Ed Schultz, the MSNBC commentator, made waves this week by complaining that President Obama gave an interview in his time slot to Fox News after all the hardcore shilling he'd done for ObamaCare. He made another revealing complaint, too, as reported by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal, in his pep talk to Netroots attendees: "The White House has a war room. I think they have a sissy room too."
I've been noticing a lot of this lately. The party of peace, love, and understanding can get pretty butch when it lets its hair down among friends. Anyone would think they'd concluded that violence is sometimes morally justified in a good cause.
Expect blowback this week from the sissy lobby. ". . . All We Are Saaayyyy-ing . . . ."
Ann Althouse quotes from Maureen Dowd's loopy analysis of l'affaire Sherrod, including her approving citation to the even wilder loopiness of Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. Clyburn's suggestion? "[Obama] needs some black people around him.” Per Dowd, Clyburn explained that
Obama’s inner circle keeps “screwing up” on race: “Some people over there are not sensitive at all about race. They really feel that the extent to which he allows himself to talk about race would tend to pigeonhole him or cost him support, when a lot of people saw his election as a way to get the issue behind us. I don’t think people elected him to disengage on race. Just the opposite.”
Ms. Althouse's commenters dismantle this claptrap instantly in at least two ways. To begin with, as commenter Paul Zrimsek noted: "The NAACP's reaction was of a piece with the White House's. Does the NAACP need more black people too?"
What's more, as commenter Bagoh20 pointed out, how do you "get the [race] issue behind us" by expecting the President to engage obsessively on race?
Darleen at Protein Wisdom strikes a blow for Austen fans. "Is that your blood?" "Oh -- yes. Some of it." Actually I've read more than one pomo critical essay on Jane Austen that didn't diverge much from this video in intellectual style, minus the humor. The second video ("Dad Club") is worth watching, too. But now I've blown a good fraction of my satellite download ration for the day.
The Way:
Next morning Alveric came up the tower to the witch Ziroonderel, weary and frantic from searching all night long in strange places for Lirazel. All night he had tried to guess what fancy had beckoned her out and whither it might have led her; he had searched by the stream by which she had prayed to the stones, and the pool where she had prayed to the stars; he had called her name up every tower, and had called it wide in the dark, and had no answer but echo; and so he had come at last to the witch Ziroonderel.
"Whither?" he said, saying no more than that, that the boy might not know his fears. Yet Orion knew.
And Ziroonderel all mournfully shook her head. "The way of the leaves," she said. "The way of all beauty."
-Edward Plunkett, Lord Dunsany, The King of Elfland's Daughter
A new book examines the Kaiser's attempt to provoke a global Jihad in order to undermine the British Raj.
Helping to whip up passions was one of history’s most unlikely jihadists, Baron Max von Oppenheim, who directed the Kaiser’s “jihad bureau” for the duration of the war. The scion of a Jewish banking family, an archaeologist, writer, and veteran Near East hand, Oppenheim thundered that Muslims “should know that from today the Holy War has become a sacred duty and that the blood of the infidels in the Islamic lands may be shed with impunity”. (Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians were granted exceptions, of course.)
Oppenheim supervised a crack team of Orientalists, among them Alois Musil, cousin of the novelist Robert, who trekked to central Arabia in 1915 to enlist Arab tribal sheikhs, and Oskar von Niedermayer, who made a perilous journey across the Persian desert to spur the Emir of Afghanistan into attacking the Indian Raj.
Did it work? Well...
Almost everywhere – Persia, the Shia strongholds of southern Mesopotamia, Afghanistan and the Hejaz – German agents found themselves contending with endless logistical traps. With the British Navy in control of the seas, the still incomplete railway took on a vital importance. There was simply no way for the Ottomans to ship arms and materiel across vast distances to supply their would-be allies. The “jihad”, in actuality, turned into a series of cash transactions, with the Germans (and British) resorting to subventions, financial blandishments, and outright bribery.
The Billy Carter Gas Station is privately owned, but its ownership would be transferred to the government if the legislation is approved. The gas station has old gasoline pumps, stacked tires outside, colorful articles from Carter’s closet, commendations from around the world and “Billy Beer” paraphernalia.
And it was such a good time to re-examine our opinion of the Carter years, too.
Global Warming Crusaders Target Marmots in Cruel Genocide
Or is it "zoocide"? Whatever: they can't wash the blood off their hands this time.
"I didn't intend to spend 40 years studying marmots, but new questions kept coming up," confesses a researcher whose professional life was hijacked by this under-reported drama. His perseverance paid off for us all with his "groundbreaking study, published in Nature," revealing to a stunned scientific community that "mountain rodents called marmots are growing larger, healthier and more plentiful in response to climate change." The longer growing season has boosted the plucky creatures' size, strength, and numbers. Unless. Unless we let Al Gore back out of his cage, in which case decades of hard-fought progress in the marmot community could be senselessly undone.
Snapping Back to the Narrative. Someone must have handed our scientist a note from off-camera during the interview, because he hastens to add: "This benefit to marmots is probably short-lived. . . . [I]f there's less snowmelt to nourish plants that marmots forage in the summer, it will severely affect them. In droughts, we've had very high mortality." Marmots cannot catch a break.
The next time you thoughtlessly exhale, or wait to exhale, consider that you're dooming a marmoset to the Scylla and Charybdis of obesity and starvation. Here's a site where you can support marmot research. Look into your hearts and dig into your wallets.
I understand federal pre-emption. I support federal pre-emption in the areas where it applies. I even agree that it applies with particular force and reason in areas like immigration. It's just that I think the federal law that enjoys pre-emptive power should be the actual federal law that's been passed by Congress and stuff.
Here's the money quote from the DOJ's July 6 brief in the Alternative Universe that is the Arizona immigration enforcement lawsuit:
Although a state may adopt regulations that have an indirect or incidental effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration law.
That actually sounds pretty good to me. The part I don't get is why the feds who happen to be in office this year get to establish their own version of "federal immigration law" without complying with all those tiresome procedures for amending the laws on the books.
Here's how it seems to work: You're a Sanctuary City? No problem of any kind. You're doing the Lord's work. You're in accord with the Immigration Law As It Would Exist in a Just Universe. We, the feds, have the exclusive right to ordain what that is using only the power of our own minds. But over there, you're a Non-Sanctuary State? Knock it off. You're acknowledging the force of the law as written, which is an intolerable intrusion into the majesty of our federal powers.
The fact is, though, I'm pretty encouraged today by the tone of the federal district judge's questions, which show a healthy skepticism about the DOJ's case.
Remember the summer of $4 gas and the Lehman bankruptcy, when things seemed so crazy that we elected a wannabe Socialist without adult experience and watched a nominally Republican administration push nearly a trillion dollars in bailouts? I didn't like TARP at the time, but I held my nose and swallowed because the alternative seemed equally unthinkable. Now that opening those particular floodgates seems to have ushered in an endless round of mindboggling "stimulus" spending, I suppose I'll be wondering for the rest of my life what might have happened if we'd just said "no" and taken our lumps.
It's a daunting job to imagine, but I have been appreciating Bill Bonner's essays on the need for an honest global deleveraging, painful but unavoidable. He argues that what the world opted to try in 2008 was to replace private debt with public debt rather than destroy the bad private debt once and for all. The experience of Japan, however, shows that you can avoid the pain of deleveraging only by accepting an unconscionably extended stagnation instead. I realize this opinion is not original with Bonner, but he expresses himself clearly enough for me to follow, which is not true of most economists:
After Lehman went down, the whole street was ready to fall. Households, businesses, banks - trillions in debt might have been wiped out overnight; we'll never know.
Instead, we're headed for Tokyo where they've had bailouts, boondoggles and counter-cyclical fiscal stimulus for 20 years. And for what?
"It would have been worse had the Japanese authorities not acted," say the neo-Keynesians.
How they know that is a mystery to us. As it turned out, Japanese investors lost nominal wealth equal to three entire years' GDP. And the economy today hasn't grown in 17 years or created a single new job.
Nor has the debt been reduced. Instead of permitting the private sector to destroy and pay off its debt, the public sector fought against it...borrowing heavily to try to bring about a recovery. Result: no recovery . . . and almost exactly the same amount of debt. But while the private sector paid off its debt, the public sector picked up the borrowing. Now it's the government that owes money all over town.
Is that progress, or what?
What. In the U.S., 24 million households own their homes outright, 51 million have a mortgage, and 37 million rent. (I focus on home mortgages here because our banks seem now to have nothing but mortgages and sovereign debt left in their portfolios.) Of the homeowners with mortgages, 11 million are under water. Bonner quotes an estimate that it will take more than eight years to clear the market of foreclosed, distressed, and defaulted homes so that supply-and-demand forces can kick back in and start driving housing prices back up. If we keep propping the housing prices up with more "Cash for Cottages" programs, maybe we can stretch that period to a Japanese-flavored 17 years.
More cheerfulness from ZeroHedge, which notes that bonds are signaling deflation while stocks are signaling inflation:
[U]nlike a Schrodinger Thought Experiment, you can't live in a world in which assets predict both inflation and deflation at the same time. Perhaps all it takes is for some person with a dose of common sense to "observe" this discrepancy and collapse the wave function of the insanity that our market has become. The snap back will be violent.
The comments to that last thread are memorably bleak. Here's my favorite: "As long as they keep the box closed we can't see the dead cat. So maybe in order to prevent this from going any further someone were to shake the f*** out of the box." Another commenter believes the bizarre shape of the market results from banks drawing cash from the Fed window and using it, not to loan into the economy, but to buy treasuries. I keep reading about that last one and wondering about what it means, too.
Even though the warrior was probably only in his mid-20s he appears to have suffered several serious wounds in earlier fights. Indeed, he may have been living for some time with a large arrowhead in his chest. Bone re-growth around a dent in the front of the skull suggest he had recovered from a severe blow, possibly from an axe. The fatal wound, however, occurred when something, possibly a sword, sliced through his nose and jaw.
The unknown warrior, who lived in or around the early 1400s, was laid to rest under the floor of a chapel near the castle’s royal apartments. Peter Yeoman, Historic Scotland head of cultural resources, said: “We know little about this burial area but the evidence suggests it was sometimes used during extreme circumstances, for example to bury the dead during a siege. However, by using modern analysis techniques we have started to discover quite remarkable information about this man. It appears he died in his mid-20s after a short and violent life. His legs were formed in a way that was consistent with spending a lot of time on horseback, and the upper body points to someone who was well-muscled, perhaps due to extensive training with medieval weapons."
...
In addition to the three serious wounds, it seems the man had also lost a number of teeth – perhaps from a blow, or a fall from a horse. A large, tanged arrowhead was found in skeleton and appears to have struck through the back or under the arm.
Now, some of that is just that archaeologists are usually somewhat softer than Dr. Indiana Jones. I think most of us gentlemen who read this blog could post a tally of injuries that would make them think we'd led a "short, violent" life. Still, it shows a man who fought hard and often; was long in the saddle; and whose early death was answered by all the honor that his companions at arms could afford to show him.
Sectarian violence, ethnic conflict, religious politics, are all prominent features of the current situation in many Middle Eastern countries. Thriving Jewish communities came to an end in every country after the inauguration of the state of Israel and the subsequent wars. Christian communities, integral to the population and society of many countries, and prominent participants in the politics of Arab and regional nationalism, are now increasingly under pressure....
A common theme in public discourse, in both the region and the West, is that these patterns of conflict have deep historical roots in the ‘mosaic society’ of the region, conflicts being only suppressed by imperial impositions, whether of the Ottomans or the British, and subsequently by violent dictatorships such as that of the Ba`th regimes. When these are removed, as in the case of Iraq, then the deep-seated schisms are given a free reign and manifested in conflict and violence. The opposite reaction comes from more liberal quarters of Middle Eastern as well as some Western commentators, who point to past periods of co-existence and harmony, as well as the lowering or even the erasure of communal barriers under the impact of modernity. Many Iraqis, for instance, appear bewildered at the sharpening of Sunni-Shi`i conflict, and protest that in their days nobody knew or cared who was Sunni or Shi`i in their circles, and point to the many inter-marriages. The current conflicts, then are explained in terms of imperialist manipulation...
Who's right? Both parties, the author says: but they are descendants of two different parts of society, one of which won, and one of which lost. The cosmopolitans lost.
What is going on out there? The tiny city of Maywood (1.2 sq. mi.), just southeast of downtown Los Angeles, made the national news when it recently fired all city employees and outsourced everything, from city hall staff to street crossing guards to maintenance workers to fire and police service. And the residents so far couldn't be happier.
“We don’t want to be the model for other cities to lay off their employees,” said Magdalena Prado, a spokeswoman for the city who works on contract. “But our residents have been somewhat pleased.”
Maywood's colorful history of municipal descent into Mad Max territory includes the conviction of a deputy city clerk for hiring a hit man to knock off a city councilman.
Although Maywood, like many American (and especially California) cities, has suffered from a dropoff in tax revenues, its biggest problem was its police force, which inspired so many lawsuits that the city was about to lose its liability insurance. The police department's $8 million annual budget was eating up half the municipal funds. Police service now is being provided by contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department at half the price, a change that also allowed the insurance bill to drop from $1 million to $200,000. City hall staff are now provided by contract with a nearby small city:
an estimated 100 employees and contract with neighboring Bell, which will handle other city services such as finance, records management, parks and recreation, street maintenance and others. Maywood will be billed about $50,833 monthly, which officials said will save $164,375 annually.
The city of Bell has received its own unusual media attention this week. Local residents of this tiny working-class community (median income is about $40,000, and 65% of residents over 25 do not have a high school diploma) were startled to learn that their city officials were the highest-paid in the country. Bell's City Manager Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 a year. In comparison, President Obama makes $400,000, L.A. City and County's chief executives earn $338,000 and $257,000 respectively, and Governor Schwarzenegger declines to accept his $174,000 salary.
Bell has roughly the same population as Maywood but about twice the area (2.5 sq. mi.). Both communities are predominantly Hispanic with a high proportion of displaced foreign travelers, as they're now called among the enlightened (h/t Bookworm). Bell council members defend Rizzo's salary, explaining that
the city was near bankruptcy when Rizzo came aboard 17 years ago. Since then, they said, he has put Bell on sound financial footing, with its general fund nearly tripling to about $15 million.
Rizzo, 55, would be entitled to a $659,252-a-year pension for the rest of his life, according to retirement calculations made by The Times that were reviewed by pensions experts. . . . That would make him the highest-paid retiree in the CalPERS system. . . .
I don't live in a city, but I've read my county budget, which is pretty lean. We don't expect our county officials to do a whole heck of a lot here. I can't really draw a bead on this Bell situation. Is it like Kansas City before the Great War, where the city bosses were utterly corrupt but kept a clean, pleasant city nevertheless? Bell is neither a basket case nor a paradise on Earth. The salaries are a caricature of out-of-control government spending, yet the city stays solvent without provoking its residents to a tax revolution or its deputy clerks to take out contracts on councilmen. Will they really get rid of Rizzo and all the other unusually highly paid officials, and if they do, will they find someone to do a better job for less? At the very least, maybe the residents will wake up and take some interest in their local governance.
How About If the USDA Helps Farmers Spread Dirt Around Instead of Wealth?
Here's what I don't get. The new take is: Sherrod sounded racist at first, but then the story turned into a sweet, totally acceptable riff on how federal agencies shouldn't be obsessing about black-vs.-white, they should be obsessing about poor-vs.-rich, so now she shouldn't have been fired after all.
Wait a minute. When did it become the U.S. Dept. of Social Justice and Wealth Redistribution via Agriculture Policy? How about if she obsesses about agriculture instead?
Update: I keep writing "Sharron" when I mean "Sherrod." Sheesh.
Republican efforts to hold the governor’s office in Georgia may well rest on the shoulders of former secretary of state Karen Handel, who became the leading vote getter in Tuesday’s primary after she received an endorsement from Sarah Palin. Handel won 34 percent of the vote and will now face former congressman Nathan Deal in an Aug. 10 runoff....
Palin picked Handel on July 12, calling her a “common-sense conservative” even as the former Alaska governor acknowledged Handel was an underdog. Handel also does not have the backing of some Georgia conservatives.
Georgia has an open primary, so that you must decide whether to vote in the Democratic Party primary or the Republican Party primary. I have done both in different years -- in 2000, for example, I voted in the Republican primary in order to vote for John McCain. In 2004 and 2008, I voted in the Democratic Party primary. (I don't recall what I did in 2002).
This year I voted in the Republican Primary because the major race was the race for governor; the Senate race is going to go to whoever the Republican nominee happens to be, and as he's running unopposed, we can be pretty sure who that will be. The governor race was important and wide open, though, and there were two good reasons not to vote in the Democratic primary.
1) Roy Barnes was obviously going to win it, as he did handily. Now, those of you who were around Georgia long enough to remember the last time he was governor understand that he must not be allowed to resume the office, as he is a lying, faithless scoundrel. If another candidate were running close, I'd have been glad to vote against Barnes; but as he took two-thirds of the vote, that was not the case.
2) My former Congressman of many years, Nathan Deal, was running in the Republican primary. As much as I disdain Congress in general, I was always fairly well satisfied by Deal as Congressmen go. If he wants to be governor, I'm reasonably glad to support him given the other options.
I had thought the race was going to be between Deal and John Oxendine (who ended up much further back in the field than I expected -- perhaps Ms. Palin's influence touched his supporters especially). I honestly wasn't considering the former secretary of state at all, as I'm not aware of any thing she ever did that greatly improved the state of Georgia. I'm not sure why Ms. Palin decided to jump in on this, and I'm still not sure after reading her statement. Maybe she just wanted to see if she could swing another election? Looks to me like the answer is, "Yes -- so please exercise that power with more care and caution."
I'm quite sure that my endorsement means a great deal less than Ms. Palin's, but for what it's worth, if you're interested I still think Deal is the best of the candidates remaining on the field. I intend to continue to support him in the runoff on the 10th of August.
Actually, I may be a little past-due. I meant to update my education rant when I read that the main upshot of the recent fracas over Texas counting failing students as passing was to suggest putting an asterisk by the improved school ratings that resulted. The spokesman in the story where I read this seriously addressed the issue of whether the schools could or could not be expected to find room for the asterisk and the explanation (*rating may be based on meaningless and/or fraudulent massaging of actual test results) on the schools' public marquees. No, I am not making this up.
But today's fresh inspiration for an education update came from Big Government, where I saw that American Federation of Teachers’ president Randi Weingarten is outraged that “suddenly, everyone’s an education expert.” Big Government's response:
If your union can figure out a way to pay for the system yourselves, then we’ll let you run the show and gladly seek school alternatives. Until then, taxpayers WILL have the final say – and what are you going to do about it? Have another protest? Brandish your brass knuckles?
Via Little Miss Attila, who has some of the best links I've run into lately, the IMAO site weighs in on the newest concepts in racism.
By the way, IMAO's host is pretty upset about Breitbart's lifting his "race card" graphic (image left), so I want to be sure to give it appropriate credit here. Selected IMAO one-liners to follow:
The White House saw part of the video and thought Sherrod was racist. Then they found out she was a reformed racist and fired her.
Remember that Black Panthers at your polling place are more scared of you than you are of them. Especially if you’re a cracker.
Context matters when charging someone with racism? Weird. When did that happen?
Make your choice on the Sherrod issue, liberals: Do you stand with Andrew Breitbart or Glenn Beck?
A conservative racist will never get credit for reforming. A liberal racist will be assumed to have reformed just by being for higher taxes.
I have to say: It’s quite fascinating what liberal journalists say when they think no one else is listening. Funny. Privately, I tend to express things more sympathetic to the left than I say publicly.
IMAO has a periodic photo-caption contest that looks entertaining. He asks that contestants keep their captions to a reasonable length, with ten as a maximum, and suggesting that the humor content will increase exponentially as the number of words approaches "one."
Also, this brilliant advice on ObamaCare if the Republican take back Congress:
* Repeal Obamacare. Once again, probably can’t do this the normal way without Obama’s vote, but if the Republicans get together and burn every physical copy and delete every soft copy of the Obamacare bill, that will effectively be a repeal since no one will know what the law was to follow it. It was thousands of pages no one read; it will be gone forever.
Well look, I mean, I think that prayer and holy water, and things like that are all fine. They don’t do any good, but they don’t necessarily do any harm. It’s touching to be thought of in that way. It makes up for those who tell me that I’ve got my just desserts. It’s, I’m afraid to say it’s almost as well-founded an idea. I mean, I don’t, they don’t know whether prayer will work, and they don’t know whether I’ve come by this because I’m a sinner.
I don't hold it against any man that he believes what he believes; I don't know how much control he has over it in any case. It strikes me that atheism is as likely to seem rational and right to some, and wrong to others, in just the way that Nominalism and Realism seem right or wrong, emphatically, to different people, across centuries. It may be that the truth is neither, but that human minds cannot reach it; and so we need both perspectives to fence off the strange area where the truth lies.
That is a more radical claim than it may seem on its face. Logic requires one or the other to be true: either "Fairness" is a real thing in the world, or it is a name we give to a concept we have; or even stronger, either God Is or Is Not. That last can be written in symbolic modal logic, in the strongest possible way:
Pv~P
That is, "It is necessary that P is the case, or that not-P is the case." For P and ~P to both be true is a logical contradiction; it cannot logically be the case that God both does and does not exist, or that Realism is both false and true.
If I say that it is not true that God exists, nor is it true that he does not exist, I'm saying something that appears to be logically impossible. One of us should be right, and the other wrong. Yet I'm not sure that is how it is. Logic is a feature of human consciousness, and consciousness remains one of the great mysteries. It is not at all clear to me that it is what it appears to be; indeed, scientific evidence shows us that our experience of consciousness is different from reality. Logic is also based heavily on conventions of language, as Peter Abelard, Gottlob Frege, and others have explored. Logic therefore may not be the reliable guide that we believe it to be.
If it is not, however, that leaves us with little else beyond faith. I have a great faith in natural theology -- in trying to understand God's purpose by examining the truth, as well as it can be established by science, of the world we are in. Yet I also think it is rational to have faith in a God that is and is not: perhaps he is in ways we do not expect, and therefore is not what we do expect.
Or perhaps it is even more difficult: one of those things of which we cannot speak, and must therefore avoid. If that is so, we may differ on these questions with no harm, and indeed, possibly with great good.
All of which is to say: May God save Christopher Hitchens. He may have to walk the valley alone, but at least he can do it in the knowledge of friendship. That is only what we will want when -- so soon -- we walk in the valley ourselves.
Night Is to Day As War Is to . . .
