The Economic Crisis

This week several Euro countries have been slashed to junk rating, and even Germany was not able to sell about a third of the bonds it offered -- no one was willing to buy them.  A diagnosis at Zero Hedge holds:

Since we have mentioned the “W” word [Weimar], we have an obligation to discuss what strategies best preserved the wealth of German investors during that dark period. (“Life was madness, nightmare, desperation, chaos,” writes Fergusson. We are not quite there yet – but we also note that sensible financial commentators have already begun to refer to Japan as our Weimar in waiting.)

Other, more valuable foreign currencies, for example. In 1923, that meant the US Dollar. This time round, since the Swiss National Bank has lost the plot, we would favour the Canadian and Singapore Dollars. Back then, the answer lay in gold, and we think it does this time, too, as the finest currency protection paper money can buy.

One can also consider gold and silver mining companies – John Hathaway of Tocqueville Asset Management has written very nicely about the “Golden Mulligan” being presented to investors who missed the gold bull on the way up.... 

Yale Economist Robert Shiller has suggested that one of the reasons for equity investors’ irrational exuberance in the 1990s (it was Shiller, and not Greenspan, who coined the phrase) was the fall of the Berlin Wall- which seemed to conclusively display the superiority of western free market capitalism over the discredited Soviet model. 

Now the superiority of the western model is so apparent that we have cash-strapped eurocrats looking to raise money from the Communist leaders of a country, most of whose citizens live in abject poverty. This writer is proud to call himself British; he would be disgusted to be regarded as European.

The two problems at the core of the collapse seem to me to be the idea of monetary manipulation as a way out of the crisis, and the idea of Keynesian stimulus as a way out of the crisis.  The two models are sometimes said to be in competition; in truth, they are mutually-reinforcing points of failure.

The problem is that both of these theories are wrong about the origins of wealth, and how wealth is produced.  Understanding that issue is the beginning of an understanding of how to build a stable system.

In spite of economics' reputation as 'the dismal science' (a nickname, as you recall, that came from Malthus' writings on population growth), it isn't actually a science but an art. In the arts, it is not uncommon to discover that a fashionable idea plays out badly in the end, and older forms are proven to be more valuable than we thought they were when we set them aside.

The problem with monetary theory is that it begins from an assumption that wealth increases as debt increases (because, according to the theory, 'every asset is someone else's liability' -- if I borrow money from you, my debt is a liability of mine and an asset of yours). The debt of the public sector is thus the wealth of the private sector (because we own the bonds). Thus, you can repair the economy by taking on more debt (which increases private wealth, allowing the private sector to stimulate itself by trading debts as if they were wealth).

Wealth doesn't come from debt, and in fact it doesn't come from money. Wealth comes from production -- a fact that Marx understood better than modern economists, with his labor theory of wealth. Marx's problem was that he tried to make labor account for all wealth, whereas in fact it accounts for only some increases in wealth. Marx was smart enough, though, to know that it wasn't money that creates wealth. 

If I have a factory or a farm that is producing wealth for me, I can take on a debt in order to expand my operations. According to monetary theory, wealth is created because I take on a debt to the bank, increasing the bank's wealth. In fact, wealth is being created whether I take on the debt or not -- it is the factory or the farm that is creating the wealth. All the debt does is allow me to expand the wealth-creating instrument faster than I could have done otherwise.

Now, if that is the case, the function of money is not to create wealth, but to serve as a store of value and an accounting mechanism for trade. Proper monetary policy would therefore be to sustain the stability of your store of value, so that trades and debts in that money are stable and reliable for those making such trades or taking on such debts. The political policies associated with such stability are counterindicated by all the best advice of modern economists, and therefore opposed to what the politicians would do if they could come to an agreement.

In America this is sometimes called the 'strong dollar' policy, but actually it's the pre-Federal Reserve policy.  The Federal Reserve was created to stabilize the dollar through monetary policy; instead the banks who lead it have used that as a pretense for profiteering manipulations that have cost the dollar 96% of its purchasing value since the creation of the Fed in 1913.  This is what we would expect to happen if we gave control of our wealth to professional gamblers, and indeed it is just what did happen.

The value of the dollar in terms of what it could purchase, before the Fed, actually was stable.  You can test this assumption with this calculator.  Put in an amount, say $100, with the starting year 1790 and the ending year 1890.  The value in terms of the consumer price index is almost the same.  Now go from 1790 to 1890.  Suddenly it takes over a thousand dollars to equal a hundred dollars in 1790 purchasing power.  

This is one of the three major problems with the global economy.  Once we have a stable currency, we can perhaps address the other two.  The first of these is the unsustainable nature of entitlements, both here and in Europe; and the second is that the modern technological economy has no place for many people who once could be gainfully employed.  (The link is to an optimistic counterargument; the facts regarding unemployment among the unskilled are surely known to all of you reading this page.)

The first two problems are given to conservative solutions; the last one really is not, and will require a new conceptual model from us.  The closest extant one is what the British used to call "outdoor relief," that is, government make-work that uses the unskilled even though it is uneconomic to do so.

Happy Thanksgiving

Things for which to be thankful:

The Land

I am very fortunate to have space, and a few moments of quiet, for thought.

Good Cheer

We had a fine family meal today, thanks mostly to my sister, who cooked for everyone.  I only made croissant rolls, with 128 layers of butter, some filled with chocolate or cheese.  Here are two of the many pies that appeared at the feast, along with a glass of good beer.

The Old Home

This stone ring appears on my father's land.  I built it some years ago out of stones plowed up by the county when they were fixing the road.  It was good to have a day to go back to the ancestral home, and spend time with the people I grew up among.

I hope your Thanksgiving was a fine one:  that you had time to reflect on good things, and be grateful.

In the throes of pansies

I'm lost in crochet world again. My niece will be married in six months, carrying, I hope, a crocheted-lace ribbon tied around her bouquet, possibly in this pattern, but in all-white thread:

Now my sister says she's making about a dozen chocolate-brown silk purses as guest-gifts, and would like to affix several crocheted flowers of some kind to each of them, in deep colors. I'm thinking pansies. The stylized pansies in the ribbon pattern above didn't seem right to me, so I've been trying to fashion my own pattern. These are my first experiments, done with a double strand of embroidery thread, which amounts to about a size 70. I ended up with flowers about an inch across.

Update: Another effort, closer to 2 inches across. I'm liking this pattern. I've just got to fiddle with the shape of the large pair of petals in back, and work on making the tiny, tiny stiches more regular. It's hard to see the row of stitches you're working into, even with my (seldom-used) glasses on under a bright light, but a contrasting color keeps you honest. As you can tell from the photo, the size-13 crochet hook is so small you can barely see the hook at the tip. The colors, by the way, are much more brilliant in real life than I can make them appear with my phone camera.

There's nothing like trying to crochet a flower to make you think hard about how it's structured. In the case of pansies: a radial pattern, three small petals on top, often variegated in color, and two behind, usually in a contrasting but solid color. The middle of the three-petal group is larger and usually double-lobed. Here are a number of beautiful pansies I found searching on the net:

And then I stumbled on something that made me want to drop crocheting and go learn how to work in metal. Did you ever see anything so gorgeous? Look how the pansy stems twist around the base. Follow the link to see what those crazy jewelers put inside this jade Faberge egg with pansies. For some kinds of exuberant excess, you really need an imperial family to plunder the entire country, so they can amass enough wealth to employ over-the-top jewelers.

Rep. Bachmann on Pakistan

She's good and right on the question she takes on here.  Let's review Pakistan's relationship with the United States.

Pakistan signed a mutual defense agreement with the United States in 1954.  In 1965, it fell into war with India over the Kashmir vale.  The terms of the agreement suggest we should have backed them up; we did not, but declared something like neutrality in the conflict.  Of course, we were involved in Vietnam at the time, and the Cold War, and this was a distraction from that twilight struggle; but we broke our word.

A second war in 1971 produced significant American support for Pakistan -- and also their greatest loss in their history as a nation.  The American perspective on this conflict is that we did all we could do, being constrained by the Soviet Union and China (then working with India, ironically enough).  The Pakistani perspective, I learned from listening to their liaison officer at USCENTCOM last summer, was that America let them down.  We were supposed to 'mutually defend' them, and they lost almost half their territory.

Add to that the current issues over the drone strikes -- which the US continues to execute in spite of the clear statement by Pakistan's legislature that it opposes them because of civilian casualties -- and we have a menu of complaints on offer.  We continue to carry out those strikes not with their permission (as in Yemen) but in violation of their sovereignty as a nation state.  

In other words, some of Pakistan's complaints are invalid -- but others are not entirely unfair.

There isn't a happy relationship here, but there is a relationship.  We're better off when it's stronger than otherwise.  Pakistan is divided internally between factions that support anti-US forces, and factions that oppose them for reasons of their own.  We have to play in this game.  

The lady is right, in other words; and by the way, Fallon ought to fire his band.  Go hire some of those OWS drummers; whatever else can be said for the movement, those guys have their moments.  And clearly they're unemployed, so you can probably get them for a reasonable rate.

(H/t for the video:  DL Sly.)

BZ

Here's one of the last of the old school PSYOP NCOs.  59 years young!

...And Yet, Enough Has Somehow Just Been Said

Greyhawk features a beautiful quote in his long piece today.

Chester G. Hearn, in a recent history of Harper's Ferry in the Civil War, effectively summed one aspect of the battle with an observation that likely had to wait well over a century to be made: "With roughly eleven hundred men involved in a skirmish lasting four hours, where total casualties added up to five killed and twenty wounded, enough cannot be said about poor marksmanship."

India, Hope of Humanity

I have a Russian friend who has been arguing to me for years that India represents humanity's hope.  Perhaps he's right.



You have to watch a minute or so into it before you begin to see why.

Although, in truth, I think I've seen this act before.



(H/t: BSBFB).

Ale & Dragon Ships

To my great pleasure, I see that Sierra Nevada's annual release of Celebration Ale has begun.  If you like a dry, hoppy beer of the IPA type, I've always thought it was quite good.

We shall mark this occasion with appropriate fanfare.

If you liked that, Eric Blair recommends Den Gyldne Svane ("The Golden Swan") the next time you're in Denmark.  It looks fantastic to me.

Genetic Determinism, Xenophobia

In The Corner, John Derbyshire links to a story: Caring and Trust linked to genetic variation.

Individuals homozygous for the G allele (carrying two copies of the G version of the gene) of the oxytocin receptor tend to be more "prosocial," defined by researchers as the ability to behave in a way that benefits another person. In contrast, the carriers of the A version of the gene (AG or AA genotypes) tend to have a higher risk of autism, as well as self-reported lower levels of positive emotions, empathy and parental sensitivity.

Not Exactly Rocket Science notes that the sample size for the study is very small, so it's too early to say "this gene causes this trait." But imagine we reach that point. Imagine further, we reach a point where we find a set of genes that influences not only sociability and altruism, but tribalism - the ability to be extremely caring and altruistic towards your own kind, but dehumanize the outgroup.

Regardless of how we think about it in this country, in the world's dictatorships, genetic engineering will easily make the leap from "forbidden" to "mandatory." The Chinese state, says Mr. Derbyshire elsewhere, already encourages strong tribalism through propaganda. If their state doesn't liberalize before cheap genetic engineering comes along, what's their likely use of the technology? How about the world's Islamic dictatorships, which employ tribal instincts in a different form? (And given the inborn nature of religious instincts...with those?)

Mr. Derbyshire paraphrases Trotsky: "You may not be interested in this stuff, but it's interested in you."

Rest in Peace, Larry Munson

I read today that Larry Munson, the voice of the Georgia Bulldogs, died this weekend at the age of 89.

 


When I was growing up, my father would watch the games on TV with the sound turned off so he could listen to Munson on the radio. Or he'd skip watching the game at all, and go work on his car with the radio on, because the calls were good enough that you didn't need to see the action.  Larry Munson was the man who made this joke funny:

FOOTBALL SEASON - NORTH VS SOUTH

STADIUM SIZE

Up north: College football stadiums hold 20,000.

Down south: High school football stadiums hold 20,000.

FATHERS

Up North: Expect their daughter to understand Sylvia Plath.

Down South: Expect their daughters to understand pass interference.

GETTING TO THE STADIUM

Up North: You have to ask, "Where's the stadium?" When you find it you walk right in.

Down South: When you're near it, you'll hear it. On game day, it becomes the State's third largest city.

ANNOUNCER:

Up North: Neutral and paid. 

Down South: Announcer harmonizes with the crowd in the fight song, with a tear in his eye because he is so proud of his team.

That was Larry Munson.  We all loved him for it.  Except for those Georgia Tech guys, of course -- but I think they understood.

The Soundbite Doesn't Do It Justice

Take a moment, and watch the whole thing.



 Sounds downright cruel.

When Ideologies Tackle

From Detroit:



That seems like a fair reading of Genesis 3:21.  Does PETA have a response to the gentleman?

From Massachusetts:

[R]oughly two dozen boys competing on girls teams in Massachusetts because their schools do not have boys swimming programs. They are able to do so because of the open access amendment to the state constitution, which was voted into law in the 1970s and mandates that boys and girls must be afforded equal access to athletics.... 

With every stroke they take, the boys are displacing more than water. They could knock girls off the awards podium and make it harder for girls to qualify for All-Star honors and the postseason.

There's a fairly easy solution to this, which is to honor Title IX by simply including women in all sports.  Of course, almost none of them will be able to compete in "soccer" or "swimming," as opposed to "women's soccer" or "girl's swimming."

A few will, and good for them.  It turns out that top part-of-one-percent are the ones who really get things done anyway:

The remarkable finding of their study is that, compared with the participants who were “only” in the 99.1 percentile for intellectual ability at age 12, those who were in the 99.9 percentile — the profoundly gifted — were between three and five times more likely to go on to earn a doctorate, secure a patent, publish an article in a scientific journal or publish a literary work. A high level of intellectual ability gives you an enormous real-world advantage.

If that's where all human progress is, we need to rethink our approach to education, and how we train our children for life.  If you're not in the top half-percent, you might as well take up Zen gardening:  it's a surer way to achieve internal peace.  Accept your limits:  let go.

Polyphony

You can read an interview with these ladies here.  (H/t: Medieval News).

California Police

So, let's watch the first minute or so of this clip.



Now, plainly these kids are a pain in the ass.  The cops have more important things to do, and being called out of an afternoon to cater to the desire of over-privileged university students to be arrested is an annoyance they don't need.  Furthermore, the kids are engaged in some form of something like trespass, which the police have a legitimate authority to stop.

Still and all, the cop in question is clearly out of line, is he not?  What justifies the use of pepper spray here?  Pepper spray isn't so bad, of course -- it used to be a standard part of military basic training to be exposed to similar gases -- but what was the point of it?  Have we gone so far that any American who produces a momentary annoyance for a police officer is subject to pepper spray as well as arrest?

I don't dispute the existence of a general police power; but increasingly I wonder at whether anyone in government understands the proper use of that power.  To prevent the outbreak of disease, yes, this is a genuine and crucial need of compact cities; but this is an abuse, similar to how it has become common to use SWAT teams -- once intended for "special" situations requiring "special" weapons or tactics -- for the ordinary business of serving warrants.

Is there truly no one left in government who understands how to strike a balance between preventing the outbreak of plagues, and letting a few college students punch their "I got arrested for Peace and Justice" card?

Probably Should Have Taken Them Up On It

When a group of ex-CIA operators offers to help you sort out a life-and-death situation, you might want to consider the offer carefully.

"We would expect to meet for one or two days to establish a plan for assisting the client in resolving the client in resolving the present conflict in a satisfactory way," the letter continued. "In preparation for the meeting, we will need certain travel arrangements and to know that visa requirements have been waived." The missive was signed "Sincerely, Neil C. Livingstone, Chairman and CEO," and was printed on what appears to be the letterhead of Executive Action LLC, Livingstone's former PR-strategy/lobbying shop named apparently with a wink to the euphemism for Cold War-era CIA-assassinations.

Who is Neil C. Livingstone?  Sourcewatch metions him.   Of course, they mention me too; and while the information isn't wrong, it's not exactly insightful either.

Meta-Analysis

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a medical intervention justified by observational data must be in want of verification through a randomised controlled trial. . . .

[I]ndividuals jumping from aircraft without the help of a parachute are likely to have a high prevalence of pre-existing psychiatric morbidity. Individuals who use parachutes are likely to have less psychiatric morbidity and may also differ in key demographic factors, such as income and cigarette use. It follows, therefore, that the apparent protective effect of parachutes may be merely an example of the “healthy cohort” effect. . . .

It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use parachutes is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency.

The Hidden Strength of Gingrich

The University of Minnesota has a piece suggesting that Mr. Gingrich the only candidate in the recent debates who has come under no attacks from his fellows.  Why?

Why?  One obvious reason might be that until lately, he hasn't been worth attacking; only recently has he begun to poll seriously.  The main reason that UMN comes up with is that Mr. Gingrich has played fair on the point -- just as game theory would suggest, not attacking people is a good road to not being attacked.  Only Rep. Paul has launched fewer critiques of fellow Republicans, and on top of that Mr. Gingrich has pointedly criticized moderators who tried to draw him into attacking fellow Republicans.  Thus, he has drawn a clear standard, and he has upheld it:  and this is the sort of conduct that game theory would suggest produces a peace between players.

I think there is one more reason, though, which is that Mr. Gingrich is far and away the smartest guy on the stage.  If debates are about intellectual strength, then Mr. Gingrich benefits from our old motto:  Peace Through Superior Firepower.  It is simply wisdom from the rest of the field to recognize the disparity, and not call down his fire upon themselves.

Intelligence and knowledge aren't the only factors in choosing a nominee, of course.  There are several reasons not to prefer Mr. Gingrich, the most significant for me being his treatment of the women in his life.  Still, I suspect that one reason that Newt will continue to escape sharp criticism in the debates is that he is more than capable of collecting the heads of anyone who tries.  Since he has also offered a clear road to avoiding that rather public humiliation, I think he'll tread safely unless he proves to have lasting electoral strength.

What is likely to happen instead of a direct conflict is an attempt to stab him from a place of safety, as in his back.  Rather than attacks in the debates, Mr. Gingrich is in danger of anonymously-sourced hit pieces of the type that has so damaged the Cain campaign.

UKIP Speaks on the Euro

Now this is the kind of speech you want to hear from a democratically-elected leader.  It's a merciless assault on the un-elected technocrats of Europe, and the world they have created.

Ruins in the Woods

Here are some photos from the forest I wandered today.

Vines scale an abandoned piling.

A channel of river-worn stones where no river now runs.

Flyover

From Maggie's Farm, this time-lapse video from the International Space Station, showing the aurora borealis and a lot of lightning. It goes so fast, I could hardly tell what coastlines and cities I was seeing most of the time. It's funny how different a map looks when north isn't "up."

Earth | Time Lapse View from Space, Fly Over | NASA, ISS from Michael König on Vimeo.

A Lesson in the Tenth

The gentlemen lawyers leading the case against Obamacare have a piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining the matter as they see it.  The core of the issue lies here:

The Constitution limits federal power by granting Congress authority in certain defined areas, such as the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce. Those powers not specifically vested in the federal government by the Constitution or, as stated in the 10th Amendment, "prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The court will now determine whether those words still have meaning.

Our friends on the Left often seem not to understand the nature of the claim that is being made here.  This claim is often misunderstood as a claim that "government" lacks the power to do something if that something is not specifically enumerated.  In fact, it is only the Federal government that lacks the power.  The states may or may not have the power, depending on their own constitutions and a few considerations that limit what kinds of powers any government may properly exercise.  This matter is spelled out later in the piece.

Under our Constitution's system of dual sovereignty, only states have the authority to impose health and safety regulations on individuals simply because they are present. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the Constitution denies to the federal government this type of "general police power."

So 'the government' certainly does have the power, within the general limits of natural  law and the Bill of Rights; but the Federal government does not.  The Federal government is structurally placed to be an incredibly powerful organ, and concentrated power is deadly to individual liberty.  The controls of the 10th are meant to answer that concern.  An overweening state government can be escaped by moving across the border; but a tyrannical Federal government has power throughout the United States and, indeed, global reach.

Nevertheless, the existence of a general police power is not denied by the Tea Party or the Right more broadly.  However important it is to restrain that power, there are some few cases in which it is necessary.  Consider Zucotti Park.

However sympathetic you may be, or may not be, these "occupation" protests pose a legitimate danger to public health.  The most predictable thing in the world was the outbreak of diseases in these encampments.  The danger increases when people are coming from different walks of life, bringing with them diseases to which the others may not have the same resistances.  The outbreak of tuberculosis in a similar camp in Atlanta will not be an isolated incident if steps are not taken to ensure that sanitation is preserved.

This is the lesson of every army that has marched to war in three thousand years.  For that matter, it was true in the foreign residence hall I lived in while in China, where I encountered tuberculosis (which I cured via main force application of Chinese beer -- strong medicine, for the cure was complete, though my tests showed the presence of TB antibodies for a few years afterwards).  Maintaining camp sanitation for an extended time requires proper training and something like military discipline, neither of which have been obviously present among these protests.

Balancing any first amendment right to free speech and freedom of assembly is important, to be sure.  Still, especially in a case in which the encampment is in the center of a large city, the risk to public health is tremendous.

No one from the Right denies this.  The debate is about the limits of the power, and its locus.  There are powerful advantages for all of us, Left and Right, in having an America that respects Federalist limits:  it makes it much more likely that we shall all have a country in which we can live pleasantly, and in harmony with our individual values.

The Rebel Yell

While I was doing some other research, I came across this video from Smithsonian Magazine.  It's a recording of Confederate veterans in the 1930s giving the old "Rebel Yell," as well as they still could at what was then an advanced age.



Historians have been arguing for some years about both the actual sound of the yell, and its origins.  The most popular arguments are that the South had learned to use it from fighting the Indians, which is plausible because those wars immediately preceded the generation that fought the Civil War; or that it was native to the Southerners because it was derived from the Scottish Highlander war-cry.  The latter argument is plausible because the Highlander yell is well-attested, and because of the prominence of Scots among Southern families -- although that prominence is greatest among the Appalachian Southerners, who were least likely to support the Confederacy.

Interesting to discover that there's an actual recording, then!

Hey, Look At That:

Cleaning out the attic can turn up all sorts of treasures.

A MEDIEVAL market town has discovered it owns an original version of Magna Carta, potentially worth about 20 million pounds, rather than a copy worth only 10,000 pounds.

It's Nice They Remember How...

Accountability at 10 Downing street!  Now if only the government could manage to do this for real, and not just as a joke.

A Chinese Obscenity

Paper Republic attempts to explain a term in common use in China, which is shockingly obscene and yet a term  -- they often won't even draw the character, because the manner of drawing the character itself is taken as obscene -- of very strong approval.  It is one of those things that is often best explained by example, of which the author provides several useful ones:

A friend had a high-school classmate who spent every physics class staring at the ceiling, either asleep or completely indifferent. No matter how angry the teacher got the classmate never did the least bit of work, and his attention always remained fixed on the ceiling. When the semester was over and the test results came out, the classmate scored nearly 100%. The classmate was niubi.

The explanation is probably good enough to convey the concept, and the concept is not at all obscene.  If you want to understand why the term is, you can follow the link; however, given the sexual nature of the obscenity, I'll trust that you will all be delicate in the comments if you decide to discuss it.

One thing I find amusing is that the Chinese are apparently often too embarrassed by the term to use it in polite company, but they find that they can't do without the concept, so they just pronounce the first part of the word. That part of the word means "cow."  So, someone does something cool and laid back, and you'd say, "He's so cow."

Speaking of Chinese obscenities, apparently the good folks in Taiwan weren't too happy about today's op-ed in the New York Times, "To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan."  The Taiwanese have their own special way of expressing themselves on these points.

On the Personhood Movement

I've been reading a bit about an attempt in Mississippi -- defeated in the recent election -- to use the law to establish that the beginning of human personhood comes at the joining of sperm and egg.  This is the point of fertilization, which either is or is not the moment of conception depending on whether you consider conception to be incomplete until the zygote is successfully implanted.  We will leave that debate aside for the moment.

Ms. Amanda Marcotte is, of course, thrilled by the defeat of the measure; here is her analysis of why it was defeated.

The other important takeaway from this is that there's a genuine disconnect between the anti-choice movement and people who identify as "pro-life" but aren't in the movement. Anti-choice activists look at polling data showing that a slight majority of Americans claim to be "pro-life" and declare victory, but what those polls really reflect is not people's genuine opinions on reproductive rights so much as the power of the anti-choice movement to cow people into cursory agreements with them out of fear of being seen as impious. In other words, saying you're "pro-life" is more about marking you as a member of a tribe, pledging fealty to your faith or to your identity as a "conservative," for a lot of people. If you dig into the Gallup numbers, in fact, it seems that on the abortion issue alone, around half of people who claim to be "pro-life" actually would like abortion services to be available in the cases they imagine that they or their loved ones could need them.

I had arrived at a different conclusion yesterday, which is this:  the problem with the "personhood" movement was that it draws the right ethical line, but the wrong legal one.  It is perfectly correct as a matter of ethics, and even of morality, to recognize that a fertilized egg is no longer merely an outgrowth of the father or the mother; it has an independent stature that arises from its now unique DNA.  This is indeed the point at which we should no longer think of it as we would the cells of one's hair or fingernails, in other words, which we can discard at will.  Disposing of this has a significantly different moral quality.

Nevertheless, the law cannot support the same standard.  It is very often the case that ethics and the law come apart, and even that they should come apart.  There are several reasons why it is a bad idea to make this a legal standard.

It would invest the police with the power, and perhaps the duty, to investigate early miscarriages of the type that remain extremely common to be sure there was no foul play.  This would be a mistake because it would create a burdensome and expensive new requirement for the police, which as taxpayers we should prefer to avoid; and because it would create an extremely intrusive power for the police, which we as citizens should prefer to avoid.

Since almost all such spontaneous miscarriages are natural, too, we cannot imagine it would do any good to investigate them even if we wished to pay these costs in money and liberty.  It would at that stage be very difficult to prove that the woman even knew she was pregnant, again raising the cost of any such investigations.

In other words, it just doesn't make sense as a legal standard.  It makes sense as a moral standard, but the law must be practical and enforceable, and any law must be balanced against the costs of enforcing it both in terms of wealth and freedom.  As a legal standard, this fails on all counts.

Veteran's Day 2011

In less than two months, we shall see the last American military forces leave Iraq.  America's mission there will be a diplomatic one from here on, although in fairness it will be a very different sort of diplomatic mission than those to which the State Department has become accustomed.  It will be interesting to see how they manage it; and I suspect that many of those who served in uniform in Iraq will find their way into the service of State as "contractors" or short-term hires of one sort or another.  That was how State managed its ePRTs in Iraq, chiefly through such contracts, and they will naturally want their security forces to be experienced men, with proven metal and knowledge of the country.

There are probably some difficult times ahead in Iraq.  Robert Stokely's convoy to visit the site of his son's death turned back, but got within two miles of the site before the mission seemed too dangerous to continue.  Yusufiyah is a dangerous part of the province -- deep within the "Triangle of Death" -- but one I have visited numerous times.  The roads off the MSR ("main supply route") are just the kind of roads you'd want to lay an ambush along:  narrow, dirt (perfect for laying IEDs), and with areas of thick, abundant tree cover pressing on the sides of the roads.  These are often palms, but also orange trees.  We used to have concertina wire strung up on the edges of many of the dirt roads we intended to use often.  The area is bitterly poor by our standards, but relatively prosperous by the standards of rural Iraq:  this is after all Mesopotamia, where the ground at least is rich, watered by the Euphrates river.

It may still be a very long time before we can visit the place the way that WWII veterans used to go back to France or Germany, to see the old sites as they shine in the glowing light of peace.  I hope to visit Iraq someday on those terms, because it is in its way a beautiful country -- a very different kind of beauty than what you would expect, and one that can be hard to see between the war and the poverty.  Still, it is, if you have eyes for it.

Charles M. Schultz, if he were alive still, would have drawn Snoopy drinking root beer at Bill Mauldin's house today.  He once did a movie about the Peanuts kids going to France.  Mostly it was a movie for kids, although it included some clever references to French history.  The place that Charlie Brown is sent to visit is called "Le Chateau de Malvoisin," the Castle of the Bad Neighbor -- but Malvoisin, "the Bad Neighbor," was the name of the massive trebuchet built by Philip II's army during his joint crusade with Richard the Lionheart.

There was one scene in that Mr. Schultz included in memory of those from World War I, as well as his own war.  He served as an NCO and a .50 cal gunner in the 20th Armored Division during WWII.

The question is one that remains relevant.  I suspect it always will.

Happy Birthday

Happy 236th birthday to the United States Marine Corps. Semper Fidelis:  you always have been.

A Damsel on a Dulcimer

A damsel with a dulcimer

In a vision once I saw:

It was an Abyssinian maid,

And on her dulcimer she played,

Singing of Mount Abora.

Could I revive within me

Her symphony and song,

To such a deep delight 'twould win me

That with music loud and long

I would build that dome in air,

That sunny dome! those caves of ice!

And all who heard should see them there,

And all should cry, Beware! Beware!

His flashing eyes, his floating hair!

Weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread,

For he on honey-dew hath fed

And drunk the milk of Paradise.

-Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"

There's more than one kind of dulcimer, but we have them both here where I grew up.  The first is the hammered dulcimer, an instrument known around the world in various forms; the other is the Appalachian dulcimer, or mountain or lap dulcimer, which is a stringed instrument played across the lap.  

The hammered dulcimer has the strongest sound.  Here's an example of a Gospel tune being played by a student at East Tennessee State University -- where, as it happens, both my mother and father went to school.

The instrument is medieval, at least, and so we see it in other forms.

The Appalachian dulcimer seems to be a simpler form, which comes from a poorer culture that tried to maintain the instrument with less wealth and technical skill.  It still manages to do some interesting things, but the character of the instrument is entirely different.



Let's try a more direct comparison, and one more to the advantage of the mountain instrument.





The instrument is featured in this piece as well, although it is played but little.  Still, the piece itself is worth hearing through.

Many of you will recognize the song they are singing in that last link.

Italy Crosses the Event Horizon

This is the fate of all of us, if we don't square up.

Summary from Barclays Capital inst sales:

1) At this point, it seems Italy is now mathematically beyond point of no return
2) While reforms are necessary, in and of itself not be enough to prevent crisis
3) Reason? Simple math--growth and austerity not enough to offset cost of debt
4) On our ests, yields above 5.5% is inflection point where game is over
5) The danger:high rates reinforce stability concerns, leading to higher rates
6) and deeper conviction of a self sustaining credit event and eventual default
7) We think decisions at eurozone summit is step forward but EFSF not adequate
8) Time has run out--policy reforms not sufficient to break neg mkt dynamics

But America will do better, right?  Well, perhaps; but tonight's elections show Ohio voting against restrictions on unions, and re-elections of incumbents across the board.  

It may be that reason shall not save us, even with glowing examples before us; and therefore, we shall have the fire as well.  

A Clever Review

The Economist has a good line, at least, in its review of this new book on physics:

Popular physics has enjoyed a new-found regard.  Now comes a brave attempt to inject mathematics into an otherwise fashionable subject.

End Bonuses for Bankers

From most people, I would dismiss this as mere anti-capitalist rhetoric.  From Nassim Nicholas Taleb, it's an idea we ought to consider carefully.  He understands the banking and finance systems quite well, and especially he understands what their limits are.

Blue Wall Street

Dr. Mead has a post that I'm sure you've seen elsewhere, on the clash between factions within what he calls the Blue Model. I'd like to discuss one particular element of his piece.

For Blue Wall Street the conflict between the interests of the private sector and the power of the government does not really exist. The symbiosis between Blue Wall Street and the state is strong and deep. The pension funds, bond issues and other financial transactions that blue city and state governments need helps nourish Blue Wall Street; Blue Wall Street helps integrate the policy agenda of other government focused interest groups with larger national priorities and movements. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the archetypes of this symbiosis....

Blue Wall Street benefits much more from the blue social model than the other elements in the coalition. Five figure cop salaries and low six figure salaries for goo-goo social engineers pale before the seven, eight, nine and ten figure paydays on the Street.

There is a direct connection between those big paydays and the connection between big finance, big government and Democratic (as well as Republican) interest group politics. Good relations with politicians help make money: ask the leadership of Goldman Sachs, which has provided much of the leadership and policy advice for administrations of both parties for some time. It’s a sensible trade-off for well connected i-bankers to accept higher general tax rates in exchange for significant influence over government policy. You can not only use that influence to carve out nice loopholes that insulate you from the high tax rates blue policies entail; you can get enough business from good government relations to offset the cost of the taxes the model requires. If Al Gore’s environmental businesses make enough money as a result of emission laws and price controls, he doesn’t have to worry too much about his tax rate. And in any case, carbon taxes favor the financial economy (which uses very little carbon though its PR firms emit a lot of hot air) over the manufacturing economy.

This is what Ms. Palin was calling crony capitalism, and it is a much larger problem than the Blue Model.  The Red Model, so to speak, has its own version of this as well:  a version that uses government to favor corporate interests.  In conflicts between citizens and other citizens, the government may come down this way or that way; but in conflicts between citizens and big (not small!) business, well....

The Red Model is on display in Texas, where Gov. Perry has favored corporate interests.  Consider tax rates:  Texas has no corporate income tax rate, but only a 'franchise' tax on net profits over a million dollars, at no more than one percent, with the profits to be calculated according to the most favorable of four methods.

Education is another area in which Texas favors the interest of corporations, with its curricula designed around developing a workforce rather than a citizenry.  A free republic needs a citizenry educated in history, some of the great works of literature, certain works of ancient philosophy, as well as math and science; a workforce can dispense with everything except the math and science.  Gov. Perry has pushed to find ways to generate more focus on those workforce-developing methods.

I don't say this to attack Gov. Perry, who may be the best of the remaining candidates in spite of his participation in crony capitalism.  I say it to point out that we've already reached a Presidential field that is going to endorse some form of crony capitalism.  Mr. Cain is a Red Model capitalist, who just last week was boasting of his ties to the Koch brothers; Gov. Perry is a well-known one, who took some heat from Rep. Bachmann in the debates over it (she was probably the last chance to avoid a crony capitalist of some flavor, but alas).  President Obama is a Blue Model exemplar.  Mitt Romney is also from the Blue Model, as demonstrated by his policies and positions as a governor up north.

What is really at stake in this election is whether the Presidency will be occupied by a Red Model crony or a Blue Model crony.

The Red Model offers two things to the people that the Blue Model does not.  Employment, and a model that is sustainable.  The Blue Model is permanently broken, as Dr. Mead has pointed out repeatedly and excellently in recent months.

The Red Model is compatible with some good things for the people (as was the Blue Model at its height); for example, Gov. Perry's attempt to construct a $10,000 Bachelor's Degree.  Let's say that this follows corporate interests, and is made available only for fields in science, mathematics, engineering, and the like.  Those fields produce good jobs for the person obtaining the degree!  Let's say that corporate interests lead to zero-percent corporate income tax rates like in Texas or South Dakota.  Those lead to more jobs:

Despite being oil-free, South Dakota’s unemployment rate is around one-half the national rate. Its economy is booming. Why? When I talk with business leaders around the country who have facilities in South Dakota or who deal with businesses there, they invariably emphasize the quality of South Dakota’s labor force. The phrase “work ethic” comes up again and again. And, of course, South Dakota has a friendly business climate. It hasn’t elected a Democratic governor since 1974. And there isn’t a union in sight.

"Work ethic" isn't something the government can train the citizenry to have, but it is something that the government can break via perverse incentives.

What the Blue Model advocates may have to accept is that a Red Model is the last means for producing enough wealth to transfer to other, preferred outcomes -- things like social services.  Even then these will have to be cut, because even if you entirely eliminated the Defense Department, we are facing massive shortfalls.  Of course, an improved economy will increase the amount of revenue available, so the Red Model can help; but the Blues are going to have to face up to the internal fractures that Dr. Mead describes, and decide between police unions and welfare as the trolly winds down.

None of this is finally satisfying, but as a practical matter it's where we are.  We shall face the next four years with some sort of crony capitalist in office; we must decide which kind.  Those of us who would prefer to build a citizenry rather than a workforce, or an economy built around small businesses and farms -- that  Jeffersonian model favoring the private ownership of individual means of production -- we will not see any joy out of the next President.  Still, there is bad and there is worse, and it may be that the bad is not entirely without its silver lining.

Matrimony as a Kinship Bond

This story shows that -- in spite of decades of 'contract theory' approaches to marriage -- a substantial part of the public still has at least a vague understanding of what marriage really is.

"In its purist form, marriage is about starting a family, and I wanted to start that family with the same name," she said. "Eventually it came down to practicality and what felt right."
Like Rogers, an overwhelming majority of all brides drop their surnames, according to the Lucy Stone League, named for a woman who refused to take her husband's name in 1855. Another survey, published last spring in the journal Gender and Society, finds that at least half of those queried said they would agree that a name change should be a requirement for marriage. "It absolutely shocked us," said co-author Brian Powell, who is a professor of sociology at Indiana University.
Powell surveyed 815 Americans of all genders and educational and economic backgrounds, asking them if they "agreed" or "did not agree" with certain statements on views of family. More than 70 percent of women said they agreed that a woman should change her name at marriage. And half said "yes" when asked whether making the name change a state law was a good idea.

Although the story is about name-changing, the change itself is not the important part of the story. The important part is what Ms. Rogers says: "In its [purest] form, marriage is about starting a family[.]" [I assume that "purist" is a rather interesting editorial decision rather than her actual word choice. --Grim]

Marriage is a kinship bond uniting bloodlines across generations. The sense that this is not about one's own personal identity, but about forging a new family, is a very healthy and correct instinct.  Exactly how names are aligned is less important than that this sense is maintained -- and indeed, the study shows that something like a majority would support the groom taking the bride's name.

Catholics are least likely not to change their names, followed by Protestants and Jews, but that the overall rate of non-changing is only 18%.  Tellingly, gay men who choose to pursue "gay marriage" tend to keep their own names -- pointing clearly to the fact that something other than the forging of a new kinship bond is at the core of this practice.

Interesting stuff.  I have very little by way of an opinion about whether or not a woman ought to take the name of her husband.  The foundation of marriage is a matter that is of interest to us all, as the foundation of marriage and family is the foundation on which any civilization stands -- if it does.

Look Out Below!

Just kidding. Asteroid 2005 YU55 is projected to pass tomorrow within the Moon's orbit, about 200,000 miles out. That's pretty close, but too far to do any harm.

This asteroid is about as big as an aircraft carrier. If it hit, it might result in a 4,000-megaton blast, a 7.0 earthquake, and (if it struck water) 70-foot-high tsunamis in the very immediate vicinity. An impact of that kind is estimated to be about a 100,000-year event. In contrast, the 65-million-year-old K-T boundary "dinosaur killer" probably was 5 or 10 miles wide, and that is considered about a 100-million-year event.

One of my favorite scifi stories is "Lucifer's Hammer," a TEOTWAWKI fantasy about a comet strike.

Asteroid guru Jay Melosh of Perdue University adds that "Apophis, a similar-sized asteroid about one-third of a mile in diameter, is the biggest threat in our near future. It has a tiny chance of striking the Earth in 2036." Yeah, that's what they said in Lucifer's Hammer. It's always a tiny chance until it happens! Nevertheless, although an object of that size might wipe out a big city, it probably wouldn't lead to any extinctions.

The Ride

I took to the road this weekend.  Most of it was spent in the mountains.  Above five thousand feet the leaves are almost gone, but in the valleys of the Nantahala and Chattohoochee forests are still filled with leaves of grand color.

While near the Pisgah National Forest, I stopped in to see the harper whose work we looked at last week.  She turns out to be a perfectly delightful young lady named Sarah Marie Mullen, who was thrilled to have one of her original compositions requested.  

She proves to have degrees in Anthropology and Biology as well as music.  She tells me that different regions have different ways of tuning a harp to make the characteristic sounds of the region's music.  As harpers tend to learn from each other, however, these different ways meld a bit over time, so that characteristic cultural sounds tend to borrow from those others who are closest to them.  As a result, it is possible to start in Ireland and work your way to Eastern Europe song by song, retuning the harp just a little bit at a time as you pass through each culture.  So you can play an Irish or Scottish song and quickly then play a French one, and then quickly a Spanish; but to go from even Eastern Europe to China would require taking a long time to retune each string on the harp.

At one point she was playing a Spanish tune, a flamenco, and at the end of it she said to the audience, "Excuse me."  She unplugged the harp from the amplifier, and while we sat there she quietly replayed the piece from the beginning.  "I made a mistake," she said, "but it sounded great, and I wanted to be sure I would remember how to do it again!"  I thought that showed a fine dedication, but it also suggests a link between music and biology.  You might say it is an instance of a random mutation, but one that proves to have advantages:  and so it will survive and, perhaps, come to be reproduced by others who encounter it.  There is a sense of unity between the arts and the sciences, which is right as the True and the Beautiful are at last only parts of the Good.

Her website is here:  let me recommend her work for any of you thinking of musical gifts this year. 

Aside from the stop to hear some beautiful music, the trails and the forests offer their usual refuge.  Camping in the national forests is lawful in a dispersed fashion, and free.  

A trail through mountain laurel.

A ridge west of Asheville.

The bluffs on the border region of Georgia and the Carolinas.

I trust you all had a fine weekend as well.

Two Approaches to Opening a Coconut

Via the BSBFB.



Well, why shouldn't a machete be a kitchen knife?

Going Riding

I will be in the wilderness, seeking adventure, until Monday.

Southern Manners Continued

InstaPundit reports from Knoxville with an addendum:

As a recent (female) Yankee transplant to the south, I can’t speak of past southern manners, but I can speak of what I’ve seen and experienced since I’ve been here. It’s been nothing short of culture shock, in a wonderful way. I work in a retail store where it’s occasionally required of me to help customers out to their cars with heavy packages. I have no problem with this, but I have yet to seen a man let me take the heavier box, and if I try to, they won’t let me. My male co-workers won’t curse in front of me, or even discuss “inappropriate” subjects without first saying “excuse my language” or “pardon me for this”. I routinely have customers tell me not to worry about helping them with heavy packages, and that I should make the guys carry them. I’m called “ma’am”! (And occasionally, “darlin’”, which is also perfectly acceptable.) I’m treated like a lady wherever I go, not just another random customer. I rarely have to open a door for myself, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been offered assistance to my car when my arms are full after grocery shopping, from both men and women alike. 

And the women are no less polite and warm-hearted. They’re happy to have a quick chat or offer an opinion on something if asked by a random stranger. They’ll politely catch your attention if you’re dropped a penny or a piece of paper from your purse to return it. They seem to have a big, wide, authentic smile and a kind word for everyone. They say “Please” and “thank you”, and mean it. And most shockingly, those mothers who bring their young children with them into the stores actually discipline them to make them behave, and will even apologize to the employees if their kids are being unruly. 

I’m amazed and grateful for a culture that teaches such manners. If this is a decline in southern manners, then I can only imagine what they were like at their peak.

Amazing thought, isn't it?  That a culture might put its childrens' self-esteem behind courtesy to strangers?  Why, that's probably child abuse, these days.  Some Federal agency surely needs to do something about this, so as to teach those barbarians how things are done in the United States.  I trust the New York Times will have an update for us soon.

What is the Danger of Citing the Bible?

Almost everyone has one handy.

From today’s briefing:
MR. CARNEY: Well, I believe the phrase from the Bible* is, “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” And I think the point the President is making is that we should -- we have it within our capacity to do the things to help the American people. 

The White House adds in the official transcript:
* This common phrase does not appear in the Bible.

New In Science: Viking Navigation Secrets

A discovery that, if it proves out, may be of some interest to us! 

To avoid getting lost on their voyages across the North Atlantic 1000 years ago, Vikings relied on the sun to determine their heading. (This was long before magnetic compasses were available in Europe.) But cloudy days could have sent their ships dangerously off course, especially during the all-day summer sun at those far-north latitudes. The Norse sagas mention a mysterious "sunstone" used for navigation. Now a team of scientists claims that the sunstones could have been calcite crystals and that Vikings could have used them to get highly accurate compass readings even when the sun was hidden. 

The trick for locating the position of the hidden sun is to detect polarization, the orientation of light waves along their path. Even on a cloudy day, the sky still forms a pattern of concentric rings of polarized light with the sun at its center. If you have a crystal that depolarizes light, you can determine the location of the rings around the hidden sun.

If you are interested in how it read in the sagas, try this:

The weather was thick and snowy as Sigurður had predicted. Then the king summoned Sigurður and Dagur (Rauðúlfur's sons) to him. The king made people look out and they could nowhere see a clear sky. Then he asked Sigurður to tell where the sun was at that time. He gave a clear assertion. Then the king made them fetch the solar stone and held it up and saw where light radiated from the stone and thus directly verified Sigurður’s prediction.

Another Study on Free Will and Neuroscience

These are becoming fashionable!  But this one has an interesting claim.

Like generosity and pettiness, like love and suspiciousness, responsibility is what he calls a “strongly emergent” property — a property that, though derived from biological mechanisms, is fundamentally distinct and obeys different laws, as do ice and water.

What does it mean to say something is emergent?  The concept, as the second link rightly notes, is at least as old as Aristotle, but it has become more significant recently.  From where, though, would such a thing emerge? There are two ways of thinking about an answer to that question.  A thing can emerge in the sense that it can arise from a combination; but it can also emerge in the sense that it can emerge from hiding.  

Now, my question is:  those two senses appear to be different, but are they really?  If we say that the combination is the thing, yet we must admit that reality is structured in such a way that the combination has the potential to give rise to the property.  How is that different from saying that a property embedded in reality is, under the right circumstances, going to come out of hiding?

This is important to the long piece on a new theory of consciousness that I have yet to finish composing, but which I mentioned in discussions with Joseph W. recently.  I think that consciousness is embedded in reality; and the brain is therefore a receiver of something that is already there, rather than a generator as we usually believe.

On Wet Work

I don't write as much on war as I used to, though its importance has not lessened.  I had a piece on BlackFive yesterday, however, which some of you may find interesting.

The Autumn King

Ah, "Southern Manners"

Any Southerner grows accustomed, over the years, to the New York Times' mode of writing about the South.  They are at turns tendentious and sermonizing; indeed they would be patronizing if they had the wherewithal to be anyone's patron.  At this point, of course, the Times is hardly what it used to be in that regard.

Still, today's entry -- "Southern Manners on Decline, Some Say" -- is an amazing example of the genre.  It starts off with a headline as solidly correct as those topping other newsworthy stories like "Aliens to Come Soon, Some Say," and "Sasquatch is Real, Some Say."  Having thus established its bona fides, the Times reporters will surely begin with an example that shows Southern manners in decline, right?

One August night, two men walked into a popular restaurant attached to this city’s fanciest shopping mall. They sat at the bar, ordered drinks and pondered the menu. Two women stood behind them. A bartender asked if they would mind offering their seats to the ladies. Yes, they would mind. Very much.

Angry words came next, then a federal court date and a claim for more than $3 million in damages. 

The men, a former professional basketball player and a lawyer, also happen to be black. The women are white. The men’s lawyers argued that the Tavern at Phipps used a policy wrapped in chivalry as a cloak for discriminatory racial practices.

So, what we've learned here is that Southern manners are actually still being enforced:  ladies should be offered a seat.  The Tavern at Phipps is a very nice place, according to the standards of taverns -- I've been there once -- and it is the mark of very nice places in the South that manners are enforced.  This is why such good manners are observed here:  the failure to observe them leads to negative social consequences.

Now, an inattentive reader might have thought the Times brought it up to show that the two men at the bar were the ones being rude -- after all, they are the ones who loudly refused to accord with the general standard.  However, for that to be a comment on "Southern Manners," the men would have to be Southerners. The Times doesn't actually tell you anything about them, but I discovered by an internet search that the "former professional basketball player" is Joe Barry Carroll, whose high school team was in Denver, college in Indiana, and professionally played for California, New Jersey, Texas, Italy, Arizona, and Denver again.

So this is no comment on Southern manners being in decline.  Why the headline?  "Two Loudmouths at a Bar Show Bad Manners" didn't get past the editors?  "Professional Basketball Players' Manners on Decline" didn't strike anyone as terribly newsworthy?

(The Times includes a slideshow with this article, the title of the slideshow being "Civility on the Brink."  It's a series of pictures of children at a finishing school in Augusta dancing and practicing correct handshakes.  I'm not sure how that lines up with the title of either the slideshow or the article, but let's keep trying to sort out what is really going on here.)

So far we're not sure exactly what the Times is trying to say.  Are manners on the decline, or are they still being enforced?  The Times quotes a historian who says he thinks things are eroding, offers none of his evidence (if he has any to offer), and then says:

To be sure, strict rules regarding courtesy and deference to others have historically been used as a way to enforce a social order in which women and blacks were considered less than full citizens.

In the Jim Crow era, blacks and whites lived with a code of hyper-politeness as a way to smooth the edges of a harsh racial system....  Since the Civil War, any decline in Southern manners has been blamed on those damn Yankees.

Oh, I see!  This is a celebration of the end of manners in the South, then!  You've come to take credit!

With that sorted out, I can begin to understand what would otherwise be puzzling.  After all, this doesn't seem like it is a remark on "Southern Manners," but on the manners of people moving into the South from outside:

Dana Mason, who teaches second grade in Birmingham, says manners have been at the lowest level she has seen in her 36 years in the classroom. Parents who move South tell her they don’t want their children to learn to say “yes, sir” or “yes, ma’am.” Too demeaning, they say.

Oh, I see, demeaning.  I suppose being polite to someone else means showing some sort of minimal deference, and that might conflict with the child's self-esteem.  Much better that they should learn to think of themselves as the most important person in the room, regardless of their accomplishments or virtues!  Indeed, since children taught to think this way will develop few virtues, only this approach can possibly ensure their self-esteem.  And self-esteem is very important!

Manners also helped create the South’s famous “bless your heart” culture — a powerful way of seeming to be polite without being genuine. 

“Manners are often a way of distancing and maintaining space,” said William Ferris, a University of North Carolina folklorist who edited the Encyclopedia of Southern Culture with Professor Wilson. “If someone is polite, you better be careful and consider what that politeness veils.”

Ah, well, better we work for less politeness then.  We want people to be authentic, just as we want them to have self-esteem!

This story is the story of a culture on the brink of a final collapse.  The collapsing culture, however, is not the South's.  The culture on display in the words of the author is a culture that is killing itself.  It has fallen out of order:  and strong and rich as it has been, it will not now long survive.

One Tanker's View of the Eurozone

I'm going to guess that many members of this audience may find this analogy helpful in understanding the Eurozone's response to its financial crisis.  The real question, though, is:  why would any polity agree to have their wealth used as armor for the Greeks?

At least, that's the real question from outside Greece.  The Greeks seem to think the real question is a different one.

An Excellent Sign for 2012

Now this was a particularly clever idea for a pollster:  ask Americans which historical President they wish they could bring back to lead the country at this time.

Thirty-six percent of those polled said they wanted the Gipper to lead America out of the economic crisis, while 29 percent picked Roosevelt. Thomas Jefferson came in third place with the support of 14 percent of those polled, followed by Roosevelt’s successor Harry Truman at 8 percent.

Harry Truman is an interesting choice -- I wonder if that eight percent isn't chiefly drawn from people alive at the time Truman was president, since he isn't a figure who is well known for bringing the nation out of an economic downturn.  Reagan v. FDR shows us that a plurality of Americans have their heads in the right place:  nearly four in ten understand what is needed.  Only about one in three are hoping the government will save them, instead of wanting the government out of the way of private action.

We can't fault the 14 percent who chose Jefferson, as Jefferson would be a good choice at any time.  No Andy Jackson, though?  No Teddy?