Eleven years to the day after the 9/11 attacks, a mob in Cairo attacked our embassy -- sovereign American soil -- and was allowed to tear down our flag. Security apparently knew they were coming, and had cleared the embassy of diplomatic personnel. They fired warning shots, but chose to allow our colors to fall to the mob rather than fire for effect. Perhaps they thought this would save lives, in the short run.
In Libya, another mob attacked a consulate. Another mob killed our ambassador and paraded his corpse in the streets. Three other embassy workers died as well.
Our response, for the first day, was limited to statements of sympathy with the attackers, and condemnation of the "abuse" of free speech. Only after the matter became politicized here at home did the US Embassy in Cairo retract its apologetic statements. Today we have progressed as far as a written statement from the President "strongly condemning" the "outrageous" attack in Libya. The Secretary of State has reiterated that America condemns insults aimed at the Islamic religion, but says also -- "let me be clear" -- that she likewise condemns the attacks on her diplomats.
It's high time I read Moby-Dick, a work I somehow escaped in my formal education and early life. I've really been missing something:
"Grub, ho!" now cried the landlord, flinging open a door, and in we went to breakfast.
They say that men who have seen the world, thereby become quite at ease in manner, quite self-possessed in company. Not always, though: Ledyard, the great New England traveller, and Mungo Park, the Scotch one; of all men, they possessed the least assurance in the parlor. But perhaps the mere crossing of Siberia in a sledge drawn by dogs as Ledyard did, or the taking a long solitary walk on an empty stomach, in the negro heart of Africa, which was the sum of poor Mungo's performances -- this kind of travel, I say, may not be the very best mode of attaining a high social polish. Still, for the most part, that sort of thing is to be had anywhere. . . .
But as for Queequeg -- why, Queequeg sat there among them -- at the head of the table, too, it so chanced; as cool as an icicle. To be sure I cannot say much for his breeding. His greatest admirer could not have cordially justified his bringing his harpoon into breakfast with him, and using it there without ceremony; reaching over the table with it, to the imminent jeopardy of many heads, and grappling the beefsteaks toward him. But that was certainly very coolly done by him, and every one knows that in most people's estimation, to do anything coolly is to do it genteelly.
The Annual Post: Enid & Geraint
Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
Enid cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
Enid cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
It Befell in the Days of Uther Pendragon...
...when he was king of all England and so reigned, that there was a mighty Duke of Cornwall who held war against him long time. And the Duke was called the Duke of Tintagel.
Or let us put it in modern terms:
Or let us put it in modern terms:
Geithner confesses the desperate nature of the situation. The government is broke. Geithner fears the world knows this when he says: "Suppose we have an auction and no one shows up?" Geithner knows that we cannot finance our deficits using traditional credit markets. The deficits are too large and the government has no credibility regarding the required spending cuts. Geithner was admitting that markets would not allow the US government to continue its profligate ways. That admission is major news[.]Is it? It was, for Uther, that which destroyed his life and his kingdom: a duke who could not be brought to order. In our case, the rest of the world, expressing itself in financial markets, may be unwilling to continue to underwrite the order. Can we make peace, or can we not? Nothing rests on the question except the whole world.
Joltin' Joe Biden Rides Again
So, you've probably seen the photo. Hot Air has a caption contest. Here are some amusing entries:
The Clinton Bounce gone a little to far.
“Just three words for you baby, made in the USA!”
I can be a lot more flexible after Obama loses the election .
On "Daddy"
A nice post from a lady who grew up out West. It's about her "Daddy," and how important he was to her life.
You Say "Remarkable"?
The Economist writes:
IT IS worth pausing from time to time to reflect on the remarkable features of the modern economy. As Deutsche Bank points out in its long-term asset return study, the longest series of bond yield data is for the Netherlands dating back all the way to 1517. In June, those yields reached a record low. Not just any old record, then, but a 500-year nadir. In America, yields go back only to 1790 but they too have been at all-time lows. The Bank of England was founded in 1694 but never felt the need to push base rates down so low; not in two world wars or a Great Depression. Nor did the Bank ever feel the need to expand its balance sheet to such a great extent (although Deutsche only has data back to 1830); currently it is around 25% of GDP....Predictive analysis based on a historical dataset is always subject to the "Black Swan" problem of induction, but at least it's based on something. We are here in uncharted territory.
Given this combination of economic circumstances, Deutsche is surely right to say that"Anyone predicting the endgame is speculating outside the historical dataset."
Conviction
Did this young lady get into her mom's yogurt, which mom had carefully placed up on the dinner table while she had to leave the room for a moment? The evidence is undeniable. I have taken to calling her "Legion." Actually, of course, she's considerably less demonic now than when she joined us early this year.
She's already managed to get herself snakebit this summer, probably by a cottonmouth. It didn't make her very sick. Our nextdoor neighbors' cat was struck by a rattlesnake on Labor Day, occasioning a frantic trip in to Corpus to the emergency vet, where they specialize in wildly expensive treatment for customers (like me) who are devoted to their animals beyond the point of financial good sense. The local vet doesn't even carry antivenin, and had in fact told us that it wasn't available for cats. Wrongo! It costs a bloody fortune, but you can get it. They gave the cat a three-day fentanyl patch, if you can believe that. I agitated for one of those for my poor aunt in the nursing home for six months before I got it. Fentanyl, the king of pain relief, is orders of magnitude beyond morphine.
But I must say, within a few days the swelling had disappeared. The cat appears to have dodged all of the truly horrifying effects you often see with rattler bites, like necrosis. The effects of an untreated rattlesnake bite are something I wouldn't wish on anyone, and I take this opportunity again to trumpet the virtues of inexpensive rattlesnake vaccine for your dogs. (I gather there isn't a vaccine for cats. Or people.)
Update a few moments later: That's our erstwhile glass coffee-table top you see in ruins there. OK, so maybe she's not really that much less demonic.
They're he-e-e-re
Hummingbird Festival comes to our little town in mid-September every year: it starts next Thursday. We've been worrying a little whether it would be timed well this year, since the birds hadn't really begun flooding our feeders yet. As of this morning, I have no more worries. That little tolerable-front we had last night brought not only a trace of very welcome rain but a raft of hummers. This morning, for the first time in recent memory, the low is 71 degrees, although it was a grueling 87 last night at bedtime. Makes us want to get right out in the garden and catch up on some chores. So, because I don't have usher duty until next Sunday, I'm declaring a church hooky day.
Naomi Wolf on Women
The main headline, in my view? The new science has established a radically new insight: that there is such a strong brain-vagina connection in women that many of the neuroscientists whom I interviewed called it "a single system".I'm trying to imagine, just now, the most disdainful male chauvinist trying to come up with some argument against the 19th Amendment. Could he have come up with anything more vicious than this?
But wait! There's more.
More remarkably, few of us know that when a woman has an orgasm – and, even before that, when she feels empowered to think about pleasurable sex, anticipate it, focus on how to get it, and feels in control of and knowledgeable enough about her body to know she can probably reach orgasm during sex – her brain gets a boost of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Then, in orgasm, opioids and oxytocin are also released. This experience does not just yield pleasure, a fact that is well known; it also yields specific states of mind.That's funny. You know what causes "the ultimate feminist neurotransmitter" to be released in men's brains? Increasingly extreme internet porn.
Dopamine is what I call the ultimate feminist neurotransmitter: it yields motivation and goal-orientedness, trust in one's own judgement and, most notably of all, in my mind, confidence.
Hey, he's also suggesting that manipulation of the sex-organs can rewire the brain! He's going one step further, though, and questioning whether this rewiring is a good thing.
So let's look at Ms. Wolf's terms. One can get, essentially for free, "motivation, goal-orientedness, trust in one's own judgment and... confidence." Is that good? Put another way, is it good to trust your own judgment more because you've spent a few hours dropping dopamine into your brain?
Put yet another way, what would justify your increased confidence in your judgment? Has your judgment improved in this way? Is your increased confidence, then, rooted in something real?
We get increased confidence in our judgment from drinking too much alcohol, too. Goodness knows I'm not against alcohol! (Nor sex.) Yet when a man thinks to himself, "I know people say that drinking ten beers is bad for your ability to drive, but to be honest, I feel even more confident of my driving ability now than before I started drinking," we can recognize that the artificial stimulant to his confidence is not a good thing. Can we make the same recognition here?
I wonder. Mark Steyn seems to have understood the problem.
Sexual liberty, even as every other liberty withers, is all that matters: A middle-school girl is free to get an abortion without parental consent, but if she puts a lemonade stand on her lawn she’ll be fined.That does seem to be the spirit of the age. Or at least a very loud part of it.
Wo De Hanyu Bu Hao
But, on the other hand, I can remember how to say "Wo yao yi ping Pijiu." Da ping.
The occasion for all of this is that a poor school here in Georgia is making Mandarin mandatory. Why? Because China is offering instructors for about half what they'd have to pay an instructor in any other language: $16,000 a year.
Now, how useful will this be to the students? Well, in theory it could be quite useful: Chinese is one of the most different languages from English, in structure, in terms of being tonal, and in terms of having a character-based writing system. Studying it even a bit will help you see that many things you take for granted about how thoughts should be formed and ordered is not, in fact, logically necessary but a mere consequence of the language in which you learned to think.
That is also true, by the way, of artificial languages. Bertrand Russell and others hoped to eliminate this tendency to confuse logic with grammar in part by instituting formalized ways of writing. The problem turns out to be that you just introduce new errors of grammar, but now believe that you have said something logically necessary because you are writing in "the formal language of logic."
For example, I recently mentioned D. M. Armstrong's What is a Law of Nature? He makes a great deal -- by which I mean that he goes on for many pages -- out of a "paradox" that he believes is a serious problem. It's really just a case of mistaking grammar for logic. The problem arises here:
(∀x)(Fx⊃Gx)
Fx: "x is a raven"
Gx: "x is black"
Now, what that says in plain language is, "All ravens are black." But what it says literally is more like "For every x, if x is a raven then x is black." The material conditional -- "⊃" -- is a logical function. It has a truth table so that you can determine when a given proposition is true.
For the material conditional, which links two terms, the truth table says that it is true any time the antecedent is false ("this is not a raven") or the consequent is true ("it is black"). Thus, if a given raven is black, the statement is true; if we find a white raven it is false. If we find something that isn't a raven, the statement is satisfied because this is only a rule about ravens.
Dr. Armstrong was greatly concerned by the fact that things that are not ravens have to be taken as helping to prove the rule that all ravens are black. (Nor is he the only one to treat this as if it were a serious problem.) He wasn't so concerned about cases of not-black things, because they seem to help reinforce the idea of a link between the categories of "raven" and "black." But what about black things that are not ravens? That seems to trouble him quite a bit.
In fact, though, this is just a convention of language. What we really have here is a rule about ravens: "All ravens are black." It's only the form of the logical language that requires us to express it as a universal truth about all things ("For every x"). We aren't talking about all things. We're talking about ravens.
What the formal language forces us to do is to say something purely formal and empty: "Every not-raven either is or is not black." In any natural language we would omit this formality because it's entirely irrelevant. Those logicians who take this as a serious problem -- something that might, for example, seriously inform our understanding about the laws of nature -- have fooled themselves. They don't realize that they're doing the very thing that they set up this system to avoid doing.
The occasion for all of this is that a poor school here in Georgia is making Mandarin mandatory. Why? Because China is offering instructors for about half what they'd have to pay an instructor in any other language: $16,000 a year.
Now, how useful will this be to the students? Well, in theory it could be quite useful: Chinese is one of the most different languages from English, in structure, in terms of being tonal, and in terms of having a character-based writing system. Studying it even a bit will help you see that many things you take for granted about how thoughts should be formed and ordered is not, in fact, logically necessary but a mere consequence of the language in which you learned to think.
That is also true, by the way, of artificial languages. Bertrand Russell and others hoped to eliminate this tendency to confuse logic with grammar in part by instituting formalized ways of writing. The problem turns out to be that you just introduce new errors of grammar, but now believe that you have said something logically necessary because you are writing in "the formal language of logic."
For example, I recently mentioned D. M. Armstrong's What is a Law of Nature? He makes a great deal -- by which I mean that he goes on for many pages -- out of a "paradox" that he believes is a serious problem. It's really just a case of mistaking grammar for logic. The problem arises here:
(∀x)(Fx⊃Gx)
Fx: "x is a raven"
Gx: "x is black"
Now, what that says in plain language is, "All ravens are black." But what it says literally is more like "For every x, if x is a raven then x is black." The material conditional -- "⊃" -- is a logical function. It has a truth table so that you can determine when a given proposition is true.
For the material conditional, which links two terms, the truth table says that it is true any time the antecedent is false ("this is not a raven") or the consequent is true ("it is black"). Thus, if a given raven is black, the statement is true; if we find a white raven it is false. If we find something that isn't a raven, the statement is satisfied because this is only a rule about ravens.
Dr. Armstrong was greatly concerned by the fact that things that are not ravens have to be taken as helping to prove the rule that all ravens are black. (Nor is he the only one to treat this as if it were a serious problem.) He wasn't so concerned about cases of not-black things, because they seem to help reinforce the idea of a link between the categories of "raven" and "black." But what about black things that are not ravens? That seems to trouble him quite a bit.
In fact, though, this is just a convention of language. What we really have here is a rule about ravens: "All ravens are black." It's only the form of the logical language that requires us to express it as a universal truth about all things ("For every x"). We aren't talking about all things. We're talking about ravens.
What the formal language forces us to do is to say something purely formal and empty: "Every not-raven either is or is not black." In any natural language we would omit this formality because it's entirely irrelevant. Those logicians who take this as a serious problem -- something that might, for example, seriously inform our understanding about the laws of nature -- have fooled themselves. They don't realize that they're doing the very thing that they set up this system to avoid doing.
John 18:17-27
Rep. Allen West has cut the first ad leveraging last night's vote.
The fact that he happened to call the vote three times is an interesting point, the symbolic importance of which Rep. West recognized immediately. I suspect this will be a very effective ad among evangelicals.
The fact that he happened to call the vote three times is an interesting point, the symbolic importance of which Rep. West recognized immediately. I suspect this will be a very effective ad among evangelicals.
The Last Ride of William Jefferson Clinton
Bill Clinton was and is a great speaker.
I love that he's making his stand on arithmetic, though.
"...let interests gobble up..."
Like entitlements? Where is that money coming from?
The worst challenge the establishment budgets face is simple arithmetic. The kind of money Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Pensions and Social Security require simply does not exist.
Oh, by the way: "If you think it is wrong to change voting procedures..."
Great pick for today, given certain recent votes on the DNC floor. They didn't change the procedures, it's true. Under Robert's Rules the chair has every right to declare an opinion about the outcome of a vote, and refuse to recognize objections from the floor.
Robert's Rules were written, though, in an era in which an unreasonable chair would be dragged outside for tar and feathers. It's not clear how they apply to a society unready to do that.
I love that he's making his stand on arithmetic, though.
"...let interests gobble up..."
Like entitlements? Where is that money coming from?
The worst challenge the establishment budgets face is simple arithmetic. The kind of money Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Pensions and Social Security require simply does not exist.
Oh, by the way: "If you think it is wrong to change voting procedures..."
Great pick for today, given certain recent votes on the DNC floor. They didn't change the procedures, it's true. Under Robert's Rules the chair has every right to declare an opinion about the outcome of a vote, and refuse to recognize objections from the floor.
Robert's Rules were written, though, in an era in which an unreasonable chair would be dragged outside for tar and feathers. It's not clear how they apply to a society unready to do that.
Hey, Funny Question
Elizabeth Warren says "the game is rigged" against ordinary Americans.
You know, I think that might even be true. Hey, who's been in charge of administering the rules of the game these last, say, four years?
You know, I think that might even be true. Hey, who's been in charge of administering the rules of the game these last, say, four years?
What did those voices say again?
Don't know about you, but when I listen to this voice-vote, I don't hear two-thirds in favor of the platform amendment.
UPDATE by Grim: The Chair of the Democratic National Committee has just canceled all her media interviews for the rest of the night... during the second night of the Democratic National Convention. Her deputy, too.
UPDATE by Grim: The Chair of the Democratic National Committee has just canceled all her media interviews for the rest of the night... during the second night of the Democratic National Convention. Her deputy, too.
Richard III
The hunt for King Richard III's grave is heating up, with archaeologists announcing today (Sept. 5) that they have located the church where the king was buried in 1485.Richard III was the last of the Plantagenets, the line that encompassed his namesake, Richard the Lionheart. He had a short, bold rule of two years only, dying at the battle of Bosworth Field that crowned the Wars of the Roses.
"The discoveries so far leave us in no doubt that we are on the site of Leicester's Franciscan Friary, meaning we have crossed the first significant hurdle of the investigation," Richard Buckley, the lead archaeologist on the dig, said in a statement.
Shakespeare wrote of him. There are some good lines in that one. Here is a man who loves a woman who is unsure of him: and does it in the old way, even to the point of death.
She looks scornfully at him
Teach not thy lips such scorn, for they were made
For kissing, lady, not for such contempt.
If thy revengeful heart cannot forgive,
Lo, here I lend thee this sharp-pointed sword;
Which if thou please to hide in this true bosom.
And let the soul forth that adoreth thee,
I lay it naked to the deadly stroke,
And humbly beg the death upon my knee.
He lays his breast open: she offers at it with his sword
Nay, do not pause; for I did kill King Henry,
But 'twas thy beauty that provoked me.
Nay, now dispatch; 'twas I that stabb'd young Edward,
But 'twas thy heavenly face that set me on.
Here she lets fall the sword
Take up the sword again, or take up me.
The Declining Stature of Barack Obama
Four years ago I used to get the occasional email about how then-Senator Obama was quite possibly the actual Anti-Christ. You may remember some of these.
Maybe I've just finally managed to get off all the email lists of this sort (though my quest to be free of political spam has not fully succeeded -- the Ron/Rand Paul faction continues to find new ways to email me). Still, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Barack Obama was the enemy of God in a long time. I can only believe that this means that he is no longer as feared as he once was: coming from nowhere, with a mysterious background and prophetic promises, he was much more scary than the now well-known incompetent golfer we have come to understand.
All of which is the more surprising given this:
The positions are not surprising, but what does surprise me is that they aren't trumpeted as evidence that the Anti-Crist fears were right all along. Yet it seems Barack Obama isn't even the Anti-Christ anymore. It's easy to see why. One cannot imagine the party of Bill Clinton undertaking these changes; but one can imagine the party of John Kerry doing it, and I suppose that is what the American people have come to believe. It's not just this guy: it's the party, which has aligned itself on issue after issue in the same direction.
The specific elimination of the word "God" from the platform came in the place where the platform considered the origin of rights. Previous platforms had held them to be "God-given," but now they are described as "a basic bargain" of some sort. That's a much more radical change than it appears; the older framework meant that rights were not a "bargain" at all.
Elise spoke to this very matter in her last post.
Maybe I've just finally managed to get off all the email lists of this sort (though my quest to be free of political spam has not fully succeeded -- the Ron/Rand Paul faction continues to find new ways to email me). Still, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Barack Obama was the enemy of God in a long time. I can only believe that this means that he is no longer as feared as he once was: coming from nowhere, with a mysterious background and prophetic promises, he was much more scary than the now well-known incompetent golfer we have come to understand.
All of which is the more surprising given this:
The positions are not surprising, but what does surprise me is that they aren't trumpeted as evidence that the Anti-Crist fears were right all along. Yet it seems Barack Obama isn't even the Anti-Christ anymore. It's easy to see why. One cannot imagine the party of Bill Clinton undertaking these changes; but one can imagine the party of John Kerry doing it, and I suppose that is what the American people have come to believe. It's not just this guy: it's the party, which has aligned itself on issue after issue in the same direction.
The specific elimination of the word "God" from the platform came in the place where the platform considered the origin of rights. Previous platforms had held them to be "God-given," but now they are described as "a basic bargain" of some sort. That's a much more radical change than it appears; the older framework meant that rights were not a "bargain" at all.
Elise spoke to this very matter in her last post.
I can imagine few ideas more dangerous than the idea that our civil liberties** are whatever the government decides they are. American civil liberties were originally conceived as a way to protect us from the government; to assert that there are some rights that are ours by virtue of being human and that bestowing and removing them are beyond the reach of government. Government can violate them but it does not grant them and cannot take them away....That does seem to be where we are. In a way it's hopeful that we see it clearly.
There is one positive thing I can say about both Mr. Moreno’s bullying and Mr. Kenney’s views of civil rights and religion: these men are being honest. As Ross Douthat said in his recent New York Times opinion piece:
If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don’t tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that’s good and decent, and that you’re going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.The alderman and the councilman have done exactly as Douthat asked. Now we can, as Douthat says, "get on with the fight" - honestly.
Where Will The Jobs Come From?
VDH has a dire article on the condition of both the young and the old. The old cannot get by in retirement with savings that are drawing around one percent interest; the children cannot find work, and cannot pay for student loans that are drawing eight percent interest.
So we need jobs; lots of jobs. What's stopping jobs from being created? A lot of the problem is government.
1) Regulation, which he mentions.
2) Uncertainty of the costs associated with new regulations such as Obamacare.
3) Uncertainty occasioned by the election, the outcome of which could have vastly different potential costs for employers.
4) Sequestration, which has defense-related industries not hiring and DOD employees sweating bullets as to whether or not their jobs will be cut.
5) Government preference hiring means that someone who hasn't already been in the civil service or military won't get a job most of the time, unless they are a member of a minority group entitled to preferential hiring. Thus, when there is a government job open, it will more likely go to someone switching jobs within the government than to someone who is unemployed.
But there are also problems for the young associated with the new deal that the private sector is offering them (if it has jobs for them at all).
A) A job that might have been offered as a full-time job with benefits and appropriate pay will now be offered as a part-time job without benefits, and at a lower rate of pay; if a full-time person is needed, it is easier to hire two half-time people and pay less all around.
B) By the same token, a job that would have been part-time (and subject to minimum-wage laws) will now be offered as "temporary" or "seasonal" (and below minimum wage). This may continue to be the case for a job that lasts a year -- four "seasons" of below-minimum wage pay before you are eligible for minimum wage pay.
C) A job that might have been offered as a temporary but paid internship will now be offered as an unpaid internship. And you're lucky to get it, because it means you don't have to list "unemployed" on your resume.
D) With so many older people unemployed, there are competitors for even these lower-paid positions with greater skills and experience.
So government is a big part of the problem; but some of the problem is an actual market correction. Americans aren't worth as much as they used to be, and we're finding ways to pay them less. I see no reason to believe that will change even if job creation picks up; so if you're young, good luck.
Oh, and by the way, whatever you do make? We'll be needing that for state and Federal pensions, health care, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. These are entitlements, so you're just going to have to pay for them whether you can afford it or not.
So we need jobs; lots of jobs. What's stopping jobs from being created? A lot of the problem is government.
1) Regulation, which he mentions.
2) Uncertainty of the costs associated with new regulations such as Obamacare.
3) Uncertainty occasioned by the election, the outcome of which could have vastly different potential costs for employers.
4) Sequestration, which has defense-related industries not hiring and DOD employees sweating bullets as to whether or not their jobs will be cut.
5) Government preference hiring means that someone who hasn't already been in the civil service or military won't get a job most of the time, unless they are a member of a minority group entitled to preferential hiring. Thus, when there is a government job open, it will more likely go to someone switching jobs within the government than to someone who is unemployed.
But there are also problems for the young associated with the new deal that the private sector is offering them (if it has jobs for them at all).
A) A job that might have been offered as a full-time job with benefits and appropriate pay will now be offered as a part-time job without benefits, and at a lower rate of pay; if a full-time person is needed, it is easier to hire two half-time people and pay less all around.
B) By the same token, a job that would have been part-time (and subject to minimum-wage laws) will now be offered as "temporary" or "seasonal" (and below minimum wage). This may continue to be the case for a job that lasts a year -- four "seasons" of below-minimum wage pay before you are eligible for minimum wage pay.
C) A job that might have been offered as a temporary but paid internship will now be offered as an unpaid internship. And you're lucky to get it, because it means you don't have to list "unemployed" on your resume.
D) With so many older people unemployed, there are competitors for even these lower-paid positions with greater skills and experience.
So government is a big part of the problem; but some of the problem is an actual market correction. Americans aren't worth as much as they used to be, and we're finding ways to pay them less. I see no reason to believe that will change even if job creation picks up; so if you're young, good luck.
Oh, and by the way, whatever you do make? We'll be needing that for state and Federal pensions, health care, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. These are entitlements, so you're just going to have to pay for them whether you can afford it or not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)