Human Nature, cont.

I would like to express appreciation for the comments on my earlier post prompted by Mr. Rummel’s post. This week Paul J. Cella writes “Mass Men” at Tech Central. Reading that and remembering how some comments moved into the utilitarian prompted the following remarks, which do little justice to either the comments or Cella but take the discussion in another direction.

I tend toward Cella’s argument – that the purpose of a good liberal arts education should not be utilitarian. My children are in the process of acquiring—as did their parents--some of the least utilitarian degrees out there and it would be unmotherly to disown them. But as the commentators might note and Newman argues, “though the useful is not always good, the good is always useful.” And the truth is the truth.

Often I am the most irritating of parents asking, What’s it good for? The problem, however, is that I suspect if force fed reality, academics might have to acknowledge the truth they are proselytizing isn’t true. The passions that move us are more complex, interesting, and various than they suppose. And their "truths”, the figures they see in the carpet of experience, are just not there. Other, more heroic and beautiful, more tragic and vulgar, ones are. Of course, in terms of economics, variants of socialism have not proved in the twentieth century to be a very attractive government for the “little people” (for whom the typical academic seems to think he speaks, while couching such discussions in tones that reek of condescension).

Continue reading "Human Nature, cont."

Fun with Borders, Part One

Have been meaning to make a worthy contribution and (re)introduce myself for some time now, and realized, what better topic than one that has been consuming me for weeks on end. After living outside the U.S. for quite some time, am moving back and trying to bring my wife with me. Work, planning a move, finding a place to live, etc is but a benign backdrop to working through and against the USCIS. If it is going to take 3-5 years to really reform our intelligence capabilities, what happens to the bastard offspring (see Daniel Drezner’s “modest proposal” with regard to a new cabinet “My very own cabinet reshuffle”) nobody knew what to do with in the first place that was reorganized under the aegis of the DHS? We need freedom and we need security – so what has happened to pursue these twin goals in the new reality? More of the same shenanigans. From my own research and now a great deal of in depth dealings, I’m becoming more and more convinced that nothing has changed for the better. Maybe this is prematurely jaundiced, but compared to the fun I had dealing with the German “citizen and residency police” a few years ago on a pretty straightforward student visa, the krauts were a walk in the park. What is the new U.S. security policy on the immigration and naturalization front? Increased, purposeful bureaucratic incompetence (more on that later) under a massive fatty swath of expensive new departmental layering. As Christopher Hitchens noted today in his wonderful slam of Michael Moore, “who hasn’t had … absurd encounters with idiotic ‘security’ staff” – hardly a telling indictment and hardly my concern. (I have, I hated it, I got on with my life a few minutes later.) My concern is that I am not sure how these new appurtenances safeguard my freedom (say, for example, the freedom to bring my wife with me) nor am I sure how they safeguard our security (and from a political objective, the second concern trumps all) -- I'll continue with of this in a day or two. Back to deciding which box of books to try take with me in place of my "alien spouse."

Stupid White Man

Christopher Hitchens thoroughly demolishes Michael Moore and his latest movie.

I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible.

As far as I can tell from his previous work, the answer is yes and clearly, yes.

I must say I still give Moore credit for being a gifted capitalist and marketer. After identifying a growing demand for his product category - loony left political porn, age 13 and under - he set out to corner a significant and lucrative share in every key worldwide market. And that's how even in the anti-Americanism business - Mr Moore would not enjoy such a lifestyle if it wasn't a business - an American is in the lead.

Camera Please!

From the campaign trail:

Kerry invited Aspen resident and writer Hunter S. Thompson to ride in his motorcade and brought three copies of Thompson's book about the 1972 presidential race, "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail" for autographs.

"Just to put your minds all at ease, I have four words for you that I know will relieve you greatly," Kerry told the fund-raiser. "How does this sound — Vice President Hunter Thompson."

The only thing keeping this from becoming a Michael Dukakis-in-the-tank moment is the lack of a compelling visual to go with the quote.

Photoshop - Wow!

Think you've seen good photoshop work? Take a few minutes and browse through these galleries:

Jeffery Rolinc.
Phyllis Stewart

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.”

Note - Additions:
Saturday: Links remain good to CSPAN's schedule. but mid-day Saturday the Sunday schedule added (and now highlights) a topical session with Stephen Hayes, who wrote The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America at both 3:30 Sunday morning and 5:00 Sunday afternoon. These fill previous holes in the schedule; in the morning Gates & Brooks African American Lives and the Lincoln Prize awards (between 4:30 and 6:30 early Sunday morning) were also added and Sunday afternoon, Carnahan is added.

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).