ready to risk unnecessary interceptions to hit the big ones.
You also have to consider Bob Sanders for the Indy defense. That unit changed utterly with his presence in the playoffs and he looked very strong again tonight. His tackling was sure and so was his coverage. His interception was also a key determinant of the game's outcome.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Democrats Put it on the Line
It’s nice to see that Democrats are actually being forced to stand for something when it comes to Iraq. It today’s LA Times: “Iraq plans divide Democratic hopefuls: The candidates shift attention from attacking Bush's strategy to defining their own, and criticizing each others'.” A presidential election will tend to do that. These Democrat presidential hopefuls’ ideology is only outweighed by their ambition. It’s real easy for them to mouth the typical liberal bromides when it comes to wooing the base for the upcoming (yea, like in a year) primaries, but the war in Iraq is a whole different ball game.
Maybe they are beginning to feel a little bit of what it’s like to be president. Can you say accountability? Can you say your choices now have real world consequences? Can you say it’s no longer adequate to sit on the bench and just criticize the quarterback?
As Obama said to the Democrats at their winter meeting:
To continue the football metaphor this Super Bowl weekend, the Democrat presidential hopefuls will continue to gang tackle the president, but now they’ll begin to see what it’s like to run a pattern out into the flat and get slammed by a linebacker. For those of us who’ve backed the president lo these many years it’s nice to see others beginning to feel the heat for policies they actually have to defend and that they may very well have to answer for in the future.
Maybe they are beginning to feel a little bit of what it’s like to be president. Can you say accountability? Can you say your choices now have real world consequences? Can you say it’s no longer adequate to sit on the bench and just criticize the quarterback?
The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, who have been nearly unified in support of universal healthcare, abortion rights and alternative energy, have begun an increasingly harsh debate over an issue that will probably define the early part of the campaign: when to remove troops from Iraq.
Until recently, most Democratic presidential candidates, like the party generally, found success by bashing President Bush's Iraq strategy without offering comprehensive alternatives.
As Obama said to the Democrats at their winter meeting:
"It was enough to run against George Bush during this past congressional election; it will not be enough now," he said. "The American people are expecting more. They want to know what we are going to do."
To continue the football metaphor this Super Bowl weekend, the Democrat presidential hopefuls will continue to gang tackle the president, but now they’ll begin to see what it’s like to run a pattern out into the flat and get slammed by a linebacker. For those of us who’ve backed the president lo these many years it’s nice to see others beginning to feel the heat for policies they actually have to defend and that they may very well have to answer for in the future.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Obamessiah!
Oh, I know Jim Geraghty has renamed his NRO blog "The Hillary Spot," but I'm still sure Obama will be the main man for the USA in 2008. I feel sustained in my opinion by the newly minted concept of The Obamessiah.
I saw the Obamessiah speaking at the DNC meeting today via one of the cable nets. He was perfectly playing Reagan to the lefties. "We musn't spend our time attacking each other. Instead we must concentrate of saving this precious country of ours."
He won't get dirty. He'll keep his hands clean with no legislative program other than to be kinder, more caring, and more above the fray than any before him. Then Queen Oprah will embrace her true child and the stars will align and then New Hampshire shall fall before him and . . . and . . .
I saw the Obamessiah speaking at the DNC meeting today via one of the cable nets. He was perfectly playing Reagan to the lefties. "We musn't spend our time attacking each other. Instead we must concentrate of saving this precious country of ours."
He won't get dirty. He'll keep his hands clean with no legislative program other than to be kinder, more caring, and more above the fray than any before him. Then Queen Oprah will embrace her true child and the stars will align and then New Hampshire shall fall before him and . . . and . . .
Confession, first step
My name is Jim and I am a compulsive reader of the daily newspaper.
I read my ChiTrib. I find on page one that the not-guilty finding in trial of Bridgeview Hamas supporters is “setback for Bush administration.” (subhead). I find that a report’s forecast for Iraq is “grim,” according to “sources” who read a “classified intelligence document [that] points to further strife.” (That’s a Wash Post story, by the way.) And I find a big Chi Bears story (fancy that), with color pic, and on left a neither gloomy nor anti-Bush story (fancy that) about Chief Justice Roberts pushing for a “more private and less divisive” Supreme Court. (Does the writer mean “divided”?)
I read my Sun-Times, mostly view it, that is: Great color pic on page one, “We are not terrorists” in big type, “Victory declared for former Chicago grocer as jury rejects major charges in Hamas terror trial” beneath it, a fifth its size at most. (Page 3 AP story here, but pix are S-T’s) What, no setback for Bush admin? Pic is of men praying outside courthouse after grocer was acquitted of racketeering charges. Mostly viewing it, because this is a TABLOID, brothers and sisters, and I am addicted also to tabloids. Will anyone help me?
more more more
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Media Bias?
This is the lede of a reported piece published by the Associated Press:
That's not a quote from a source or part of an editorial piece. That's the reporter's first paragraph in a "news" story.
Wow. Who needs a quantitative study on media bias?
(HT to both Donald Luskin and David Hogberg for noticing this one.)
WASHINGTON - The House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill Wednesday that covers about one-sixth of the federal budget as Democrats cleared away the financial mess they inherited from Republicans.
That's not a quote from a source or part of an editorial piece. That's the reporter's first paragraph in a "news" story.
Wow. Who needs a quantitative study on media bias?
(HT to both Donald Luskin and David Hogberg for noticing this one.)
Energy Independence---Who Needs It?
In his SOTU speech, President Bush made a call for US energy independence. So did Jimmy Carter, 30 years ago or so, and that irony was not lost on our Democrat friends. But Richard Nixon called for energy independence in January, 1974 and Gerald Ford put out a huge plan himself, which I ran across in the Daily Kos archives of all places. It was hardly a bold, progressive idea.
The principle behind energy independence is that our thirst for cheap and yummy oil dictates our foreign policy. How heinous, that we should sacrifice our goodly American principles to our hedonistic American lifestyle.
Now, it is true that the 1973 Arab oil embargo was designed to punish the US for its support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War. But as our thenewswalk.com colleague Dr. Benjamin Zycher notes in his entry in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
So that's why the Arab oil embargo failed right quick---OPEC started it in October, 1973, but it was dead meat by February 1974. And as Ben explains further on, even if it had worked, OPEC couldn't, and has never maintained unity since, either.
Whether Carter was laughable in declaring energy independence the "moral equivalent of war" is another story. His rationale for energy independence was to the avoid economic disruption that dogged his presidency. That Ronald Reagan didn't see it that way is understandable, since oil went down to $11 a barrel or so after OPEC's powerplay failed and Reagan started sorting out the world's geo-econo-politic.
But the Arab oil embargo did put a permanent chill in the west's spine, and its lasting effect is that Europe abandoned its traditional support for Israel and has leaned against Israel ever since. Carterism survives, but let's note that it's absurd in light of recent revelations to believe that Jimmy Carter wanted energy independence just so the US could have more freedom to back Israel.
As for conservatives "ridiculing" Carter, as some of our friends from the left charge, perhaps they did. Reagan, in one of his first acts as president, tore off Jimmy Carter's solar panels, his energy hair shirt, from the White House. They ended up on ebay. Cheap.
But the real reason conservatives then and now disagree isn't out of partisanship or greed or evil, but because market forces would and will raise the price of energy, and conservation and innovation must necessarily follow. It's not all about driving SUVs and laughing at liberals. I meself drive a Honda Civic (but must confess to the latter when the occasion demands, which is often).
So that goes for you, too, Dubya. I'm all for Gerald Ford's proposed 200 nuclear power plants to give 'em all the Reddy Kilowatt finger, but energy independence is a chimera. The reality, and the irony, is that autocracies like the Saudis' and Hugo Chavez's rely almost exclusively on oil revenues to sustain their countries and stay in power---they're more addicted to western dollars than we are to their oil. "Energy independence" would loose our last and only bit of restraining influence on them.
The principle behind energy independence is that our thirst for cheap and yummy oil dictates our foreign policy. How heinous, that we should sacrifice our goodly American principles to our hedonistic American lifestyle.
Now, it is true that the 1973 Arab oil embargo was designed to punish the US for its support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War. But as our thenewswalk.com colleague Dr. Benjamin Zycher notes in his entry in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
Contrary to what many noneconomists believe, the 1973 price increase was not caused by the oil "embargo" (refusal to sell) directed at the United States and the Netherlands that year by the Arab members of OPEC. Instead, OPEC reduced its production of crude oil, thus raising world oil prices substantially. The embargo against the United States and the Netherlands had no effect whatever: both nations were able to obtain oil at the same prices as all other nations. The failure of this selective embargo was predictable. Oil is a fungible commodity that can easily be resold among buyers. Therefore, sellers who try to deny oil to buyer A will find other buyers purchasing more oil, some of which will be resold by them to buyer A.Smart fellow, that Zycher.
So that's why the Arab oil embargo failed right quick---OPEC started it in October, 1973, but it was dead meat by February 1974. And as Ben explains further on, even if it had worked, OPEC couldn't, and has never maintained unity since, either.
Whether Carter was laughable in declaring energy independence the "moral equivalent of war" is another story. His rationale for energy independence was to the avoid economic disruption that dogged his presidency. That Ronald Reagan didn't see it that way is understandable, since oil went down to $11 a barrel or so after OPEC's powerplay failed and Reagan started sorting out the world's geo-econo-politic.
But the Arab oil embargo did put a permanent chill in the west's spine, and its lasting effect is that Europe abandoned its traditional support for Israel and has leaned against Israel ever since. Carterism survives, but let's note that it's absurd in light of recent revelations to believe that Jimmy Carter wanted energy independence just so the US could have more freedom to back Israel.
As for conservatives "ridiculing" Carter, as some of our friends from the left charge, perhaps they did. Reagan, in one of his first acts as president, tore off Jimmy Carter's solar panels, his energy hair shirt, from the White House. They ended up on ebay. Cheap.
But the real reason conservatives then and now disagree isn't out of partisanship or greed or evil, but because market forces would and will raise the price of energy, and conservation and innovation must necessarily follow. It's not all about driving SUVs and laughing at liberals. I meself drive a Honda Civic (but must confess to the latter when the occasion demands, which is often).
So that goes for you, too, Dubya. I'm all for Gerald Ford's proposed 200 nuclear power plants to give 'em all the Reddy Kilowatt finger, but energy independence is a chimera. The reality, and the irony, is that autocracies like the Saudis' and Hugo Chavez's rely almost exclusively on oil revenues to sustain their countries and stay in power---they're more addicted to western dollars than we are to their oil. "Energy independence" would loose our last and only bit of restraining influence on them.
Pithy Question
The Gospels are pithy, why expand them? is Rupert Shortt's objection to Walter Wangerin's Jesus: A Novel (Zondervan) in Times Lit Supplement of 3/17/06. "None . . . is a biography of Jesus, still less a neutral report. . . . The four evangelists all fashioned their sources [sic] with great ingenuity to substantiate prior convictions about Christ's divine mission. Their writing was pithy, as well as skilful. Mark's text, the shortest, omits almost everything considered inessential to the message of salvation."
"Christ himself is all brilliance or defiance" here, says Shortt, TLS religion editor and formerly asst. ed. of The Tablet, the British Catholic weekly. "In brief, the message lacks nuance." If this novel is aimed at non-believers, asks Shortt, the "tautness" of the Gospels themselves are more likely to convince them. To paraphrase Shortt's argument, if the risen Lazarus can appear to sinners without effect -- Luke 16:19-31: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead," Abraham told Dives, the rich man in hell -- why would "adding fat" to the original "well-chiseled body" of Scripture, as Shortt puts it, convince them?
Shortt approaches the Gospels as a work of art, or at least finely honed craft. I applaud this and understand expanding a text, as in Wangerin's book, as spelling out its meaning. An expansion says more than the original, and obviously there's room for that. Wangerin, a prolific writer on such matters, seems excellently qualified to do that. But it's tricky nonetheless.
"Christ himself is all brilliance or defiance" here, says Shortt, TLS religion editor and formerly asst. ed. of The Tablet, the British Catholic weekly. "In brief, the message lacks nuance." If this novel is aimed at non-believers, asks Shortt, the "tautness" of the Gospels themselves are more likely to convince them. To paraphrase Shortt's argument, if the risen Lazarus can appear to sinners without effect -- Luke 16:19-31: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead," Abraham told Dives, the rich man in hell -- why would "adding fat" to the original "well-chiseled body" of Scripture, as Shortt puts it, convince them?
Shortt approaches the Gospels as a work of art, or at least finely honed craft. I applaud this and understand expanding a text, as in Wangerin's book, as spelling out its meaning. An expansion says more than the original, and obviously there's room for that. Wangerin, a prolific writer on such matters, seems excellently qualified to do that. But it's tricky nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)