Speaking of D.C.

Not so long ago, I received an invitation to a fundraiser dinner with the President. Of course, I'm such a nice guy and apparently so supportive of the Republican Party - I never gave them a dime - that it would have cost me a mere $5,000 to attend with a person of my choice. Today, I received one from George W. Bush and Dennis Hastert - sure, like they're asking me individually - and now I can come alone for $2,500 (guess they've figured out I don't have a date...the plot thickens).

I still have no idea how I ended up on that list. It can't be just based on mere demographics/income data. If it was, the DNC would be inviting me to go sample Heinz ketchup in Pittsburgh with my good friends John and Teresa for $10,000.

Isn't there a law forbidding parties and PACs from soliciting money from foreigners anyway ?

Y'all have fun in the capital.

DC Get-Together This Sunday!

Several members of the Chicagoboyz conspiracy are going to meet up -- and eat up. (Our woman on the scene says that this place has great dim sum.)

Anyone who wants to join us is welcome. Here are the when/where details:

Sunday, June 20, 11:45 AM

China Garden restaurant
1100 Wilson Blvd
Arlington, VA
(703) 525-5317

(If you are coming from DC, this is just over the Key Bridge from Georgetown.)

UPDATE: That's Sunday, June 20 (I initially typed the wrong date).

UPDATE 2: To facilitate identification:

C-SPAN 1 & 2 (times e.t.)

Sunday evening at 8:00 and again at 11:00, C-SPAN 1’s Booknotes
features Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar in the first of a two-part series.

This weekend's headliner on CSPAN 2 BookTV is Former President Bill Clinton discussing his new book, My Life on Saturday, June 19 at 8:45 pm repeated on Sunday, June 20 at 10:00 am. This is “his inaugural speech about his autobiography at Book Expo America, the largest book trade show in the country which took place this year in Chicago.”

Links to schedules; extended entry provides more information.

Continue reading "C-SPAN 1 & 2 (times e.t.)"

Larry Kudlow

Good article by Larry Kudlow:

"It rarely occurs to economic thinkers that people work or invest in order to generate the highest possible after-tax return. When it pays more, after tax, to take investment risks, more individuals are willing to change their behavior and assume greater risk. Tax risk less, and get more of it. Tax production more, and get less of it.

This was the essence of Reaganomics. It recognized the power of the individual to make choices in daily economic life. It also recognized the crucial economic theory of marginality. At the margin, what truly matters is the extra work effort, the extra investment dollar and the extra unit of profit, all measured in after-tax terms."

Sad Scene at the Plastic-Deer Graveyard

Iraq & Bin Laden

Instapundit summarizes a wealth of information in his main post and more, including an e-mail from one of the staffers, on the reports from the 9/11 commission. The staffer suggests readers refer to the documents themselves.

These documents appear to argue we did not (or at least should not have) invaded Iraq thinking Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. I didn't think we did, but I may have missed something. My impression was that Cheney (the most outspoken) always used words like "connection" in a broader sense, not specifically related to 9/11. People have argued he was misleading, but when they cite quotes, his words have been qualified and clear. The fact that NPR viewers believe there was no connection may be countered by Fox's viewers belief that there was. Isn't the question what kind of connection if we are going to assess the savy of listeners? Neither or both can be right.

Today's Haiku

Broccoli on sale
Like an idiot, bought two
Now turning yellow

"VENEZUELA BEFORE AND AFTER CHAVEZ"

Val Dorta posts a sobering analysis of Venezuela's current political situation. The short version: Chávez is himself a manifestation of the weakness of Venezuela's political culture. Merely removing him from power will not by itself bring prosperity and political stability. Structural reform, particularly economic liberalization to boost the Venezuelan private sector, is needed, yet the prospects for such reform seem unclear at best.

Re: Mr. Rummel's Entry & the blight of capitalism

I would rather not reinforce Mr. Rummel’s opinion of the academic life; it sorely needs minds like his--willing to face facts and begin with experience. Still his argument on June 2 reminds me of a favorite anecdote.

Last spring, my husband read a paper to a group of colleagues. Influenced by Darwinian literary criticism he examined various expressions of “human nature” in a work he loves because of the interplay of individual character with social values. It was not theoretical, but assumptions of universality underlay his argument. In some ways the approach resembles old-fashioned character studies, since both begin with assumptions (pretty much a given a century ago) that there is a human nature. Recent books draw on evolutionary science to give ballast. Joseph Carroll in Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature advocates its use in literary criticism, but the approach is most broadly defined in Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate.

That evening is recalled for Mr. Rummel’s example has the starkness of one of Pinker’s graphs (p. 57) in which "percentage of male deaths caused by warfare" is illustrated; in primitive societies it ranges from 10 to 60%, while in twentieth century Europe and North America, the percentage was miniscule (even in what many of us consider a bloody century). And such thoughts were in the back of my husband's head as he wrote the paper.

That evening, my husband spoke of a poet who champions Victorian values, embodied in traditions that molded man’s competitive and aggressive nature to fit that century's definition of strength and restraint, reinforced by their admiration for that “manliness”. We find such traits compelling and attractive (after all, they signal a man able to defend his wife, child, tribe) but potentially destructive.

After he finished, one of his colleagues (who earlier contended Rumsfeld was a war criminal) said, well, yes, man has become competitive and violent because of the rise of capitalism. He ignored my husband's reference to Pinker's chart, seeming to think it supported his interpretation. I'm not sure when he thought capitalism began to misshape man. He certainly ignored facts that throw a dark shadow on the twentieth century.

Continue reading "Re: Mr. Rummel's Entry & the blight of capitalism"

Bennett Denounces Media Spin on EU Elections

Jim Bennett recently offered the following bracing analysis of the EU elections, which I now put before our readers with his permission.

The entirely predictable but still breathtakingly brazen spin of the US liberal media on the British European elections continues to demonstrate the need for alternative channels of information, particularly the blogosphere.

I just heard NPR describe the election results as "British voters punishing Blair over Iraq", echoing the Washington Post and NY Times. This has become the official line. Any sane editor would choose to lead with a headline grounded in actual factual analysis, such as:

"Three Pro-War British parties take 67% of vote, push anti-war party to fourth place"; or

"New anti-EU party displaces Liberal Democrats as Britain's Third Party"; or

"British Voters Back War but Punish Blair over Europe"; or

"BBC Host Fired for Political Incorrectness Leads Europe Rebels to Victory"; or

"Liberal Democrats Play Anti-War Card with Meager Results; or

"Britain: Only European Country with Pro-War Government *and* opposition party, now sees rise of third pro-war party, eclipsing antiwar party." or

"Euroskeptic Parties Take Majority of Vote for First Time."

All of these are factually true and would seem interesting angles purely from a journalistic point of view. Did we see any of them? Ha!

The really interesting thing about this election was that the multiplicity of parties permitted a very precise interpretation of voting intentions. Pro-Blair, pro-war, pro-EU? Easy -- vote Labour. Anti-Blair, anti-EU, pro-war? Vote Tory. Really, really anti-EU and anti-Blair, and pro-war? Vote UKIP. Anti-Blair, anti-EU, anti-war? Vote Green. Anti-Blair, anti-war, pro-EU? Vote LibDem. Anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant? Vote BNP. There's really no excuse for misreporting voter intentions in this election.

The majority British voter distrusts Blair, dislikes the EU, but supports the war despite not-unjustifiable suspicions that Blair's case for the war involved plenty of spin. But don't expect this to be reported in the US mainstream media. Much less taken into account in formation of US policy.

Good thing we have the blogosphere. The truth is out there.

Peggy Noonan on Margaret Thatcher

Peggy Noonan had a very nice column about the Reagan funeral. I especially like the passages about Margaret Thatcher.

Walking into a room in the Capitol Wednesday before dusk: A handful of people were standing together and gazing out a huge old white-silled window as the Reagan cortege approached down Pennsylvania Avenue. The sun was strong, like a presence. It bathed the women in glow. One was standing straight, with discipline. Her beige bouffant was brilliant in the sun. I approached, and she turned. It was Margaret Thatcher. It was like walking into a room at FDR's funeral and seeing Churchill.

The cortege was coming toward the steps. We looked out the window: a perfect tableaux of ceremonial excellence from every branch of the armed forces. Mrs. Thatcher watched. She turned and said to me, "This is the thing, you see, you must stay militarily strong, with an undeniable strength. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated."

To my son, whose 17th birthday was the next day, she said, "And what do you study?" He tells her he loves history and literature. "Mathematics," she says. He nods, wondering, I think, if she had heard him correctly. She had. She was giving him advice. "In the world of the future it will be mathematics that we need--the hard, specific knowledge of mathematical formulae, you see." My son nodded: "Yes, ma'am." Later I squeezed his arm. "Take notes," I said. This is history.

Ms. Noonan concluded on this note.

Many great things were said about Reagan, especially the words of Baroness Thatcher, the Iron Lady. What a gallant woman to come from England, frail after a series of strokes, to show her personal respect and love, and to go to California to show it again, standing there with her perfect bearing, in her high heels, for 20 hours straight. I wonder if the British know how we took it, we Americans, that she did that, and that Prince Charles came, and Tony Blair. One is tempted to fall back on cliché--"the special relationship." But I think a lot of us were thinking: We are one people.

Margaret Thatcher is loved by American Conservatives more than anyone in Britain will ever understand. She is bigger than life, a warrior goddess from the olden times. She and Reagan slew the communist dragon. Sic semper tyrannis.

Today Is Flag Day

On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress voted the Flag Resolution.

Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation.

Falsifying Reagan

John Coumarianos points out a flagrant example of historical revisionism about Ronald Reagan. Steven Den Beste comments at length.

Return to: Voting Against Their Interests

Josh Chafetz on Oxblog links to his review of Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? (published by Metropolitan Books). While his take is quite interesting (and I think true), Ken’s posting on Chicagoboyz on June 2 took specific aim at the economic thesis; he pragmatically points to variables Frank leaves out. These writers share a generousity of spirit lacking in Frank. I appreciate their assumptions that those of us in flyover country are rational; we make decisions based on real values even if they differ from those of Lewis Lapham—who published an article based on the book in the April 2004 Harper’s--and Thomas Frank. (I am inclined to say “real and so different from” but that is uncharitable.)

Since Ken’s posting, I’ve thought of some examples that argue against Frank’s thesis. This is probably from guilt and nostalgia - but I don't think it ignores the tough core.

Continue reading "Return to: Voting Against Their Interests"

Happy News!

Congratulations to the In-Cog-Nitos on the birth of their first child.

C-Span 1 & 2

Sunday (June 13), Booknotes on C-span 1 will feature Samuel Huntington discussing Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. (8 & 11 et) The two following weeks will be devoted to the biography of Stalin.

This weekend (June 12-13) on C-Span 2, Book TV, panels will discuss the UCLA debates on “the Spirit and Nature of Science as well as on “Detecting Intelligent Design in Nature” on Saturday morning. A repeat from last week will be the two-hour Bernard-Henri Levy’s discussion of War, Evil and the End of History. Other authors include Isaac Stern, Dinesh D’Souza and Mike Adams.

Readers of this blog might be especially interested in the repeat of the civil discussion of gay marriage (Jonathan Rauch discusses his book and Michael Novak & Charles Murray respond). Unfortunately, most of us don’t find 5:00 Sunday morning an attractive time.

For history buffs Ron Chernow discusses his Alexander Hamilton (Sunday at noon) and Eliot Cohen, Jay Winik & Dana Priest do a roundtable (9:00 Saturday night and 3:00 Sunday afternoon).

Punctuation freaks are likely to find Lynne Truss's discussion of Eats, Shoots & Leaves interesting (Sunday at 1:00).

I’m new to this blog; I'm opinionated but thought my first post would be a tribute to 19th century Arnoldian disinterest, in the person of Brian Lamb.

I will try to give the link and note the booknotes author each week. C-span at its best (and its best is especially on these week-end book shows) is another marketplace of ideas – like the blogosphere. We are, it seems to me, going back to our roots: John Adams and Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would love the diversity and openness of both the blogs and Lamb’s interviews.

Let me hear from you all on the general usefulness of such a note. (I'm from Nebraska but have spent the last 30 years in Texas discovering the necessity of a good plural you.)

On European Pacifism

Let me start by saying I'm no slouch when it comes to criticizing pacifism among Europeans. I've more than once compared them to spoiled children, interested in enjoying all the benefits of economic and political security while doing little or nothing to contribute to the sharing of those burdens around the world.

But the truth is, I'm guilty of imposing a certain cultural-centric, very American, viewpoint on the world. What am I talking about? History.

Many months back, I found myself in a debate with a German on a blog somewhere. He was angry that Americans showed no interest or appreciation for the contributions Europeans made or tried to make in the war in Afghanistan and the wider war on terrorism. I shot back that it wasn't that we didn't appreciate the help of Europeans, it was just that, with the notable exception of the Brits, there was so damn little of it to appreciate. He went on to point out to me something critical. Something I hadn't really considered until he showed me the world through his eyes. Through German eyes. You have no idea, he said, how difficult, politically, it is for us to put armed troops overseas. Combat troops. In a war zone. That is a huge step for us. Until 1990, it was actually against the law in Germany for us to produce military equipment designed for power projection. Only defensive systems were allowed. There's a reason we don't own a fleet of transport aircraft or operate an aircraft carrier. The political ramifications, both within Germany and among the surrounding countries, would be enormous.

It's so easy to forget recent history. How differently would we Americans view the world if we had experienced what Europe had in the last two centuries: from the colonial experience to the Third Reich. Our memories, of WWII for example, are of Normandy, the battle of the Bulge and victory. Europe has a whole different set of memories:

Continue reading "On European Pacifism"

Uh ?

Who needs a $744 13-ft power cord ? I have no idea but you can get one. As to why "a patented stranded conductor geometry based on the "Golden Ratio" mathematical proportion widely used in nature, music, and architecture as old as the pyramids" makes a difference that would be worth this kind of money....Beats me.

(Via Gizmodo).

Update :Let it be known that we strive to keep our beloved readers abreast of the best deals. Why buy a $744 13-ft power cord when you can get a 6' one for only $492 ? Who said capitalism was inefficient ?

New Record High:Siltech, in the Netherlands, makes speaker cables that cost up to $21,500 per meter. I'm in the wrong business.

Oil Market Top?

Could be. There's a lot of this kind of chatter around.

(Via: Seykota trading FAQ)

A Matter of Policy, A Matter of Semantics

At one time I had a job in law enforcement. This is both an advantage and a dis-.

The advantage is that I can more easily tell what’s going on when it comes to police investigations. The disadvantage is that I have trouble communicating this to people who haven’t had similar experience.

Steven den Beste has a post where he discusses a recent nail bomb that went off in a Turkish neighborhood in Cologne, Germany. 22 people were injured, and as of yet there’s no report of any fatalities. The police have stated that there’s no evidence that there is a terrorist connection.

This pretty much set Steven off. His position seems to be (and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong on this) that it pretty much had to be the work of terrorists. In the post script below his main entry he takes the European governments and people to task for not recognizing the threat.

Now I don’t want to be too hard on Steven. I pretty much feel the same way about the prevailing attitude in Europe: that the world-spanning Islamic terrorist organizations will pass them by and avoid attacking them if they keep their heads down and complain about how the Israelis treat the Palestinians. I agree completely that the Euros are making a mistake.

Otherwise Steven is way off base on this one.

Continue reading "A Matter of Policy, A Matter of Semantics"

The Allegations Are False

Journalist looking for a scoop.

Some people have accused us of disrespecting the press. They are mistaken. The press is an important institution and we accord it all the respect that it deserves.

UPDATE: Such thoughtful fellows -- So fair! So balanced! So measured and restrained! So devoted to the reporting of facts without sensationalizing anything! Feh.

UPDATE 2: Perhaps all our journalist friend needs is a good editor.

Reagan/RFK interview from 1967

Fascinating. (via Andrew Sullivan). Both of them were well-prepared, and they both strike me as smarter than the guys we have now. (I actually think RFK would have been a pretty good president in 1968, but that is a story for another day.) The Europeans asking them questions are just as contemptuous of Americans then as they would be now. Some things don't change.

The last little comment from Reagan is a good synopsis of his view of things, which was extremelty consistent over many years.

I believe the highest aspiration of man should be individual freedom and the development of the--of the individual, that there is a sacredness to individual rights. And I would like to say to all of the young people as they pursue their way ... I think you should weigh everything that is proposed to you, everything in the line of government and law and economic theory, everything of that kind and weigh it on this one scale--that it should at all times not offer you some kind of sanctuary or security in exchange for your right to fly as high and as far as your own strength and ability will take you as an individual, with no ceiling put on that effort. Plenty of room for a floor underneath so that no one in this world should live in degradation, beneath that floor, but you reserve the right for yourself to be free.

Note the business about a "floor." That is what Reagan meant when he said he wanted to repeal the Great Society, but not the New Deal. Helping those who need it does not mean shackling those who do not. To Reagan, freedom meant no ceilings on how far you could go. How unfashionable. How timeless.

Are they jobs or aren't they?

I just finished a maddening, circular discussion with my friend Drew regarding the Bureau of Labor Statistics employment numbers. Regular readers know that I take issue with the way my friend argues a point. For one, he posts on a personal journal page that provides no avenue for rebuttal, and that I think he is intellectually dishonest in his arguments, relentlessly panning for the anti-American, anti-Bush-Rove-Ashcroft nugget. Regarding unemployment, he posits that since the BLS changed its methodology 8 months ago, something he calls the CNES Birth-Death model, the vast majority of new jobs being created are not comparable to past, pre-change numbers. Effectively, he believes that the recent positive jobs numbers are an anomaly. I think that argument is without merit, because we should have seen an immediate aberration 8 months ago if the model alone was responsible for the numbers. He claims that the BLS phased in the implementation of the model. I am throwing this out to you, since I am sure there is a labor statistician out there somewhere. Is it at all plausible that this change in calculation method could have been:

1. Implemented by a phased in approach?

2. Solely responsible for the improving employment numbers?

3. Not picked and drilled by the Democrats and Kerry's economic advisor as a sham?

I may be completely off-base here, but I am willing to take my lumps if that is so. I await your responses.

Update: Upon further research, I found it's the CES Birth/Death model.

Tomorrow: Boston Rally Against Sudanese Genocide and Slavery

Katherine Wallace emails a heads-up about a June 9 rally (6:00 PM in Cambridge Common, near Harvard Square) to pressure the UN to help Sufi Muslims who are being persecuted by the Sudanese government. The presence of Kofi Annan, who is speaking at Harvard's commencement, provides part of the rally's rationale.

More information is here.

UPDATE: I just realized that I posted a bad link in the above paragraph. My apologies. I fixed the link, which leads to a good source of information about the anti-slavery movement (not just the rally).

Prophet of Boom

Good editorial in the Wall Street Journal today regarding Greg Mankiw, the White House economist who was pilloried for claiming 2.6 million new jobs would be created this year. The statistical highlights here:

Friday's May job report shows that the U.S. economy has created 947,000 new jobs in the last three months...a faster rate than Senator Kerry's campaign promise to create 10 million jobs in his first term.....the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index, a leading indicator, is near the two-decade high hit in January

The article proceeds to touch on outsourcing, where a subtle but important point is made:

because "our schools have to do a better job of preparing Americans for higher-paid jobs that require more skills........The politicians and union officials who tolerate dropout rates of 50% in big city public schools are the real outsourcing villians"

Clinton Miffed: Not Invited to Speak at Reagan's Funeral

Just as my disgust at Bill Clinton was starting to fade, he brought it all back with his grubby publicity-seeking. He's trying to surf the tsunami of pro-Reagan and pro-American sentiment that's currently washing over the country. And of course he has a book to promote.

Drudge is helpful in pointing out precedents for an ex-president's not being invited to speak at the funeral of his predecessor or successor (Ford didn't speak at Nixon's funeral, for example). And it's just possible that the Reagan family is not inclined to do any favors for someone who was openly contemptuous of Reagan's values and tried to reverse his achievements.

The arguments from Clinton's flacks are almost comical:

"It is a state funeral, using tax dollars," the top Clinton insider explained.

I don't recall Clinton ever being troubled by such details during his own administration.

Hey, Bill, it's not about you. Put a sock in it for a couple of weeks, OK?

UPDATE: Martin Devon sees things differently.

UPDATE 2: I don't like Clinton but I don't object to his speaking at the funeral. He was president, and if the people who are planning the funeral wanted to invite him to speak it would be fine by me. What I object to is his public complaining.

"The New Defeatism"

In a column that was overshadowed by Reagan's death, Victor Davis Hanson counsels optimism, while expressing pessimism about the attitude and behavior of our press and intellectual elites (including conservatives). Kurdistan is a democratic model, we are succeeding militarily, there have been no mass-terror attacks against us since 9/11. Yet the elites' attitude is one of defeatism, mingled, on the Left, with the selective exploitation of negative news for cheap political advantage:

Our Real Dilemma. We do have a grave problem in this country, but it is not the plan for Iraq, the neoconservatives, or targeting Saddam. Face it: This present generation of leaders at home would never have made it to Normandy Beach. They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor, cast around blame for the Japanese internment, sued over the light armor and guns of Sherman tanks, apologized for bombing German civilians, and recalled General Eisenhower to Washington to explain the rough treatment of Axis prisoners.

We are becoming a crazed culture of cheap criticism and pious moralizing, and in our self-absorption may well lose what we inherited from a better generation. Our groaning and hissing elite indulges itself, while better but forgotten folks risk their lives on our behalf in pretty horrible places.

Judging from our newspapers, we seem to care little about the soldiers while they are alive and fighting, but we suddenly put their names on our screens and speak up when a dozen err or die. And, in the latter case, our concern is not out of respect for their sacrifice but more likely a protest against what we don't like done in our name. So ABC's Nightline reads the names of the fallen from Iraq, but not those from the less controversial Afghanistan, because ideological purity — not remembering the departed per se — is once again the real aim.

Hanson tells us to suck it up and muddle through, and he is right. His comments make me regret very much that Ronald Reagan is no longer around and that Margaret Thatcher is no longer an active participant in public life. We have nobody to replace them.

Capital Exposure

I took the day off today. And as some of you can tell from my commenting volume, I have little to do and am enjoying it.

A major task was to go fetch my mail and it came with a bit of a surprise. I have been here long enough to expect some amount of information about me to be beyond my control and just floating out there for telemarketers, spammers and other mailbox stuffers to do with as they please.

But how in the name of all that's Holy did Tom De Lay's minions get my name and address, and what made them think I ought to be invited to some Republican fundraising session in D.C., culminating in a dinner with the President ?

Well, OK, it's one of those swell $5,000 invitations on fancy paper but still. I am not registered to vote anywhere. I can't, as a foreign citizen. I do not belong to any political party or organization and never did. I do not believe I ever donated money to either party directly or indirectly. I have recently signed two petitions, both against particular sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, which would probably not sit well with my new friend Tom. So it is hard to understand how and why the House Majority Trust would target me.

But I will make those good people an offer they cannot refuse. First, they must provide the tux. For that price and given my rather casual wardrobe, it's a minimum. Second, I must be seated next to a preferably drunken Dick Morris for a minimum of two hours of juicy Washington gossip. (A private one-hour session in the Lincoln bedroom with the lady who used to suck his toes - or was it vice-versa - would be appreciated but shall remain optional). Third, a date shall be arranged with the lovely person behind the Wonkette blog. (I think she's the one on the left but the sultry babe on the right is entirely acceptable...). Fourth, the only photos of me at the event shall include either the aforementioned drunken Dick Morris. Or Miss Wonkette. Or both.

And of course, Mr De Lay's staff shall explain how I ended up in their bloody database in the first place. That goes without saying.

More seriously now, I have not been to D.C. in ages and loved the place the first time. Especially Georgetown. I am thinking of spending a long w-e there. Recommendations on where to stay, restaurants, bars and things to do all welcome.

The Great Communicator

Jonathan pointed that the punditry has settled on saying that Reagan was a "Great Communicator" as a way of glossing over the content of what he said, what he did and what he was. Nice try.

Reagan himself took this on in his farewell speech

And in all of that time I won a nickname, `The Great Communicator.' But I never though it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation--from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Exactly. He was great because what he communicated was true and great, not just the style, not just the jokes, but the substance.

I remember this speech like it was yesterday. I'd worked until late in the evening for many days on end, and I finally got a break in the action. I was home in my apartment trying to clean up the place, which had become a pigsty, the way it will when you are using it as a campsite instead of a home. As I was puttering around I remembered at the last minute that Reagan's speech would be on. And I was leaning on my broom in the hallway listening to Reagan on the radio as he came to the end, talking about John Winthrop's shining city on a hill:

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

I don't imagine I'll have tears running down my face for any other politician as long as I live.

Put Reagan's Face On the U.S. Dime

I think Lex made this suggestion a few months ago. Today I remembered the idea when a blogger (I forget who) suggested putting Reagan's likeness on a dollar coin.

We should put him on the dime. Reagan was the best president since at least FDR, so the honor is deserved. Dollar coins are infrequently used and have become the province of politically correct minor figures. Even the JFK half-dollar is rarely used. But the dime is ubiquitous, it's already used for honoring a major figure, and it is what Reagan deserves.

I predict Republicans will not have the fortitude to see a political effort to put Reagan on the dime through to its conclusion. I suspect they'll try to take the easy way out and go for the dollar instead. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but a grass-roots campaign for the Reagan dime might help the pols do the right thing.

UPDATE: Lex reminds me that the discussion about the dime was in response to this post at Iain Murray's blog.

UPDATE2: Some people want to put Reagan's likeness on the ten-dollar bill.

J-Lo Shot

Jennifer Lopez gets married for the third time. This time, with Marc Anthony, who got a quick divorce from his wife only last week.

For the sake of protecting the sacred institution of marriage, it is becoming increasingly clear that we should stop heterosexuals from getting hitched.

Good-bye, Mr. President

God rest his great soul.

More Rock and Roll

And remember, this is just someone writing about the guys who are telling the story. And who are the story. Here's the link.

Bald Cow Reunion Show: Memorial Day '04

Lex behind the microphone.

(More pictures, and we hope audio and video, to follow.)

Who gets what from whom?

Michael's post, "Wolves & Sheep," raises some points I have mulled about on and off. Let me start out with a comment once made to me which tied together many disparate observations. A friend of mine works for a very large vendor of medical products. He is smart, hardworking, and astute about office politics. He worked his way up to being a major salesman of very expensive, niche products. There are only a few people in the world who do what he does. He has been able to leverage his rare expertise to switch firms a few times, getting very substantial increases in pay and bonuses and other goodies each time.

My friend explained very well the general phenomenon, where Michael's post is about a few specific episodes. He put it something like this: "Remember, this country is organized, managed and operated by and for the people at the top." This is true of all countries everywhere. It is not a problem with a solution. It is an immutable reality. He offered many specific examples. If you are not high enough up the business ladder, you take your wages, keep your nose clean, and you get in trouble if you waste a paper clip. Get above a certain line, and all of a sudden things that were terminable offenses are now taken as normal and expected behavior. Use of company vehicles is one conspicuous example, or what type of travel and dining are considered billable is another: rigid rules for subordinates, a goodie-bag for the top guys. The tax code is written to favor those with the income and sophistication to take advantage of it, for example, and businesses structure the compensation of senior personnel to take maximum advantage of the tax code. Boards of directors are a very weak check on this basic reality They see perfectly well that the purported "agents" of the corporation, its executives, act not only like owners but sometimes more like absentee landlords. But, remember, all of the guys on the board are themselves "above the line" and benefit from the status quo and will only tinker at the margins. In other words, the Lockheed managers Michael mentioned keep all the bonus money because they can. Businesses exist in theory to serve their customers and enrich their shareholders. In practice, they often serve and enrich their management first and the other constituencies second and their employees distinctly last. Lockheed makes airplanes but its de facto, over-riding purpose is to enrich its management.

That is what it is like in America. Should we bemoan this? Not really. It is way, way, way worse in most other countries. Also, a critically important element here is that competitive pressure is real and intense and puts a substantial check on all this, far more than most places. Also, to the extent the abuses become too egregious, or are accompanied by bankruptcy or perceived business failure, they can become fodder for the media, which can cause a career to end in disgrace. And looming in the background, truly abusive behavior may attract the attention of the State Attorney General or the Department of Justice. The executive who goes too far may find himself handcuffed in his office and perp-walked out of his office in front of the TV cameras. This remote but really scary threat provides some check against the most extreme abuse.

More importantly, the fact that this country offers so many opportunities allows us to shrug off the frequently grotesque behavior of senior management in our major companies. In the good old USA any individual person can at least theoretically (1) hack her way to the top of the business ladder by means of talent, cunning and animal stamina and get those goodies for herself or (2) build her own business and run it her own way, or (3) find a way to opt out of the rat race by, say, getting some public sector job or living down-market in some inexpensive place or otherwise foregoing the tastiest of the material goodies on the smorgasbord in exchange for peace and quiet or self-respect or a few hours a day not at work. And in fact, many, many people take advantage of these opportunities which our fabulously productive system makes possible.

But no one should ever be surprised that there is lots of ugly, cynical, injustice in the business community, or narrow-mindedness, or irresponsible greed, or pathological egotism in its top ranks. Adam Smith had no respect whatsoever for the moral character of business people. He thought they'd do anything for a buck, or in his day a shilling, and use any means fair or foul to hang onto it once they got it. Human nature being what it is, that is very frequently true. A lot of senior business people are fine people. I've met some. Some are simply malign. I've met one or two of those. Most are talented people who from time to time succumb to ordinary weaknesses when faced with the temptations of greed and pride and power.

The American capitalist system is a very good one in comparison to others that have been tried or which are realistically conceivable, and it creates many wonderful opportunities and many wonderful and affordable products. But it is not always pretty to look at in operation. Its enemies focus only on the latter, its friends, like me, focus primarily on the former. We should value our capitalist system without romanticizing it, and understand and try to mitigate its defects without vilifying it. We need to be realistic about the limits of the possible and the enduring weakness of human nature.