Each of the three candidates has put out an ad on the subject of economics. Let's look at them.
Sen. Obama:
Sen. Clinton:
Sen. McCain:
The Obama ad stands out for two reasons: first, it is the only one of the three in which the candidate uses a well-known speaker to carry his message for him. Clinton and McCain appear in their commercials on their own behalf; Obama is represented by Sen. Tom Daschle. This is a stylistic difference, but interesting.
Second, and more important, Obama's commercial offers neither a plan nor a hint of what a plan might entail. It identifies the problem as being 'the price of gas and groceries.' It says nothing about what a President might do about the price of gas and groceries; nor does it attempt to talk about solutions at all.
Rather, Daschle immediately changes course to, 'Obama understands the squeeze. He is rooted in the same values as you. He understands America, rural and urban alike. He will talk straight.'
Maybe he "will," but he sure isn't doing it here.
I come away impressed by one thing: Senator Obama fears he has a problem with people outside of his coalition believing that he doesn't share their values.
Sen. Clinton's ad is much better. She identifies specific underlying issues -- she points to the size of the national debt (one of her husband's genuine accomplishments was balancing the budget), and then explains that this issue is directly tied to the state of the economy. Unlike with Obama's ad, I come away knowing something specific she is proposing to do to fix the economy: reduce the national debt.
She also introduces Social Security, both to make clear that she doesn't mean to reduce the debt by cutting Social Security, and also as a pander to older voters. She is also pandering to suggest that 'we borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis,' which is a highly tendentious phrasing. Rather, America's economy (in spite of the concerns we have about it) remains the safest investment in the world; so many nations, including China, want to secure some of their funds by investing them here. Meanwhile, of course, Saudi Arabia is not among the top three providers of oil to the United States. If she said '...to buy oil from the Mexicans' it would be a truer statement, but would hurt her with a key constituency. It's safe to sneer at the Saudis, however.
She outlines three basic proposals: 'stop spending money America doesn't have,' and good luck to any President in convincing Congress on that point; 'end $55 billion in corporate giveaways'; and, oddly, 'reduce the deficit.'
In fact, if paying down the debt is what is wanted, she would need to do more than "reduce" the deficit. She would need to eliminate it, and establish a surplus. That is reverse-Keynesian economics: normally, since FDR, Democrats have advocated deficit spending to kickstart an economy. Hillary Clinton: Supply-sider!
The McCain ad starts with an overall goal: to get the economy going so that it will 'create opportunities' and 'jobs.' He has several specific proposals: Simplify taxes; make taxes 'fairer,' whatever that means; make energy cleaner and cheaper (the photo of a wind farm suggests investment in alternative energy); to reduce healthcare costs by making it portable and affordable -- odd that neither Clinton nor Obama mentioned healthcare costs -- to make "corporate CEOs" "accountable," and to restructure mortgage debt.
On balance, simplifying taxes is a very good idea that might -- insofar as they ease the process of starting a new business -- encourage an economy that creates jobs and opportunities. Making taxes "fairer" could go either way, depending on just what he means by that. He is probably using the word as a shading towards the Fair Tax system, without actually declaring for it; which means, he probably has no intention of doing anything quite like that.
I can't say that making energy "cleaner" will do anything for the economy, in the term of a single President at least, unless he means by nuclear power. Investing in alternative energy may be a good idea -- a lot of people seem to think so -- but it also appears to have very limited capacity for addressing the concerns of the current economy.
Health care costs are a real drain on the finances of American families. On the other hand, it's not a drain on the American economy as a whole: growth in the health care sector has been one of the things carrying the economy. It's true that older families in particular are paying a lot for new medications and for treatment, as the population ages and life spans increase. On the other hand, health care is one thing it's hard to outsource -- so a lot of Americans are employed as nurses, doctors, therapists, and so forth.
The demand for health care is not likely to fall, and in fact certain to increase. While McCain's proposal could be helpful to some families, there's no reason to believe it will have any effect on the economy as a whole.
The CEO thing is just a pander. CEOs, like Saudis, are a safe target.
Mortgage debt restructuring is an idea about which I'd need to hear more. It could just represent a government buyout, in which case it's deficit spending of the type Sen. Clinton was opposing -- a traditional, Keynesian way of trying to buy your way out of a bad cycle. Strange that Clinton is to the right of the Republican on this one.
Final verdict: McCain's commercial is the clearest about his intentions as President. Several of the things he proposes are good ideas whether or not they would have an effect on the economy. Of the things he proposes, the tax problem is the only "big factor," that is, a thing that has the capacity to create major changes in the economy as a whole. Energy is second, but any gains would be delayed.
Clinton's ad also points directly at a big factor and promises to address it. In her case, it's government spending and the debt. If she can achieve major cuts in our spending, it would have a salutary effect on the nation. It's easy to doubt that she would, but again, her husband actually did balance the budget.
Obama's ad is not really about the economy at all. Instead, it is about the fact that many voters don't trust him. The ad leaves us with no information at all about what his plans might be, should he be elected.
Economics Ads
Unity Ticket
Jonah Goldberg at The National Review has proposed something that I've been wondering about myself -- and something that John Stewart suggested to McCain on his recent visit to the show. He suggests that John McCain pick a running mate who was not a Republican. Stewart had recommended he choose Sen. Clinton -- and speculated that it would guarantee his election.
To a warfighter, this makes tremendous sense. The Republican brand is damaged, as a lot of people have noted; Democratic party affiliation is way up over a few years ago. On the other hand, the Democratic party is seriously divided between its two candidates. Sen. Clinton has been growing stronger in every nonblack demographic since Super Tuesday, in the face of a powerful media campaign to derail her. Clinton leads McCain in a number of swing states that Obama would have to win to carry the Electoral College -- including both Ohio and Florida, where both lead Obama. A unity ticket with these two would probably decide the election.
From a military science perspective, it would be somewhat like an application of COIN theory to domestic elections: divide an enemy, convert part of it into an ally, and use that part to defeat the remnant and force it to seek terms from you.
Furthermore, even if McCain wins, he is going to be facing a Democratic Congress. That much is clear. A unity ticket would find such a Congress easier to deal with -- it would lessen the importance of party membership in Congressional debates, for one thing. For another, it might divide the opposition in Congress even as it divided the Democratic electorate.
Finally, speaking as a Southern Democrat who has wanted to move the party back to the right for some time, it would consolidate the lesson that "the left" is poison to the party. If you want to govern, you move to the center. Neither the antiwar nor post-sovereignity internationalists nor the surviving children of Marxism are going to carry America; but the Democratic party does have a lot to offer the country, if it can banish the members who distrust the military, do not favor a strong and robust defense, or the use of that defense to engage the world's problems.
Of course, Republicans hate Hillary. My own respect for her has been rising these last few months, as she proves what a determined fighter she is. Still, her policies and preferences are very far from my own; and McCain is weak on most of the issues I care about to start with, the clear exception (and most important issue) being victory in Iraq. Selecting Sen. Clinton would depress Republican turnout, though it would probably also create a wave of swing voters in the "swing states" where they count the most.
If Sen. Clinton were not an option for that reason, Joe Lieberman, Jim Webb, and retired Senator Sam Nunn would be good choices. I could support a mixed ticket with any of the three with a greater good will than a McCain/Clinton ticket; but such a ticket would not be quite as strong in the general election, though the McCain/Webb ticket would be close.
Fark in space
If we're doing "FARK in Space" stories today, I believe our mandate requires us to link this one.
Yup. Time on target, at 280 million miles. If you don't look at this with wonder, you're basically dead.
(via FARK)
Our newest addition at BlackFive has a poem for you. He didn't mention where he came by it; maybe he wrote it himself. A few of us do that.
I watched a widow sit and weep,Aye, that is so. Any man worth his breath has a promise worth keeping.
But I came to kneel where warriors sleep.
I planted a flag beside the stone
And thought of glory far long gone.
I did not sit where she was weeping,
For we each have promises worth keeping.
But if you haven't, or if you have room for one more, and you have an eye for the ancient, then here is a good one:
The old things must always be remade. They must be rewon, defended, made new in every generation. Scour ye the horse.
But the young earl said: “Ill the saints,
The saints of England, guard
The land wherein we pledge them gold;
The dykes decay, the King grows old,
And surely this is hard,
“That we be never quit of them;
That when his head is hoar
He cannot say to them he smote,
And spared with a hand hard at the throat,
‘Go, and return no more.’ ”
Then Alfred smiled. And the smile of him
Was like the sun for power.
But he only pointed: bade them heed
Those peasants of the Berkshire breed,
Who plucked the old Horse of the weed
As they pluck it to this hour.
“Will ye part with the weeds for ever?
Or show daisies to the door?
Or will you bid the bold grass
Go, and return no more?
“So ceaseless and so secret
Thrive terror and theft set free;
Treason and shame shall come to pass
While one weed flowers in a morass;
And like the stillness of stiff grass
The stillness of tyranny.
“Over our white souls also
Wild heresies and high
Wave prouder than the plumes of grass,
And sadder than their sigh.
“And I go riding against the raid,
And ye know not where I am;
But ye shall know in a day or year,
When one green star of grass grows here;
Chaos has charged you, charger and spear,
Battle-axe and battering-ram.
“And though skies alter and empires melt,
This word shall still be true:
If we would have the horse of old,
Scour ye the horse anew."
Scour it anew. Other men, better than us, have done so: today remember them, and rededicate yourself to the work.
Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, Ret., picked up this hat once and told me it had seen better days. It was in much better shape at the time.
My wife, early in our relationship -- indeed, before she was my wife -- told me that she defined "character" as "having enough flaws to be interesting." It's good for me that she feels that way.
I'm proud of my hat. It's been up the creek and over a mountain or two. Still a good hat, whatever it may look like to others.
Horses and Jackasses
I fail to see what is wrong with this student's behavior:
Brad Walker saves $25 a week riding his horse Pumpkin to Rockwood High School in Roane, TN. It's a protest to high gas prices that has the support of Rockwood High's principal and has turned a lot of heads in the rural town."Police arrived"?
It was a different story all together for a Dickson County High School student who was told this week he would not be able to participate in his graduation ceremony for riding his horse to school.
Caleb Anderson rode the horse to school on his last day of classes. The trip took him almost four hours, arriving at Dickson County High at 7:40am after leaving home at 4am. According to Caleb's grandmother Sandra Anderson, Caleb didn't think it would be as big of a problem as the principal made it out to be. Besides, he was doing his part as a new high school graduate to go green and save a little gas.
But once Caleb arrived at school, Dickson County High Principal Ed Littleton told Caleb to get the horse off the school property. Police arrived shortly after Caleb put the horse in a friend's pasture near the school. As punishment, Caleb was told he will not be allowed to participate in his graduation ceremony Friday.
Is it illegal to ride a horse now? In Tennessee?
There was an update:
I have some very sad news to report. One of Caleb's uncles passed away today. The school still says they are not allowing Caleb to participate in his graduation tonight. Another one of Caleb's uncles, Danny Jackson, plans to ride a horse to the graduation ceremonies tonight in protest of the principal's decision.Condolences to the family, which sounds like a fine one. I trust that the young man, now freed from the petty tyranny of the officious principal, will go far.
On his horse, and otherwise.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
Yup, just keep talking. It's most instructive.
Soldier Harr. Upd.
Bob Owens, known as "Confederate Yankee" in the blogosphere, has run down the source of the memo advising soldiers not to wear their uniforms while commuting. He says there is only one confirmed incident of harrassment of soldiers on the Metro.
Bob concludes, rather harshly:
The memo sent to Department of Defense security managers was authored at a high level, and exaggerated the number of verbal assaults from one confirmed event into an apparent outbreak, while attempting to shift authorship to another federal agency.Let me share with you a photo from Iraq.
Soldiers are not being systematically targeted by aggressive anti-war protesters in the Washington D.C. area, but someone within the Department of Defense is willing to stoke those fears, without merit.
That's a bridge, the only bridge over a deep ditch filled with mucky water. It's between the DFAC and a headquarters building, so soldiers will walk over this bridge every day, several times a day.
Notice that the Army has not only put up walls to funnel traffic onto the bridge -- in case anyone didn't notice the ten-foot ditch filled with muck -- but has also marked it with day-glo arrows.
Also notice that they have sandbagged the nearby Amnesty box, any contents of which are supposed to be destroyed.
Lest you think this is just the Army, witness the Air Force Safety Brief.
So a couple of years back, an Air Force chief of staff declared that it was his intention to "reduce accidents by 50%." Every since, we've been the nanny service....where the Air Force's first and last line of defense against accidents is a cumbersome, poorly crafted "safety briefing."So, take the memo in that spirit. I objected to the memo because I thought it suggested a passive approach where a very active one ought to be implied. It's clearly in keeping, however, with the military's "safety brief" approach to civilization.
Want to drive to the field? Get a safety brief. Climb a ladder? Safety brief. Take a weekend? Safety brief.
Jimmy Stewart
Last week we watched Angel and the Badman (and how did you like it?), and probably all of you know that last year was John Wayne's 100th birthday. Certainly I mentioned it here!
But this year is Jimmy Stewart's 100th birthday, and he was another of the greats. If not quite as thunderous a presence as John Wayne, yet Jimmy Stewart also points to something that is good and great about America. He was at his best when he was acting uncertain in the moment, yet certain of deeper things -- as in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, or Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.
Hollywood didn't want that from him all the time, so it tasked him with other roles. He could do a fearsome persona on occasion. He had moments of that towards the end of Bend in the River; he tried to show it in Winchester 73; and in other films. But though he was a great actor, and capable of a great many things, I never saw him keep that sense of menace up through a whole performance. A tense scene he could do as well as anyone; but over the course of the film, you always felt that his characters were decent, kind, gentle men. Even the killers.
Mark Steyn wrote about him recently.
James Stewart was a nervous flyer. Commercial airlines made him jittery, he wouldn’t touch chartered flights, and, inveigled into a Cessna during bad weather on a publicity tour for It’s A Wonderful Life, he made the pilot turn around and take him back to the airport at Beaumont, Texas. Just a few months earlier, he had been in the Air Force; he had flown twenty bombing missions and won a Distinguished Flying Cross; he was a genuine war hero. Yet he remained a nervous flyer.And this:For Wonderful Life, Stewart had a clause written into his contract forbidding any publicity exploitation of his service record. Half a century on, I think we can be permitted to make a discreet connection between his acting and his flying - in and out of uniform. He played heroes, but they tended to be nervous heroes, men of exceptional courage who nevertheless, in defiance of the cliché, did know the meaning of the word “fear”.
At the start of the Second World War, Stewart had just achieved his career breakthrough, the defining role of Mr Smith. Yet he was one of the first Hollywood leading men to enlist, putting his career on hold for half a decade - which, in movie-star terms, means you may never have anything to come back to. After his death, one or two commentators sniffed about “his caustically right-wing views” and “his support for the Vietnam War”, but, unlike Alec Baldwin or Barbra Streisand, he never thought his status, either as an “artist” or as a bona fide war hero, entitled him to be heard on such matters.He was a very good man.
Steyn recommends Destry Rides Again in his review, and it's one I've never seen. It's described online as "a hilarious satire" of the Western genre, which is remarkable considering the year it was made: 1939.
The Stewart version was also a remake of an earlier version, made in 1932.
Just goes to show you how much the Western is the oldest genre of the movies. At a time when what we think of as film was just starting to kick off and swim, the Westerns were already remaking their satires -- and satires require that the rules of the genre be well established, so that everybody gets the joke. In 1939, the year of The Wizard of Oz, Tom Mix had been five years retired from his career, which spanned three hundred thirty-six movies.
It certainly looks amusing.
Thank You, Joe
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.That was the Democratic Party I grew up in, too -- in spite of the 1960s and 1970s, it was basically the same party down here in Georgia. In fact, remnants of that party still exist -- Senator Zell Miller, for example, now sadly retired but still doing good work teaching at Young Harris.
This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."
Compare with this:
If Sen. Obama does manage to defeat Sen. Clinton, and becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party, expect to hear the following term often and justly:
"Spitballs."
HaloScan
Looks like the comments system, which is powered by HaloScan, is having a little trouble today. If your comments vanish, or if comments aren't available, it's not me! They usually fix these things pretty quickly.
Soldiers Defend Yourselves
If you are a servicemember commuting to Washington, D.C., don't forget to do your best to hide it:
Dept of Transportation Federal Transit Administration sends:Here's an alternative idea. All citizens of the United States of America retain the power to arrest lawbreakers, including those guilty of assault -- which includes things like spitting on people. The Department of Transportation shouldn't be the active authority here. The Department of Defense should instruct its members to be sure to wear their uniforms in public, and perform citizens' arrests on anyone assaulting them.
Recently, there have been local incidents in which military personnel have been verbally assaulted while commuting on the Metro. Uniformed members have been approached by individuals expressing themselves as anti-government, shouting anti-war sentiments, and using racial slurs against minorities.
In one instance, a member was followed onto the platform by an individual who continued to berate her as she exited the
metro station. Thus far, these incidents have occurred in the vicinity of the Reagan National Airport and Eisenhower Ave metro stations on the yellow line, however, military members should be vigilant and aware of their surroundings at all times while in mass transit.
...Here are a few friendly reminders of personal protective measures that can help you to stay safe:
- If possible, do not commute in uniform (military members)
-Do not display DoD building passes, "hot cards", or personal identification in open view outside of the workplace
-Do not discuss specifics about your occupation to outside solicitors
-Always try to remain in well lit, well populated train cars if traveling via metro
-Be vigilant at all times!
I suspect they'd find plenty of help among the citizens of Northern Virginia.
It is important that we stand up to these barbarians-from-within. Servicemembers in uniform represent us all. Rather than letting them be driven out of sight by the barbarians, they -- and we -- are the ones who should be asserting control of the public space. They are America. We are America.
Last Debate
We're going to have a slight change of our usual format here, and recommend a column by Maureen Dowd. Almost every line is funny.
UPDATE: In fact, it's so funny, we may have to have a contest where you vote for your favorite line. Here's mine:
"Look, the Senate is a wonderful place. I enjoyed my two months there."
DL Sly
You're an American classic -- fast, strong, and bold. You're not snobby or pretentious, but you have what it takes to give anyone a run for their money.
"Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.
Hat tip to Cassandra, who credits Sly for the link.
To Be Cute
I guess we've all heard someone or other talk about Obama as being "cute." Cuteness is apparently highly valued, perhaps because it is nonthreatening. The nation has been so stressful, these last few years.
"Cute" means being childlike in some respects -- Obama's relative youth is often contrasted with McCain's age. It also means being harmless. A Yorkshire terrier barking and growling is "cute," for precisely the reason that a slavering Rottie engaged in the same behavior is not.
ABC News explores the question in its coverage of the Obamas' appearance on Good Morning America. The headline is adult and assertive: "Obama warns GOP, 'Lay off my wife.'"
But the subhead, which an editor chose to ensure you did not miss something located at the end of the story, is, "Obama loses argument with wife over getting a dog."
Michelle Obama actually overruled her husband while on "GMA" when they were asked whether their two daughters had yet to get the dog they were promised.We'll leave aside the question of whether the TN GOP's ad was unfair, given that Michelle Obama made the comments at a political rally, and given that Obama himself "joked" that she would make a good Vice President. Certainly a man should stand up for his wife; he's under no obligation to be "fair" where she is concerned. A good man should be completely unfair in this regard: he should brook no slander on her honor, nor even the shadow or suggestion of one.
She said they had agreed to get the dog a year from now, while her husband said they will have "a year to test whether they are sufficiently responsible..."
But Michelle Obama cut him off, sayingy, "They are responsible."
He tried again by saying "Whether they are going to be responsible in the middle of winter to go walk that dog."
"We're getting a dog," his wife said flatly.
"When it's cold outside," Obama persisted.
His wife looked into the camera and said to their kids, "You guys are getting a dog."
When the presidential candidate again asked who would be walking the dog, the potential first lady replied, "You will. You will all be walking the dog."
"OK. All right," Obama conceded.
That much I approve of; but this aggressiveness is balanced by his wife's public humiliations, which ensure that he remains "cute." No viewer will be frightened away by his aggressiveness in today's interview. Obama doesn't come off as angry because of it; it is clear he remains harmless. This is apparently a chief reason for his success -- remember the other day when he was described by a supporter as "a skinny, athletic, gentle-seeming, virtually metrosexual man, [who] nearly splits the difference on gender as well."
Apparently that's just what a lot of people want. Exactly how it's meant to impress enemies at this difficult moment in history -- whether at war or the negotiating table -- is lost on me; but it may be just that many Americans want someone comforting. Perhaps Iran, too, will be won over to giving up their nuclear program just because he is so nonthreatening; why would they ever need a weapon?
Medieval Philosophy and Categories
Dad29 has a fine post tying together three apparently disparate topics: gay marriage, the use of the pipe organ in church, and the Scottish philosopher Alisadaire McIntyre. Dad notes:
"What is missing in [so much of modern philosophy]....is any sense that BEAUTY has any objective quality whatsoever."The other day, while discussing music, we had a musician point to what such an "objective quality" might look like.
Not long after Wagner, those who wrote 12-tone and other serial music, unfortunately wrenching Western music away from its tonal roots, were trying to make "new" art, defining themselves and their work as "not what has gone before." Now this is a frequent tactic employed by anyone searching for new things, but in this case they were abandoning the fundamental mathematical relationships that produce tonality itself, and the new structure created was insufficiently based in reality to resonate more than academically with human beings.Emphasis added.
It is entirely possible, given the horror of WWI, that they were actively fleeing from the emotional leverages exerted by tonal music, perhaps looking to escape the ravages of passion althgether.
Dad goes on to talk about whether Truth has any objective reality. Aristotle and Aquinas certainly believed it did:
The music gives us a concrete example of what is meant. Certain mathematical relationships produce tonality; and it is possible to learn these, and thereby to compose great, soaring music of the sort Wagner used.Aristotle taught that the ability to make correct judgments was about more than simply amassing the necessary data. It involves the training and formation of the person in virtue, so that he has the kind of mind and soul that can apprehend the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.Such 'proper formation' is necessarily based on objective reality, or that which is True. Aristotle and Aquinas taught that knowledge of the Truth is simply conforming one's mind to reality.
It is also possible to abandon them; and you can still compose music. It will not be as beautiful, however, because it is further from the reality of what beauty is.
This is true even though one person or another may actually like it better. You, personally, may find rap music to be more stirring than Wagner. Some of this may be because of how you have been trained, and other parts of it may arise from ways in which you, personally, are different from what is usual. There's nothing inherently wrong with liking rap music better than Wagner. Personal preferences are fine, and a free society will make room for them.
The mathematics continue to exist, however, in spite of your preferences. Reality is still there, regardless of what your mind perceives.
I bring this up because of Mr. Sheldon's assertion:
I guess I'm not going to understand the need for a one-size-fits-all name if there is a dangerous possibility that it won't fit somebody.Personal preferences can't swallow our ability to discuss things in common. I'm glad to make room -- gracious plenty of room -- for the individual Pursuit of Happiness. By all means, do what you think is right.
The fact that there are individual differences and personal preferences, however, shouldn't forbid us from looking for greater truths. Some things are bigger than we are. That was part of my point, below: because we know reality chiefly through what our brain reports to us, sometimes we need to listen to someone whose brain works differently than ours does. They may have had a wholly different experience of reality than we have had.
We should be able to try to sort out what is right between us, rather than say, "We can assert no lessons, because there is a dangerous possibility that someone else may not fit." Well, fine: let them bring their own lessons to the table, and we can add them to our debate about what the truth really is.
They should not preclude the debate. We should not refuse to try to understand, because we might leave out someone whose experience is different. I welcome them to the discussion, but we must have the discussion. It is their duty, as it is ours, to stand up and fight for what we believe.
A Word Missing from the Language
So there's this video.
I want to talk about it in a moment, but first, there is something more important.
I looked up the definition for "sexism" today, and I find that it is defined as "the sense that one sex is inferior to, or more valuable than, the other." We have a number of ways of expressing the same concept: "male chauvanism" or "female chauvanism," "misogyny," and so forth.
What we don't appear to have is a way of expressing a concept that recognizes the real differences between the sexes in a way that honors them. As far as I know, there is no word in the language for a "a sense that though the sexes are genuinely different, both are necessary and valuable." That is to say, we have a lot of ways of describing a problem, but we have no way of talking about the solution.
I've tried to use the term "chivalry" in this context -- that men should regard women, though different, as wonderful and valuable, and should take care to listen to their concerns and help make a world in which they feel welcome.
Two things happened when I did that, which point up the severity of the problem. The first is that it was pointed out to me, by a well-meaning and kind-hearted woman, that I was offering good advice to men, but nothing for women. If "chivalry" is right for men, what is the female version of recognizing the differences between themselves and men, honoring men, and trying to make a world in which we also feel welcome and valued? I have no answer to that question: there is no word I know of that applies.
The other thing that happened was that certain feminists received my use of "chivalry" as a sort of code-word for male chauvanism. I'm afraid the word has been tarnished by a combination of genuine bad acting by some men, by feminist unisexuals who want to pretend there are no differences, and by miscommunication between men and women who mean well, but talk past each other.
Cassandra and I have had far too many examples of this: I don't think you could easily find a more honest, or more kindly-intentioned, discussion of sex differences in America than the debates we have had over the years. They have often been hot, but never motivated by what the terms "sexism" or "misogyny" or "chauvanism" intend to imply -- nor their female equivalents.
It is not merely personal high regard that keeps the bad sentiments out, though she and I are good friends, and I think the world of her. Cassandra loves men in general, just as we are, though she finds us -- and indeed, me -- incredibly frustrating at times. I love women, and want them involved in my life and to be happy, but sometimes I just can't seem to convey what I mean to them -- though men reading the discussion immediately relate to what I'm saying. Cassandra and I, and some of you who have joined us, have tried as hard as anyone has to clarify the problems, and not wholly without success. It's difficult work, though I think it is also noble work.
Still, the very difficulty of the discussions underlines for me the importance of defining a concept of the sort I described above. It is clear that men and women have vastly different brains, and experience the world in such remarkably different ways that only through lengthy discussion can we even recognize that a difference exists. Over and over, we come down to, "I can't understand why you keep saying that," which is the literal truth. It is a starting point, for tying to understand, but it is also clear evidence of a real and deep division.
We need a word for people who recognize that the differences are real, but assert them only as a starting point for understanding and honoring the other sex. We need to divide this behavior, which is good and noble behavior, from "sexism" or "chauvanism."
I intend to revive the term "chivalry" for this purpose, at least as it applies to men. I don't know what the right term for women would be, and others may prefer a different word from "chivalry" even for men.
Such a term is necessary, though, in order to have an honest and respectful discussion about the role sex plays in our conceptions.
Now -- a less important matter -- the video.
One of the interesting features of the video is that then First Lady Clinton's speech to the Beijing Women's Conference is the underlay. If you listen to what she is saying, you can get a clear sense of why at least some people oppose her candidacy.
When she points to how "the market doesn't value" the choices of millions of women worldwide, she is pointing to something that is true: the market doesn't. For Senator Clinton, today, that is a problem to be solved through government intervention. The market should be tampered with to ensure it places value on the things we wish it would value.
For others, the market's values are without moral content. The market values what it does because those things produce wealth. For women who choose to do things that the market doesn't value in order to pursue things that they personally value, that is part of their choice.
Government meddling in the marketplace, because it restricts the market's natural choices, reduces the creation of wealth for the whole society. Any society is tied together -- a point Clinton is glad to raise when it suits her, but which remains true even when it does not. The rich do not prey on the poor; they are their customers.
If that is so, reducing the generation of wealth across society hurts us all, in order to favor the few that the policy is meant to aid -- so that certain women, in this case, who make unmarketable choices should also be able to be rich.
I've made some unmarketable choices in my own life. I spent a year cowboying. It was great, but there's no money in it.
I imagine that a great many men would love to have society restructured so that we can do things we find personally fulfilling -- like training horses -- without suffering financially. Probably all men would like that. I imagine all women would love to be able to do something they enjoy and find fulfilling, and also get rich.
The problem is that the world doesn't work that way. An attempt to make the world work that way for a certain class of women will hurt everyone else, to benefit the special class.
Again and again, the Left's solutions point that way: to benefit a class of people, at a cost to the whole society.
In defending the interests of those classes, though, she dishonestly adopts universal language: "Womens' rights are human rights," as if she were merely advocating that all people be treated equally, instead of some people receiving special consideration. She uses this basic dishonesty about her position to appear to be operating from a morally perfect place, and to tarnish those who disagree with her suggested policies. They don't deserve that, as it is certainly not less moral to believe that the wealth of the whole society is more important than the comfort of a special class.
That's really the core problem I have with Hillary Clinton. I think I was able to express it without unfairness, either to her or to her fellow women.
The images that play over the speech contrast very poorly.
What we're seeing from the Obama campaign is in fact sexism -- the use of negative female stereotypes, either in place of or to augment actual arguments. Had Sen. Clinton succeeded to the Democratic nomination, I don't doubt we would have seen it increasingly from Republicans as well.
A gentleman should not speak ill of ladies, even if he must sometimes criticize a lady. We may be different, even very deeply and subtly different, but that need not make us enemies.
Chivalry is not dead. Indeed, I belive it is time for it to reconquer.
Open Minds
I am sure glad to hear that the New Leaders will be men and women of Open Minds.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, “and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.Man, that's an indictment of almost our entire existing military. You're welcome for everything, Tom. And hey, thanks for voting to send our dangerous, close-minded volunteers to fight in Iraq for you.
“I think he’s trapped in that,” Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”
Harkin said that “it’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up."
"Hitler's demands were not unreasonable."
I don't even have words for this sort of thinking.
(via Ace of Spades)
After all my time covering politics, I know a lot of politicians. They’re intelligent. They’re diligent. They’re talented. I like them. I count them as friends.From the CATO newsletter linked here.But when these friends of mine take their intelligence, their diligence, and their talent and they put these into the service of politics, ladies and gentlemen, when they do that, they turn into leeches upon the commonwealth. They are dogs chasing the cat of freedom. They are cats tormenting the mouse of responsibility. They are mice gnawing on the insulated wiring of individualism. They are going to hell in a hand basket, and they stole that basket from you.
A Sacred Oath on our behalf
The President's remarks were far more than that one small matter mentioned below. What he has sworn, in his capacity as the President of the United States of America, is nothing less than... well, read for yourself.
We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, founded on the “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.” What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael....But Masada fell to Rome.
I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: “Masada shall never fall again.” Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.
Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel’s independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar — the key to the Zion Gate — and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, “Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day.” Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: “I accept this key in the name of my people."The President of the United States has taken an oath, before the parliament of Israel, that America will help them make real the promises they believe God Himself made to their nation. It is the same oath they require of their soldiers.
The Belmont Club says that this is the New Rome repaying the sins of the Old Rome:
Nothing can disguise the fact that six million Jews died, not in the Middle East, but in ovens which burned in the very heart of Europe. In countries that prided themselves in culture; that listened to Mozart; read books and vaunted their universities. When Golda Meir said with relief, on the occasion of the foundation of Israel that "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words" she was speaking of escape from a darkness within the very center of Western civilization.The focus on politics is misplaced. This is a question of religion, and sacred oaths. It is fearsome.
Yet nothing great or wonderful is safe forever, and that darkness, that love for savagery, that admiration for the brutal, that was believed to have died beneath the ground in 1945 is on the march again. It is crawling out of books, lofty towers, places of culture in precisely the manner Camus warned us against. He said that the evil may be beaten, but it is rarely beaten forever; "that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen-chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city."
But we may not speak of it. And therefore it begins.
What a day
I was occupied a good portion of the day with family business, so imagine my surprise this evening to sit down and read the news:
A) President Bush, speaking before the Israeli legislature, gave a foreign policy speech that 'aides privately admitted was an attack on Obama.'
"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland, an American senator said..." Heh, yeah, that's pretty clear.
It's a fair attack, delivered in a speech in Washington, DC, in the President's role as the head of his party. An attack on a political opponent delivered before a foreign government, where a President speaks as the head of state for all Americans? That's the sort of thing we didn't used to do.
B) This Israeli parliament burst into applause.
C) Joe Lieberman said Bush was exactly right. (That link is to Think Progress -- if you read the comments, it may be helpful to note that the "Nazi" they are referring to is Lieberman, not the actual Nazis mentioned by the President.)
D) Obama was outraged at the suggestion that he might try to appease foreign enemies. He also said that his promise to meet personally with Iran and others "without precondition" was not to be read as appeasement, as there would be "preparation" for such talks.
E) John McCain asked just what Obama wanted to talk to Iran about, if it wasn't appeasement.
Allahpundit is right to ask two serious question. First:
A serious definitional question: What separates “appeasement” from negotiation generally? The right, I take it, would characterize negotiations with any aggressor as appeasement since it creates a perverse incentive by rewarding a malefactor for misbehavior. Want to talk to President Obama? Simple: Start your own nuclear program, build a proxy army in a neighboring state (or better yet, two neighboring states) and wait for him to beat a path to your door. The left, I’m guessing, would define the term more narrowly, as negotiation with an aggressor without a demand that he concede anything already gained. Signing a peace deal with Hitler in exchange for his promise that he won’t do anything bad from now on would be appeasement; signing a peace deal with him in exchange for his withdrawal from Czechoslovakia wouldn’t.And second:
The question McCain should be asking is what Obama intends to do if that deal is struck and then we discover that Iran’s cheating, just like it was cheating in concealing its nuclear program in the first place prior to 2002 and just like it’s guaranteed to try to cheat post-bargain given how effectively nuclear facilities can be concealed these days. And instead of whining about “hypocrisy,” Obama should hit him with the counterfactual: What exactly is Maverick’s plan for dealing with them? We’re on the clock here; they’ll have a bomb circa 2015 at the latest. Is he going to fold his arms and wait for Israel to deal with it or is he prepared for airstrikes, an admission Obama doubtless would love to wring out of him? To which McCain’s reply, of course, will be to ask if Obama’s ruled out airstrikes no matter how dire the situation is.The real policy on Iran appears to be "hope they fall into internal revolution," which is certainly possible. If they do, the investment in building Iraq's military as an regional ally will more than pay for itself.
Hope is not a plan, though; and tyrannical governments have proven very resilient at crushing internal revolts. So yes, what is left if not appeasement? Are airstrikes on the table? An offensive similar to the one that took down the Taliban, where we don't just hope for an internal revolt but openly aid one? Negotiation with preconditions? What preconditions?
Iraq is what everyone has been talking about, but Iran is going to be the big question that the next President faces. It's valuable, then, to see the general election campaign starting off with a chance to see what the candidates have to say about it.
If this isn't proof that the UK is overrun with surveillance cameras, I don't know what is.
One of the most difficult things for a DIY label to do is to create an engaging music video on a shoestring budget. The Get Out Clause has found a novel way around this problem using a combination of Manchester’s state of the art CCTV system and a little knowledge of the Freedom of Information & Data Protection Act. The Get Out Clause set up at various locations around Manchester city centre where they knew there would be CCTV coverage and performed their new single Paper. The footage was then requested under the Freedom of Information & Data Protection Acts and a video was cut together in their home studio.
What's also telling is that all those cameras don't seem to be doing anything to reduce the crime rate, either. At least somebody has found a use for the things.
(via Art of the Prank)
An Oddity
Bthun posted this link in the comments to an earlier post. It's to an article about how many Americans are now taking prescription drugs every single day.
The article says that 2/3rds of adult women and 52% of men are taking such drugs on a daily basis. I'm curious as to why there is a disparity, when I've always heard that women lived longer and were less subject to various diseases than men.
Is it that chronic medication increases as you grow older, and women live longer? Or is it that women are more likely to go to the doctor, and thus have the opportunity to be prescribed something? Or some other factor?
Essential Library for Men
Since we're all reading Protein Wisdom now, let's talk about this book list. One Hundred "must read" books for men is quite an undertaking. It's an impressive list, mostly, but I think it's too biased in favor of literature-class books: those 20th century texts, and a few 19th century ones, that we are told are Great Novels. (Henry Miller in a list of books for men? Edward Abbey once called him, "Our finest lady novelist.") I would suggest you can dispense with those if you wish.
I would also dispute a few of the choices: Aristotle's Politics, for example. Not that you shouldn't read the Politics, but Arisotle's political ideals are an extension of his ideas on personal morality to the state. Until you've got the concept from his Nicomachean Ethics, then, you won't really grasp what he's trying to say in the Politics.
By the same token, The Republic is not what I'd suggest you read from Plato if you were only going to read one book. I'd suggest one of the earlier works that deal with Socrates more as a man and less as a literary device: perhaps the Crito, or the Laches.
With quibbles like that aside, most of the list is excellent. The non-fiction works are the best. The inclusion of the old Boy Scout Handbook is a wise stroke, and something we've talked about here before. I can think of several more nonfiction works that would better the list by replacing some of the novels, in my opinion; but the ones they suggest are very good.
Did I miss Louis L'amour in that list? It's hard to pick a book of his to include -- one would like to say, "Any three books by him," or just "every book by him." He's an odd character in that none of his books are indispensable, and they often repeat plots; but because of the "man v. nature" element of his books, all of them are worth reading in order to gain a deeper appreciation of the nature that surrounds you. If you don't want to read all of them, though, you can read pretty much any of them to get his underlying moral principles, which are the other lesson of his works.
GHMC Angel
Here's a movie that's been mentioned time and again in this hall. I'd like to propose that we watch it, this weekend.
It's one of those movies in the clear now, so you can find it for sale on any number of cowboy movie compilations. If you can't find it, though, the whole thing is availabe online (in multiple parts) here.
Who's with me for this one?
UPDATE: Cassidy, you are specially required to join us, assuming you have the power. This is a movie you should see, if you haven't yet.
IT'S NOT CLOSE. YOU FREAKING LOST THE NOMINATION, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
I wonder how he really feels.
Bthun
I don't have the background to know for certain what to think about this article on proposed immigration law, which bthun sends. I'm not sure how much Congress is trying to assert new authority, and how much it's extending something it already has the power to do.
Opinion from our friends who have been called to the bar is welcome.
Woohoo
With the governor's signature, a major update to Georgia firearms law has passed. The AJC's coverage is typically horrid, both wrong on the facts and biased against the law even in defeat; but it's an occasion for celebration all the same. (The text of the law is here.)
Two ways in which the article is wrong, for those of you in Georgia:
"Concealed weapons will now be allowed in state — and by extension — local parks."
Wrong: the Georgia Firearms Law permits you to carry openly or concealed.
Also wrong: "...by extension -- local parks." Georgia already has a pre-emption law that forbade localities from passing laws against carrying in local parks. So really, it's just the state parks, historic sites, recreational areas, and wildlife management areas.
Another error, although minor by comparison to these basic errors of fact:
"[The NRA and] GeorgiaCarry.org... argued that holders of concealed weapons permits — who submit to fingerprinting and a criminal background check — are no danger to the public and might even protect the public."
Actually, what we argued was that armed citizens would definitely protect the public.
GeorgiaCarry deserves a lot of credit for working to get this passed, as does the NRA.
The law doesn't take effect until July 1st, 2008, so don't let your eagerness get the better of you. (I'm looking at you, JHD. :)
Now, my next hope for Georgia law: fixing the knife laws, so that anyone with a firearms license may also carry a knife (openly or concealed). It doesn't make a lot of sense to permit the one and not the other.
Patriotism
Protein Wisdom was musing on proper patriotism, yesterday, as expressed by left and right. I think they both have it wrong.
[I]t is fair to infer that Obama tends to attract those who disagree that that “we should be willing to fight for our country whether it is right or wrong,” which seems entirely consistent with Obama’s view of patriotism (and of Israeli nationalism). As Michael Barone would put it, it is the difference between Jacksonians and academics. For the New Left, the idea that disagreements over foreign policy stop at the water’s edge died in Vietnam.Insofar as you want to make a metaphor wherein the country is a woman, both of these concepts are wrong. If America is a woman, she is your mother.
The New Left view can be usefully contrasted with a metaphor Rick Moran has used to describe liberal patriotism:I think it is apparent that some on the right love America in a different way than some on the left. Think of the right’s love of country as that of a young man for a hot young woman. The passion of such love brooks no criticism and in their eyes, the woman can do nothing wrong. They place the woman on a pedestal and fail to see any flaws in her beauty, only perfection.On the other hand, love of country by many liberals is more intellectualized – perhaps the kind of love we might feel for a wife of many years. The white hot passion may be gone and her flaws might drive you up a wall at times. And it is difficult not to dwell on her imperfections. But there is still a deep, abiding affection that allows you to love her despite the many blemishes and defects they see.Alternatively, it could be argued that some on the left (esp. the New Left) treat America like the girlfriend they hold to a standard of perfection and always find wanting, complaining about her to their friends in her presence. And that some on the right love America like their wives, acknowledging her past and present flaws, while recognizing that those flaws might not be corrected overnight, or even in his lifetime. And that most American husbands do not find it useful to publicly take sides in an argument against their wives, even when they might privately do so. Or to dismiss their wives’ concern that there may be an intruder in the house.
It isn’t that most on the left love America any less than those on the right. They simply see a different entity – a tainted but beloved object that has gotten better with age.
It is wonderful — not to mention politically smart — that Obama has started talking more about the greatness of America and its ideals. However, should he be elected president, he will be elected president of the nation as it is, not of its ideals. Obama claims he wants to bring Americans together. If he truly does, he will have to accept that he cannot cavalierly dismiss the views of his fellow citizens anymore than he can dismiss the views of his wife.
You should love her because she bore you into the world, and gave you every chance you had as a youth. You should love her because she defended you, nursed you while you were weak, and gave you a chance to grow strong. You should love her without failing because it is your duty, and because no man can hate his mother without destroying a part of himself.
Of course, "patriotism" is from the Latin patria, in turn derived from Pater, which means "Father." Still, it is usual to think of America as being a woman, in part because the name takes a feminine form. Whether you love her as a mother or as a father, however, love her that way.
Obama was right (this once)
ABCNews takes Obama to task on Iraq. Well, he deserves all he gets on that score, as his Iraq plans demonstrate neither an understanding of the military nor reasonable judgment as concerns the fate of millions of Iraqis or the stability of the region.
Yes, he deserves all he gets... almost.
No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another.Agriculture is indeed tremendously important to Iraq. The Tigris and Euphrates river valleys are very fertile, which is why so many ancient civilizations were rooted in Mesopotamia -- a fact even an ABCNews reporter might have learned in school if he'd been listening. If not, he might have learned it from the US military, which has been talking for quite some time about efforts to set up agricultural unions and coops, chicken and fish farms, help refurbish tractor factories, and so forth.
"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.
So far, so good.
"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.
Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.
Why is it that, five years into the war, the media still have this concept that Iraq is a Saudi Arabia-style desert where nothing grows but oil? The reporter objects to Obama's "pushback" on the issue, claiming that he has reported on Iraq "extensively" and that the claim strikes him as "doubtful."
OK, well, it's still true. Iraq needs agricultural experts, and there's much to be gained from deploying them. Not only does the agricultural industry exist in Iraq, it's the main industry in much of the country. Not only is Mesopotamia fertile, it's fertile enough that -- when it begins to be fully developed again -- it will be a major source of wealth and food in a time when food prices are rising worldwide.
An Reservation To Both Earlier Posts
Both of today's posts turn out to be linked, in a way. Greyhawk says that the Obama speech is what he's calling "a telegraphed punch," and that Obama intends to fight for the military vote using the new GI Bill.
That's a telegraphed punch. Obama acknowledges he expects Hillary Clinton to get as much as 80% of the West Virginia primary vote. So he quite wisely turns his focus to his next opponent, and the issue that will ensure the Vietnam veteran loses the military/veteran vote in November - the new GI Bill.Hawk is a big fan of the bill, in part because the SECDEF is so worried about it -- Secretary Gates says that the benefits are so generous that it will be hard to retain servicemen and women past their first term of service, because they'll want to get out and start collecting benefits. That may very well be true.In response, McCain and other Republicans are busy creating "kick me" signs to wear throughout the upcoming political season.
The proposed 21st Century GI Bill would allow soldiers to receive free tuition for college. Obama said it is one of a number of upgrades to GI benefits and healthcare the federal government should provide.In fairness it must be noted that McCain supports a hastily contrived Republican alternative to the Webb bill that offers lower benefits and covers fewer troops - and has no chance of passing in a Democrat-controlled congress. But while he simplifies the issue here, Obama's characterization of McCain's opposition is on the mark."It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention," Obama told about 1,500 people at the Charleston Civic Center. After that, he stopped to shoot a game of pool with a veteran at a South Charleston pub.
The Illinois Democrat said McCain, whom he added he greatly respects as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, doesn't like the new plan.
"He is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous," Obama said. "I couldn't disagree more.
"At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American dream."
I'm not sure it's that big a problem, however: because there will also be a large number of 18-year olds coming up behind them who want to get in line for the same generous benefits. While retaining veteran servicemen who have proven excellent is indeed a necessary and important function, that can be done through further incentives for top performers.
It seems to me that we as a nation would greatly benefit if a lot more of our youth passed through the military -- on a volunteer basis, of course. Insofar as this bill would help create that, I'm all for it. We'll work out the deficiencies through more generous pay or other benefits for those who remain in the service -- another thing I'm all for.
So in any event, how does this tie together with the first post of the day?
This bill was the brainchild of Jim Webb, one of the last Southern Democrats, and the author of Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. In other words, he's one of the last -- at this point, may be the only -- of the old type of Southern Democrat to occupy a position of leadership in the Senate.
This is the kind of advantage the party could get from listening to people from the South. And it's the kind of advantage the country can get, too: this new GI Bill is good policy, not just good politics.
America would be stronger if the Democratic Party were more the party of the people it claims to be -- of the people, that is, not just "for" the people.
Obama hits boomers
Woof. TalkLeft notices Obama trying to say something nice about Vietnam Veterans, and chiding those who didn't honor their service. Which, ah, includes almost every one of his intellectual supporters:
In other words, Obama intends to battle the war-hero McCain by throwing us under the bus... Everybody will be lying under the bus, which sounds like it may be the size of a 747 before we're through with this election.Hey, don't worry, man. You fought for him, you believed in him. He'll fight for you too, right?
Swing States
West Virginia is voting today. According to Wikipedia, it's one of the three "swing states" in the South (assuming one counts WV, FL or Arkansas as "Southern" -- a point that might be debated).
In West Virginia the Democratic Party still enjoys a numerical advantage in registered voters. It looks like Sen. Clinton will be getting a lopsided number of those voters on her side -- something better than a thirty-point margin. Of the other two "Southern" swing states, Florida and Arkansas, Clinton won 70-26 in Arkansas, and won Florida under the odd circumstances of which we are all aware.
However, Clinton is increasingly unlikely to be the nominee.
So it looks like this will not be the year that the Democratic Party tries to reform its message in a way that will appeal to Southerners. In a way, that makes sense: the public mood for change has never been higher. 2006 was also a "change" election -- the Democrats won every single educational grouping, for example, as well as both males and females.
So why are we doing it all again? Amusingly, the answer is that the Democrats have been so incompetent.
The Democratic Congress has been so worthless, voters currently blame all problems on Bush and the Republicans -- who, in spite of not controlling Congress these last two years, seem to be the only ones who ever get their way on anything in government. This probably explains the Communist Party USA's demand to "end right-wing control of Congress." The Speaker of the House from San Francisco is so incompetent that she can't get Rep. Obey or her other fellow party members to line up with her, so it's the "right wing's" fault: they actually manage to vote together some of the time.
As a result, this change election is about changing out Republicans for Democrats in the minds of most of the electorate. It's about making the same change as in 2006 all over again, "but harder this time." If we do it hard enough, even these idiots might be able to pass a damn law once in a while.
Well, OK. Rational or not, that does suggest a Democratic victory in November. On the other hand, a victory can be broad or narrow; and given the supermajorities needed for real change (e.g., cloture votes in the Senate, which require 60 Senators), a broad change would be the thing to go for.
Instead, however, the Democratic party seems to want to push for the candidate least acceptable to swing state voters, and not just in the South: Ohio prefers Clinton to McCain to Obama.
So what? The overall trends are so negative for McCain and Republicans in general, why not get while the getting is good?
I think the answer has to do with the nature of the Democratic Party's constituency. Recent elections have shown that Republicans do best among those with high school educations, some college, and those with college degrees. Those who did not finish high school and those who have postgraduate degrees tend to prefer Democrats by large margins.
What do the two groups, highest and lowest, have in common? One thing: the sense that the system doesn't work for them. This makes sense for lower-education voters: they really do tend to be on the bottom, socially and economically. Whether it's their fault or the system's fault, or some combination of the two, it is easy to see why they would resent living in a system where people like them drift downward.
But why do the most highly-educated people favor Democrats? The problem was explained, and predicted, by economist Joseph Schumpeter in the 1930s.
Marx believed that capitalism would be destroyed by its enemies (the proletariat), whom capitalism had purportedly exploited. Marx relished the prospect. Schumpeter believed that capitalism would be destroyed by its successes. Capitalism would spawn, he believed, a large intellectual class that made its living by attacking the very bourgeois system of private property and freedom so necessary for the intellectual class's existence. And unlike Marx, Schumpeter did not relish the destruction of capitalism. He wrote: "If a doctor predicts that his patient will die presently, this does not mean that he desires it."The problem is resentment. Schumpeter taught that the capitalist system would create such wealth that a large class of people could make a living doing nothing but thinking and writing; and many of the smartest people of society would drift into that class.
But capitalism's real rewards aren't for the smartest, but for those who take the greatest risks. Many of these lose everything. For those who have little to gain otherwise, the risk of losing everything isn't so great -- which is why most millionaires never finished college.
For those who can do quite well, thank you, without taking those risks -- well, a reasonable appreciation of the risks suggests taking the sure but more modest gains, such as you might get with a career as a lawyer or a college professor. Being smart people, they tend to understand the risk/profit calculation, and do just that.
And then they watch people less well educated, and maybe not so smart, rush past them into wealth and power. The wealth buys access to politicial leaders, and with access comes policy preferences. And these smart folks start to get mad. They start to hate the system that preferences risk-takers over intelligent, careful, stable people. And they want to "fix" the system to raise themselves, and enshrine their class -- the class of the intellectuals -- over the others.
These people are the leaders of the modern Democratic Party. They make common cause with the poor because it's useful, but they have little idea what the problems of the poor actually are. They get what understanding they have through "listening tours" and similar things. These folks -- the ones Jeffrey was calling "the best and brightest" -- believe their intelligence and education makes them the natural leaders of mankind. They want to fix society so that they are in fact the actual leaders of mankind -- and, in return, they'll do kind things for us when they get there.
Which will be paid for through taxes. On those damn businessmen, the idiots. They never deserved all that money -- it's not right someone so stupid should have it.
The problem is that these leaders really don't understand the other half of their coalition -- more than half, in fact, since they produce the majority of the votes. The Obama critique of Pennsylvania voters ("bitter," "cling to religion and guns") arises from this basic belief: we are the natural leaders, and if we give the poor the right set of services, they will keep us in power. There is no real connection with these voters: the intellectuals are in no way part of the class that empowers them.
The Republican leaders, at least, can draw on a class of people they understand -- because they belong to it, and arise from it. Democratic leaders miss these opportunities, even in their best years, because they really don't understand the people they want to vote for them.
Consider this:
Psychologists David Sears and Donald Kinder, as well as others, found that this racial resentment was the single most important factor -- more important than even conservative ideology or political partisanship -- in explaining strong opposition to a host of government programs that either directly or indirectly benefited minorities. Of course, that doesn't mean there couldn't be principled conservative opposition to government-guaranteed equal employment or urban aid. But, according to the political psychologists, racial resentment played the largest role in fueling public skepticism.Do Republicans carry out psychology exams on the middle class to figure out what prejudices they might have? Do they then say, at the end, "But the problem is, we still don't know what this means in the real world"?
The answers also revealed which groups within society continued to harbor racial resentment. With the help of Harvard doctoral student Scott Winship, I looked at the levels of racial resentment in ANES data from 1988, 1992, and 2000 (the questions were omitted in 1996). What Winship and I found was that resentment was highest among males rather than females, the middle class rather than the wealthy or poor, those lacking a college degree, those who worked in skilled or semi-skilled blue collar jobs or as laborers, and residents of small towns in the Midwest and South. Does that profile sound familiar? It's more or less a description of the white working-class voters who have spurned Obama and with whom John Kerry and Al Gore had trouble. The only groups that didn't evince racial animosity toward blacks were voters with post-graduate degrees and, of course, African Americans....
But the problem with implicit association tests--or tests that use subliminal cues--is deciding what they mean in the real world.
Democrats from the South, including myself, have been trying to talk the intellectual class out of this nonsense for years. I have a postgraduate degree, but I have also been poor in the South: we got by on $15,000 a year at one point. I'm part of one of the classes you want to vote for you, have been part of the other, and have cultural reasons to continue to think of myself as a Democrat even though the party refuses to listen to anything I say, and is led by people who despise my home.
Such argument hasn't worked -- the South has factored less and less in the calculus of the Democratic leadership in every election cycle. They consider the South unredeemable, mired in cultural issues they can't understand or engage; and so write off a third of the Senate in even the most friendly election year.
So again this year, as West Virginia makes clear what its preferences are -- following Florida and Arkansas, and in the face of Ohio working-class voters' clear warnings -- the intellectuals will be picking their favorite instead.
Does that mean McCain wins in November? No, but it means he has a fighting chance. I'm glad about that, because he's a better candidate than either Clinton or Obama -- especially Obama. Of course, if you really listened to the people you want to vote for you, you'd have better candidates, too.
Coyote
I've been curious about the interest in dangerous coyotes shown by InstaPundit and the Chicago Boyz. We have coyotes here, and I can tell you that if you're concerned about them, one of the best defenses is to have a horse. Horses love to stomp coyotes.
The general point they are trying to make -- that many wild animals we normally haven't worried about become dangerous if we stop being dangerous -- is well-taken. Coyotes are a nuisance anyway, so much so that Georgia regulations permit taking them in the day or at night; with big game weapons if you're hunting big game, and small-game weapons otherwise; with no limit; using electronic or other kinds of calls; using traps or firearms; etc. If you read through the document, you'll find they are exempted from every kind of protection that is normally afforded to animals.
In some states, coyotes have a bounty on them. And, too, you can sell the hides if they're good -- I've heard of people getting as much as $40 for a coyote hide, though mostly they're worth a lot less, and some of them are worth nothing.
In spite of all that, I've never shot one. I think I have an attitude about dangerous wildlife somewhere between the "hippies" the Chicago Boyz point to, and the "put the fear of God into them" attitude that InstaPundit seems to be favoring (if I'm understanding him correctly -- his brevity could be misleading, but I gather that he believes it is important to shoot cougars and coyote in order to keep them afraid of people). I tend to agree with the hippies that these animals are an ornament of nature, and one I would rather have around me than not. I find a world without wild animals, all of which are potentially dangerous, sterile and sad. (This will surprise no one who remembers my killing time in Iraq stalking hyenas with a camera.)
On the other hand, I and my family always go armed in part to be prepared for animal encounters, like this one with a bear when I was out swimming with what was then a very young boy. We've taken the trouble to learn how to interpret their behavior. We maintain food and garbage discipline, to avoid luring them into conflict, and so forth.
I think the proper attitude toward life runs in this direction: not to eliminate dangers, but to be dangerous enough yourself that you needn't fear to encounter them. Then you may have the beauty of the bear, without watching one carry off your children.
Life of the Mind
Returning to a fairly classic theme for Grim's Hall, a post on the military and the life of the mind. It references two roundtables from last week, one on the Minerva project, and the other on military advances in regenerative medicine.
Mother's Day
Happy Mother's Day to all -- those of you who are mothers, and those of you who have mothers.
If you have a television, you may wish to watch the America's Favorite Mom thing tonight. Soldiers' Angels founder Patti Patton-Bader was a semi-finalist. It would be wonderful if she had won.
CPUSA 2008
Bthun points out that we've been unfair, in printing endorsements of Obama only when they come from foreign terrorists. So here is another view, from Americans who stand ready to support him.
The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.I think that is pretty representative of the argument as I've seen it framed.
While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.
The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies.
Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.
As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.
We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.
The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected.
Lost Bearings
Today's headline: "Barack Obama Sacks Advisor over Talks With Hamas."
OK, McCain wins this round big time.
But this isn't a point-keeping blog, and we already know who we're voting for. So let's tell the whole story, and see what the deeper truth at work here is.
Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.I know of the ICG. It's an organization of the type of the United Nations -- that is, it was founded as an element of Anglosphere influence in the world. Just as we were the primary influence in the UN's formation, so too was the US and UK responsible for the ICG. It is still mostly dominated by Anglosphere "internationalists," the folks who believe that the US military has an important role to play in the world -- under UN leadership, directed by the Security Council, with input from the EU and other allies.
“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.
Its recent recommendations on Iraq aren't half-bad, unlike the "leave at any costs" philosophy so much of our Left here at home has. It has significantly more faith in the UN than I have, but it also is not hostile to the use of US power. It interacts with the US military, and in fact, the ICG rep gave a Hooah speech of sorts to female officers on the occasion of Women's History Month.
(And who was that speaker? Why, Jane Arraf, who was CNN's Baghdad Bureau Chief when they covered up for Saddam. Just who I'd go to for an honest appraisal of the situation in Iraq. But she's 'in the club,' so everything is always forgiven. Anyway, as I said, the specific recommendations aren't bad, so in spite of my distaste for her, she obviously did her job this time.)
What does that mean? It looks to me like Obama's lack of loyalty and courage has burned him again. Once again, he's thrown someone who has helped him and believed in him under the bus, because he's afraid of the conflict. This time, it was someone he really needed -- the weakest area of his candidacy, aside from his personal flaws, is his unspeakably bad foreign policy.
This is the third time, if you count this guy and also Samantha Power -- a smart and informed woman. Whatever disagreements I've had with her on policy and concept don't arise from her being ill informed: they're just honest disagreements about the best way to do things, and the most important things to do.
This guy from the ICG probably knew far more about the structure and function of the US military, and its recent history, than Obama does himself. Obama should have explained to his supporters that working for ICG is a qualification for a left-leaning Administration, not a disqualification. This is exactly the kind of person they should want to have on board: someone who is in favor of engagement, as Obama is, but isn't hostile to the US military and in fact has some understanding of its function and role in the world.
I suppose if he gets elected, he can hire them back on anyway. Maybe they'll understand about the knife in the back.
I don't, though. Loyalty and honor matter in a man, and this obsessive fear of conflict does not bode well for any potential President. He won't fight, not even for his friends and supporters.
-Commentor TmjUtah on Jeff Goldstein's explanation of why people should try to figure out what other people mean when they say something, and why this is would be a useful thing for judges to be able to do.
It helps some if you read Goldstein out loud to yourself as you go along.
Apparently Daniel thought I was in peril of jail for violating the law against having a house without Tabasco Sauce (I'm sure there must be a law about that somewhere). Either that, or he owns stock in the McIlhenny Company.
For what to my wondering eyes should appear today but the UPS truck, with a great big giant package. My wife says, "It's for you. What did you order?" I didn't order anything.
Nevertheless, behold:
Eight bottles of Tabasco's finest recipes.
Many thanks, Daniel, my friend. I promise to use them all.
Oh, My
And I thought evil defense contractors were bad:
In a speech in 1971, Vice-President Spiro Agnew accused CBS News of disseminating "deceptive, self-serving propaganda". He quoted from reports by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Commerce Committee. These reports mentioned a CBS documentary called "Project Nassau",an effort to depose the Francois Duvalier regime in Haiti. "The House Subcommittee found that CBS had, in effect, financially subsidized a planned 1966 invasion of Haiti in order to make a documentary on the event."Slow news week? Commission a war!
Obama accuses
We wouldn't want any name calling.
For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate.Comments like what?
"...a Hamas adviser's apparent affinity for Obama. The adviser, Ahmed Yousef, said in a recent interview: 'We like Obama and hope that he will win the election.'"
Wouldn't want the fact that actual terrorists endorse you to interfere with the debate.
WITCHES, CLOWNS & SIRENS, OH MY!
Apparently Code Pink is having some trouble attracting participants to their ongoing protest in front of the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Office. So much so that they have enlisted (pun intentional) the help of practitioners of the dark arts to foil Marine Corps recruitment and end the war. Read the article here.
"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.
I am sure that wisdom is the last thing that will be imparted by this parade of horribles. Nevertheless, I look forward to the final score in this contest:
United States Marine Corps 1
Witches 0
RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES UNDER ATTACK
Feddie over at Southern Appeal has an informative post concerning Sen. Grassley’s assault on our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The word needs to get out about this abuse of government power.