They're holding the Twinkie hostage.
People accuse labor unions of sending their employers into bankruptcy. The Hostess baker's unions took audacity to a new level: their employer already is in bankruptcy, for the second time since 2004, but they're striking to kill the deal that would prevent an exit. So Hostess is planning to liquidate, and 18,500 jobs will be lost instead of 627. Management can go on strike, too.
A Reflection on Reality
Reading Tex's link from the "Liberty & Privacy" piece, I am struck by the examples, and how different they are from the debate we have been having at such length.
We've been arguing -- and we ourselves, as well as the wider society -- as if religious conservatives were perhaps going to ban abortion or restrict birth control.
In reality, the question before the courts is whether religious conservatives will be allowed not to pay for someone else's free birth control (or, in the sense of some of these drugs, abortifacients).
The conservatives in this election had no capacity to ban or even meaningfully restrict abortion, even had they won. The law banning religious freedom and freedom of conscience is already on the books. It's already before the courts.
The administration is already arguing that individuals who have religious or conscientious objections have no such freedom as to refuse to buy something for someone else who wants it.
How did we get into this debate about banning abortion? That was never the issue at hand at all.
We've been arguing -- and we ourselves, as well as the wider society -- as if religious conservatives were perhaps going to ban abortion or restrict birth control.
In reality, the question before the courts is whether religious conservatives will be allowed not to pay for someone else's free birth control (or, in the sense of some of these drugs, abortifacients).
The conservatives in this election had no capacity to ban or even meaningfully restrict abortion, even had they won. The law banning religious freedom and freedom of conscience is already on the books. It's already before the courts.
The administration is already arguing that individuals who have religious or conscientious objections have no such freedom as to refuse to buy something for someone else who wants it.
How did we get into this debate about banning abortion? That was never the issue at hand at all.
Liberty and privacy
The Washington Examiner muses on coming assaults to religious freedom:
Nor will it help if we get our medical coverage through Uncle Sam. If we really value the freedom to control our own medical care and our own reproduction, we'd do well to keep our arrangements with our health providers private.
Obamacare requires employers to pay for contraception and sterilization coverage. This includes coverage of "morning-after" contraceptives, whose makers admit the drugs can kill a fertilized egg by preventing or "affect[ing]" implantation.I'd be the first to take umbrage if my employer tried to influence my most intimate decisions about health and reproduction. But what is the employer doing in this part of my life in the first place? How in the world did we decide that it was a good idea for everyone to get his medical coverage through his employer? Yes, I know about the post-WWII wage-fixing issue, but I mean how did we not realize what a horrible solution this would be in the long run? I suppose back then it was hard to imagine what medicine would become decades later. In the 40s and 50s, medicine was a weak thing.
Nor will it help if we get our medical coverage through Uncle Sam. If we really value the freedom to control our own medical care and our own reproduction, we'd do well to keep our arrangements with our health providers private.
The Ride
The most beautiful six-point stag ran out in front of me tonight. We were perhaps ten feet apart. He must have weighed two hundred and fifty pounds, and perhaps three hundred pounds. He was moving with all the speed his magnificent frame could supply. We came around a corner, where a pickup truck had been parked by the road -- poachers, probably.
What a fine day today was. It was warm and wet, and the autumn colors were fantastic. My wife has become an excellent rider. We were taking those country back roads at a good speed. She has learned to ride at speed in formation, taking the curves along that ridge road with ease and grace.
The buck was a brush with death, and those are very welcome. They are half the reason to ride. It refreshes the sense of wonder, and of the beauty of the world.
That stag got away, I am sure of it. A few feet beyond the road he was cutting across, if he had turned left he would be headed toward a small pond located in the deep woods. Long before he got there he would be in bramble men cross only with great effort, though deer seem to do it with great ease.
Good luck to him. He did me no harm, and much good.
What a fine day today was. It was warm and wet, and the autumn colors were fantastic. My wife has become an excellent rider. We were taking those country back roads at a good speed. She has learned to ride at speed in formation, taking the curves along that ridge road with ease and grace.
The buck was a brush with death, and those are very welcome. They are half the reason to ride. It refreshes the sense of wonder, and of the beauty of the world.
That stag got away, I am sure of it. A few feet beyond the road he was cutting across, if he had turned left he would be headed toward a small pond located in the deep woods. Long before he got there he would be in bramble men cross only with great effort, though deer seem to do it with great ease.
Good luck to him. He did me no harm, and much good.
The joys of law
More wisdom to cheer us up. It being my birth month, I'm fulfilling my continuing legal education requirements for the year, which I always do online. Today's topic is immigration law, and my seminar materials came with this jewel from the Fifth Circuit:
Whatever guidance the regulations furnish to those cognoscenti familiar with INS procedures, this court, despite many years of legal experience, finds that they yield up meaning only grudgingly and that morsels of comprehension must be pried from mollusks of jargon.
- Dong Sik Kwon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 646 F.2d 909 ( 5th Cir. 1981)
I'll let you know when it's over.
"I’ll let you know when it’s over by putting you in the ground and throwing six feet of dirt onto your face. Until you get that secret signal, really, pull yourself together."
I needed this. Also, I miss Deadwood.
I needed this. Also, I miss Deadwood.
Politics II.VII
I only want to read one section today, because it touches on our current situation so nicely. I'm going to excerpt what I take to be key points for us, in the hope of encouraging discussion.
In the opinion of some, the regulation of property is the chief point of all, that being the question upon which all revolutions turn. This danger was recognized by Phaleas of Chalcedon, who was the first to affirm that the citizens of a state ought to have equal possessions. He thought that in a new colony the equalization might be accomplished without difficulty, not so easily when a state was already established; and that then the shortest way of compassing the desired end would be for the rich to give and not to receive marriage portions, and for the poor not to give but to receive them.I am leaving out a lot of great value in this excerpt, of which you may wish to partake.
...[I]t is a bad thing that many from being rich should become poor; for men of ruined fortunes are sure to stir up revolutions.
...Again, where there is equality of property, the amount may be either too large or too small, and the possessor may be living either in luxury or penury. Clearly, then, the legislator ought not only to aim at the equalization of properties, but at moderation in their amount. Further, if he prescribe this moderate amount equally to all, he will be no nearer the mark; for it is not the possessions but the desires of mankind which require to be equalized, and this is impossible, unless a sufficient education is provided by the laws. But Phaleas will probably reply that this is precisely what he means; and that, in his opinion, there ought to be in states, not only equal property, but equal education.
Still he should tell precisely what he means; and that, in his opinion, there ought to be in be in having one and the same for all, if it is of a sort that predisposes men to avarice, or ambition, or both. Moreover, civil troubles arise, not only out of the inequality of property, but out of the inequality of honor...
There are crimes of which the motive is want; and for these Phaleas expects to find a cure in the equalization of property, which will take away from a man the temptation to be a highwayman, because he is hungry or cold. But want is not the sole incentive to crime; men also wish to enjoy themselves and not to be in a state of desire- they wish to cure some desire, going beyond the necessities of life, which preys upon them; nay, this is not the only reason- they may desire superfluities in order to enjoy pleasures unaccompanied with pain, and therefore they commit crimes....
The fact is that the greatest crimes are caused by excess and not by necessity. Men do not become tyrants in order that they may not suffer cold; and hence great is the honor bestowed, not on him who kills a thief, but on him who kills a tyrant. Thus we see that the institutions of Phaleas avail only against petty crimes.
There is another objection to them. They are chiefly designed to promote the internal welfare of the state. But the legislator should consider also its relation to neighboring nations, and to all who are outside of it. The government must be organized with a view to military strength; and of this he has said not a word.
Balance
After reading posts and comments on sites like Zero Hedge where he hangs out, my husband sums up the message about the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, and the Grand Bargain this way: We're going to get either tax hikes combined with spending cuts if there's no deal, or we're going to get tax hikes alone if there is a deal. If the sequester takes effect, we won't like the composition of the spending cuts, but we're not going to get a better composition out of this crowd.
My bet is a cave, a deal, and tax hikes without spending cuts; at most there will be vaporous promises of future decelerations in increased spending. The tax hikes will be narrowly targeted and therefore will generate negligible revenue in comparison with the deficit, so we won't so much raise the debt ceiling as (in Mark Steyn's phrase) lower the debt abyss. "We can't cut our way to prosperity," the President informs us, but apparently we can borrow our way there. Well, the press will eat up anything that smells of hands across the aisle, and the voters don't care about the military unless it's handing out water bottles after a storm.
Which reminds me of another comment my husband ran into, musing on Mayor Bloomberg's volte-face on the idea of clean-up support from those violent military types that he previously didn't welcome in his pristinely unarmed streets: "You have reached the military. Your call is very important to us. Please pay attention, as some of our menu options have changed. . . ."
Forgotten exactly how the sequester works? It was enacted as the Budget Control Act in August 2011, and consists of a deal to trade certain future spending cuts for a $2.1 trillion deepening of the debt abyss. The cuts come in two parts. First, there are $1 trillion in mandatory spending reductions, not contingent on any potential deal, in the form of caps on non-entitlement discretionary spending over the nine-year period from 2013 through 2021. Second there is the sequester itself, which was intended primarily as a "sword of Damocles" to induce the Super-committee to reach an alternative deal, and which took effect when the Super-committee failed to do so in November 2011. The sequester consists of $1.2 trillion in cuts spread out evenly over the same nine-year period, including $109 billion in 2013. (Note that all these "cuts," as usual, are not to the current spending amounts but to the projected increased spending over the next decade. Even if the sequester takes effect, the federal deficit is projected to increase over the ten-year period covered by the Budget Control Act, and the increase is projected to exceed the rate of growth of the economy.)
The sequester cuts are evenly divided between non-war military spending and non-entitlement discretionary domestic spending. For 2013, therefore, there would be roughly $55 billion in cuts to each of defense and domestic spending. Affected programs are projected to be cut by between 7.6% and 9.6%, except for Medicare reimbursements, which will be cut at a lower 2% level. Included in what lawmakers call the "non-discretionary" cuts on the domestic side of the equation are $11 billion in Medicare reimbursements and a total of $5.2 billion in a hodge-podge of other non-discretionary programs, the largest of which is farm price supports, but which also include student loans, vocational rehabilitation, mineral leasing payments, and the Social Services Block Grant. The other $38.5 billion will be cut from "discretionary" domestic programs, not including veterans' health benefits (which apparently are considered "domestic" rather than "defense") and Pell grants, both of which are mostly exempt.
The sequester deal received broad bipartisan support in 2011: it passed by 268 to 161 in the House, opposed by about one-third of Republicans and half of Democrats. It passed by 74 to 26 in the Senate, opposed by 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats. The sequester can be avoided if lawmakers reach a deal to achieve $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions through other means.
We're going to bump up against the debt ceiling again at the end of this year, and of course the Bush tax cuts are set to expire then as well. It is the combination of the expiration of virtually every tax cut enacted since 2001, the imposition of new Obama-era taxes, and the imposition of spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act (including the sequester) that is generally referred to as "the fiscal cliff." Here is a summary of the tax changes automatically set for the end of this year:
My bet is a cave, a deal, and tax hikes without spending cuts; at most there will be vaporous promises of future decelerations in increased spending. The tax hikes will be narrowly targeted and therefore will generate negligible revenue in comparison with the deficit, so we won't so much raise the debt ceiling as (in Mark Steyn's phrase) lower the debt abyss. "We can't cut our way to prosperity," the President informs us, but apparently we can borrow our way there. Well, the press will eat up anything that smells of hands across the aisle, and the voters don't care about the military unless it's handing out water bottles after a storm.
Which reminds me of another comment my husband ran into, musing on Mayor Bloomberg's volte-face on the idea of clean-up support from those violent military types that he previously didn't welcome in his pristinely unarmed streets: "You have reached the military. Your call is very important to us. Please pay attention, as some of our menu options have changed. . . ."
Forgotten exactly how the sequester works? It was enacted as the Budget Control Act in August 2011, and consists of a deal to trade certain future spending cuts for a $2.1 trillion deepening of the debt abyss. The cuts come in two parts. First, there are $1 trillion in mandatory spending reductions, not contingent on any potential deal, in the form of caps on non-entitlement discretionary spending over the nine-year period from 2013 through 2021. Second there is the sequester itself, which was intended primarily as a "sword of Damocles" to induce the Super-committee to reach an alternative deal, and which took effect when the Super-committee failed to do so in November 2011. The sequester consists of $1.2 trillion in cuts spread out evenly over the same nine-year period, including $109 billion in 2013. (Note that all these "cuts," as usual, are not to the current spending amounts but to the projected increased spending over the next decade. Even if the sequester takes effect, the federal deficit is projected to increase over the ten-year period covered by the Budget Control Act, and the increase is projected to exceed the rate of growth of the economy.)
The sequester cuts are evenly divided between non-war military spending and non-entitlement discretionary domestic spending. For 2013, therefore, there would be roughly $55 billion in cuts to each of defense and domestic spending. Affected programs are projected to be cut by between 7.6% and 9.6%, except for Medicare reimbursements, which will be cut at a lower 2% level. Included in what lawmakers call the "non-discretionary" cuts on the domestic side of the equation are $11 billion in Medicare reimbursements and a total of $5.2 billion in a hodge-podge of other non-discretionary programs, the largest of which is farm price supports, but which also include student loans, vocational rehabilitation, mineral leasing payments, and the Social Services Block Grant. The other $38.5 billion will be cut from "discretionary" domestic programs, not including veterans' health benefits (which apparently are considered "domestic" rather than "defense") and Pell grants, both of which are mostly exempt.
The sequester deal received broad bipartisan support in 2011: it passed by 268 to 161 in the House, opposed by about one-third of Republicans and half of Democrats. It passed by 74 to 26 in the Senate, opposed by 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats. The sequester can be avoided if lawmakers reach a deal to achieve $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions through other means.
We're going to bump up against the debt ceiling again at the end of this year, and of course the Bush tax cuts are set to expire then as well. It is the combination of the expiration of virtually every tax cut enacted since 2001, the imposition of new Obama-era taxes, and the imposition of spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act (including the sequester) that is generally referred to as "the fiscal cliff." Here is a summary of the tax changes automatically set for the end of this year:
1. Bush-Era Tax Cuts: this includes the return of the current 10/15/25/28/33/35% individual tax rate brackets to the pre-2001 rates of 15/28/31/36/39.6%, the return of the tax-rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividends from 15% to 20% and 39.6%, respectively, and the return of the limitation on itemized deductions and phase out of personal exemptions.
2. Obama-Era Tax Cuts: on January 1, 2013, several provisions that benefit the lower classes — most notably the increased child tax and earned income credits and the expanded education credits — are slated to expire.
3. The Estate Tax: the estate tax exemption and tax rate are currently at $5,120,000 and 35%, respectively. Come January, they will return to $1,000,000 and 55%.
4. Expiration of the AMT Patch: The most recent patch raised the AMT [alternative minimum tax] exemption for 2010 and 2011 from $45,000 to $74,450 for MFJ. In 2013, this will reset to $45,000, pulling tens of millions of taxpayers into AMT.
5. Temporary Payroll Tax Cut: For 2011 and 2012, the employee’s share of Social Security tax was cut from 6.2% to 4.2%. This rate cut expires at year end.
6. Obamacare Taxes: Starting in 2013, taxpayers earning more than $250,000 will pay an additional 0.9% tax on their wages and 3.8% on their unearned income (interest, dividends, capital gains.)
7. Extenders: There are a host of provisions set to expire at year end that regularly do so, before Congress retroactively resuscitates them. Foremost among the “extender” provisions are the R&D credit and the personal deduction for state and local income taxes.
Welfare for the Modestly Rich
One:
Mitt Romney’s careless comment about “the 47 percent” receiving government benefits — implying they’re all deadbeats — squelched any serious discussion in the campaign. Interestingly, his figure is probably low: More than 50 percent of Americans may already receive benefits. Obamacare will raise this, because families with incomes up to four times the federal poverty line ($91,000 in 2011 for a family of four) qualify for insurance subsidies....Two:
Take Social Security. Created to prevent destitution among the elderly, it now subsidizes the comfortable. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about a couple (he 66, she 70) touring the world. They’ve visited London, Paris, Florence and Buenos Aires. Their financial adviser sends them $6,000 a month from investments and proceeds from their home sale. They also receive Social Security. How much? They don’t say. My hunch: between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. (I e-mailed the couple for details but received no reply.)
As the election fades into the rearview mirror and attention turns more seriously toward the looming “fiscal cliff,” lobbyists and advocates are once again wondering whether Congress might look to the healthcare law for spending cuts.Confer.
Specifically, lawmakers might be tempted to tap the health law’s insurance subsidies — by far its most expensive provision, and probably the most tangible benefit it will provide. …
Critics say the subsidies are too generous — 400 percent of the poverty level is more than $90,000 per year. And because the subsidies don’t begin to flow until 2014, they represent a giant pot of money that’s in the budget but wouldn’t have to come out of anyone’s pocket.
Fallen Genius
This is a day for thinking about fallen soldiers, and as 11/11/11 marks the end of the First World War, I'll ask a moment of your time for a couple of highly accomplished men - accomplished outside the military, I mean - who lost their lives in that war. Englishmen, worthy ones.
I hope it's still true that every first-year chemistry student learns something about Henry Moseley - at the very least, that his work with X-ray spectroscopy improved our understanding of the periodic table. Mendeleev had arranged the elements by atomic weight, and when their periodic properties did not line up the right way, suggested that the atomic weights had been incorrectly measured - Moseley, as I learned it, showed that atomic number is a physical property independent of atomic weight, corresponding as we now know to the number of protons. What some classes teach, though not all, is that Moseley volunteered for service in the First World War and was killed at Gallipoli in August 1915, as a second lieutenant of engineers. From the article I linked, I see that both his mentor Ernest Rutherford and his mother tried to dissuade him, but he insisted. (It also tells me he tried to leave the Engineers to join the Royal Flying Corps, in what capacity I do not know.) He was killed by a sniper while telephoning for reinforcements.
According to the wiki "[b]ecause of Moseley's death in World War I, the British government instituted a policy of no longer allowing its prominent and promising scientists to enlist for combat duty in the armed forces of the Crown." I'm not sure I approve, but at the hour I'm writing this, I can't articulate why.
Less well known, perhaps, is George Butterworth, a British composer and collector of songs, of the same generation as his friend Ralph Vaughan Williams. He destroyed a lot of his own work (because it didn't meet his own standards) and is best known for his arrangements of Houseman's "A Shropshire Lad." Many of these poems deal with death in a thoughtful way, and Butterworth's settings bring them out beautifully. Try one or two -- "Loveliest of Trees"...
If it doesn't read like much, hear it sung by a good baritone (as it is at the link I just gave you). Try "The Lads in their Hundreds," and "Is My Team Ploughing?"
Butterworth volunteered, enlisted, was later commissioned and promoted, and was mentioned in despatches and awarded the Military Cross for gallantry at the Somme, where he was killed by a sniper in August 1916.
Spare a moment for fallen genius.
I hope it's still true that every first-year chemistry student learns something about Henry Moseley - at the very least, that his work with X-ray spectroscopy improved our understanding of the periodic table. Mendeleev had arranged the elements by atomic weight, and when their periodic properties did not line up the right way, suggested that the atomic weights had been incorrectly measured - Moseley, as I learned it, showed that atomic number is a physical property independent of atomic weight, corresponding as we now know to the number of protons. What some classes teach, though not all, is that Moseley volunteered for service in the First World War and was killed at Gallipoli in August 1915, as a second lieutenant of engineers. From the article I linked, I see that both his mentor Ernest Rutherford and his mother tried to dissuade him, but he insisted. (It also tells me he tried to leave the Engineers to join the Royal Flying Corps, in what capacity I do not know.) He was killed by a sniper while telephoning for reinforcements.
According to the wiki "[b]ecause of Moseley's death in World War I, the British government instituted a policy of no longer allowing its prominent and promising scientists to enlist for combat duty in the armed forces of the Crown." I'm not sure I approve, but at the hour I'm writing this, I can't articulate why.
Less well known, perhaps, is George Butterworth, a British composer and collector of songs, of the same generation as his friend Ralph Vaughan Williams. He destroyed a lot of his own work (because it didn't meet his own standards) and is best known for his arrangements of Houseman's "A Shropshire Lad." Many of these poems deal with death in a thoughtful way, and Butterworth's settings bring them out beautifully. Try one or two -- "Loveliest of Trees"...
Now of my threescore years and ten
Twenty will not come again,
And take from seventy springs a score -
It only leaves me fifty more...
And since to look at things in bloom,
Fifty springs are little room;
About the woodlands I will go
To see the cherry hung with snow.
If it doesn't read like much, hear it sung by a good baritone (as it is at the link I just gave you). Try "The Lads in their Hundreds," and "Is My Team Ploughing?"
Butterworth volunteered, enlisted, was later commissioned and promoted, and was mentioned in despatches and awarded the Military Cross for gallantry at the Somme, where he was killed by a sniper in August 1916.
Spare a moment for fallen genius.
On Veteran's Day
Our old friend John Derbyshire reports that his son, now a young man, has elected a military career. Naturally we congratulate the father and wish the son all the best.
Danny took the AFQT (basically an IQ test: the cutoff for the Army is IQ 92) and the ASVAB (a vocational test to see which military specialty suits you). A smart kid—it’s genetic—Danny aced both tests and is in A-1 physical condition, so they basically told him he could pick his own specialty. He picked Airborne Rangers, the most dangerous specialty on the list...If you want to meet someone with a military minded kid, go and find a family with a military tradition. Few outside what BLACKFIVE calls America's warrior caste bother. You're a fortunate man to have raised a son both brave enough and wise enough to know the course of honor.
I am reliably informed by a Texas friend—in Texas everybody has a family member in the military—that Ranger school washouts get all the crap jobs in the Army. I passed this on to my son, but he was unfazed. “I’ll qualify.” As temperamentally hostile as I am to every form of facile optimism, I admired my son’s resolution.
(The only other conservative I know with a son in the military is Peter Brimelow of VDARE.com, whose son Alexander is currently serving with the US Marine Corps in Afghanistan. On the basis of this admittedly tiny sample, I’d suggest that if you want to meet a conservative with a military-minded kid, go to the dissident right. Bigfoot mainstream-conservative pundits send their kids to law school.)
From Shanks Mare to real mares to modern power
I enjoyed the following short clip from AEI about power and energy, even though (like many pieces of its type) it confuses the two concepts as well as their separate units.
The picture above shows how hard it is to concentrate literal horsepower to operate something as big as a combine. That's quite a harness-full of horseflesh (or are they mules?) for one driver to control! Life gets a lot easier if you can use a concentrated source of energy like fossil fuel and an internal combustion engine. Well, of course, it's easier in some ways and more complicated in others.
The video claims that a horse, though only seven times as heavy as a man, has 100 times his power (i.e., his ability to apply energy to a useful task in a given time period). That calls for a lot of oats, obviously -- all the little plant cells industriously working away to use sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into high-energy molecules that can be burnt in the horse's metabolic furnace.
Politics Two: On Commonality
Let's read Parts I - VI today, as they all turn on the problems of a polity trying to hold things in common. The suggestion isn't just for property, but in some cases extends to dissolving the family so that the the community has its women in common: they don't have a home or a family, but 'everyone belongs to everyone,' as I believe Brave New World puts the idea. It's a sort-of free love idea, and a sort of idea about the danger of the family to the integrity of the political community.
Aristotle is quite against all of it, as you will discover. But it may not be clear from what you read here why Plato was in favor of it. There's an interesting piece in the Virginia Quarterly Review on different historic ways of thinking about whether there is a female conscience -- not in the sense of whether women have a conscience, but about whether it is the same for men and women. (Spoiler: the author's position is that it is just exactly the same.)
As she points out, Plato made room for women in the highest classes (the guardians). However, there was a price for admission:
By the way, I don't think that Dr. Elshtain is quite right about Plato's position, which is more emphatically in favor of women in the guardian class than she seems to suggest. Plato is so persuasive on the point that the Islamic philosopher Averroes, in his commentary on Plato's Republic -- I notice Dr. Elshtain doesn't mention it -- takes a much more radically egalitarian position on women than a contemporary American would think to expect from an Islamic law judge. He seems to bring a large part of that philosophical position into his sha'riah intepretations as well.
I was also surprised by her insistence that the idea of women's equality is a product of Christianity, as I'm far more familiar with people complaining just the opposite about it. But she has an argument here, too, and on reflection it's a good one. The Gospel of Luke in particular seems to show a Jesus relating to women in a way that suggests that the divine position is to hold them in respect and honor.
Aristotle is quite against all of it, as you will discover. But it may not be clear from what you read here why Plato was in favor of it. There's an interesting piece in the Virginia Quarterly Review on different historic ways of thinking about whether there is a female conscience -- not in the sense of whether women have a conscience, but about whether it is the same for men and women. (Spoiler: the author's position is that it is just exactly the same.)
As she points out, Plato made room for women in the highest classes (the guardians). However, there was a price for admission:
When a guardian woman gave birth, her child was taken at once to a special section of the city. There, minders cared for the young. When a child needed to nurse, he or she was handed randomly to a lactating female. Why all these wrenchings? In addition to the hope that breeding between superior males and females would continue to perpetuate an aristocracy of the best and the brightest, it was held that private homes, sexual attachments, and dedication to personal aims would undermine a citizen’s allegiance to the city. Plato cried: “Have we any greater evil for a city than what splits it and makes it many instead of one? Or a greater good than what binds it together?”It turns out there is a greater evil, and a greater good as well.
By the way, I don't think that Dr. Elshtain is quite right about Plato's position, which is more emphatically in favor of women in the guardian class than she seems to suggest. Plato is so persuasive on the point that the Islamic philosopher Averroes, in his commentary on Plato's Republic -- I notice Dr. Elshtain doesn't mention it -- takes a much more radically egalitarian position on women than a contemporary American would think to expect from an Islamic law judge. He seems to bring a large part of that philosophical position into his sha'riah intepretations as well.
I was also surprised by her insistence that the idea of women's equality is a product of Christianity, as I'm far more familiar with people complaining just the opposite about it. But she has an argument here, too, and on reflection it's a good one. The Gospel of Luke in particular seems to show a Jesus relating to women in a way that suggests that the divine position is to hold them in respect and honor.
Missing Voters
The election appears to have turned on millions of voters who voted Republican in 2008 staying home this time around. The change was especially noteworthy in Ohio among rural whites:
My re-enactment group that we camped out with at the Highland Games includes a lot of rural, blue-collar whites. We had a political discussion one of the nights, and I got the sense that most of them weren't going to vote.
It wasn't because they were satisfied with their government. It was because they believed that Obama was evil, but the Republicans were corrupt, and the system was wholly rigged against them. They saw no benefit to voting or engaging in the political process at all.
They didn't believe things could be changed for the better, saw no one they identified with for whom they could vote, and generally have come to regard the government as a pack of thieves -- both parties.
So they have checked out of our political system. They wanted all the way out, but as close as they can get is to shut down the TV and radio, handle their business cash-only or on the internet, and just try not to be part of it all anymore.
...we find ourselves with about 8 million fewer white voters than we would expect given turnout in the 2008 elections and population growth....That is certainly possible. I know Ohio was blanketed with vicious, negative ads all summer and fall. We all saw them once or twice online, but Ohio voters must have seen them day and night for months on end. The Republican primary may have had some effect as well.
Where things drop off are in the rural portions of Ohio, especially in the southeast. These represent areas still hard-hit by the recession. Unemployment is high there, and the area has seen almost no growth in recent years.
My sense is these voters were unhappy with Obama. But his negative ad campaign relentlessly emphasizing Romney’s wealth and tenure at Bain Capital may have turned them off to the Republican nominee as well.
My re-enactment group that we camped out with at the Highland Games includes a lot of rural, blue-collar whites. We had a political discussion one of the nights, and I got the sense that most of them weren't going to vote.
It wasn't because they were satisfied with their government. It was because they believed that Obama was evil, but the Republicans were corrupt, and the system was wholly rigged against them. They saw no benefit to voting or engaging in the political process at all.
They didn't believe things could be changed for the better, saw no one they identified with for whom they could vote, and generally have come to regard the government as a pack of thieves -- both parties.
So they have checked out of our political system. They wanted all the way out, but as close as they can get is to shut down the TV and radio, handle their business cash-only or on the internet, and just try not to be part of it all anymore.
The Politics Book I, Parts V-XIII
Let's finish the rest of Book I today. It's not the part of the book that has garnered a lot of attention except for its analysis of natural slavery. We spoke about this to some degree in the comments yesterday, but Part V is really where he lays out his terms on what he thinks might be a just form of slavery. Although he is critical of the institution in general, there is a specific case when he thinks slavery might be proper: the case of someone who lacks rational self-control adequate to pursue the good life.
I gave the example of a drug addict as a case in which we might agree. A drug addict knows that what they are doing is bad for them, and may even want to stop -- but their rational understanding and their ability to be ruled by their reason don't line up. It would be better for them to be ruled, Aristotle says, by someone who will help them achieve what they themselves know is best for them.
Joseph W. noted that Aristotle also lists barbarians as suitable for slavery, but actually he is quoting a poet rather than making that argument: "as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature." You have to be careful with Aristotle's citations, because a normal way in which he argues is to put forward the common opinions of the time before spelling out his own view. It's important to be clear about when he is giving his own view, and when he is citing or raising a common or alternative view.
Sometimes he isn't clear about why he raised a point, although here the 'as if they thought' suggests he doesn't agree. Many people think that what we have of Aristotle isn't formal writings, but something like lecture notes from his students. I'm not sure I agree -- I think his style is unique, and takes some adjustment from us. We expect contemporary writers to cater to us, but one of the rewarding things about reading an early writer is learning to shape our minds in a new way.
After today's readings we'll be moving on to Book II, where he talks about a sort-of communism that some Greek thinkers, including Plato, sometimes advocated.
UPDATE:
I want to suggest that the big lesson from Book I is contained in the opening sentences.
We are thinking about the question of how to persuade people to allow us to govern, or possibly about what kind of a state we'd set up if we were to start fresh. Either question really revolves around this opening point. What is the purpose of a state? We don't establish one for no reason, as a sort of thoughtless reflex, but for some good we want to achieve.
"The highest good" for Aristotle is human happiness. He defines happiness as pursuing excellence (arete, which is both "excellence" and "virtue") with all your vital powers. The purpose of the state is to create the conditions in which such pursuit is possible.
The whole purpose of the state, Aristotle is suggesting, is supporting us in our pursuit of excellence. Supporting us how? Not by giving us anything -- Aristotle clearly thinks that the household is the chief economic unit. Rather, it exists to provide physical security and -- as we will see -- with good institutions that support the kind of culture needed for a free people.
What kind of culture is that? That's the real force of Aristotle's opening remarks on what is worthy of a free man and what is servile or irksome or injurious. Here we find significant common ground between Americans we might wish to persuade and Aristotle: he is suggesting enough focus on work to be able to be independent, but not letting it take over your life. He is giving advice on careers that is similar to the advice we give: don't end up digging ditches, or doing some other physically ruinous labor.
I pointed out in the comments below an alignment between Aristotle's remarks on being trapped in the household, and the mid-century feminist critique of the life of a housewife. It's a point on which I think they agree, and rightly: keeping a well-run house is a kind of necessary condition for happiness, but it's not enough for the good life. Some sort of public engagement is necessary too, whether it is with church or charity, public service, singing in a choir, or otherwise using your vital powers within the community.
I gave the example of a drug addict as a case in which we might agree. A drug addict knows that what they are doing is bad for them, and may even want to stop -- but their rational understanding and their ability to be ruled by their reason don't line up. It would be better for them to be ruled, Aristotle says, by someone who will help them achieve what they themselves know is best for them.
Joseph W. noted that Aristotle also lists barbarians as suitable for slavery, but actually he is quoting a poet rather than making that argument: "as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature." You have to be careful with Aristotle's citations, because a normal way in which he argues is to put forward the common opinions of the time before spelling out his own view. It's important to be clear about when he is giving his own view, and when he is citing or raising a common or alternative view.
Sometimes he isn't clear about why he raised a point, although here the 'as if they thought' suggests he doesn't agree. Many people think that what we have of Aristotle isn't formal writings, but something like lecture notes from his students. I'm not sure I agree -- I think his style is unique, and takes some adjustment from us. We expect contemporary writers to cater to us, but one of the rewarding things about reading an early writer is learning to shape our minds in a new way.
After today's readings we'll be moving on to Book II, where he talks about a sort-of communism that some Greek thinkers, including Plato, sometimes advocated.
UPDATE:
I want to suggest that the big lesson from Book I is contained in the opening sentences.
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.It's easy for contemporary Americans to get bogged down in the writing on sex and slavery, because these are so objectionable to us; or, possibly, with the question about the proper place of earning money in one's life.
We are thinking about the question of how to persuade people to allow us to govern, or possibly about what kind of a state we'd set up if we were to start fresh. Either question really revolves around this opening point. What is the purpose of a state? We don't establish one for no reason, as a sort of thoughtless reflex, but for some good we want to achieve.
"The highest good" for Aristotle is human happiness. He defines happiness as pursuing excellence (arete, which is both "excellence" and "virtue") with all your vital powers. The purpose of the state is to create the conditions in which such pursuit is possible.
The whole purpose of the state, Aristotle is suggesting, is supporting us in our pursuit of excellence. Supporting us how? Not by giving us anything -- Aristotle clearly thinks that the household is the chief economic unit. Rather, it exists to provide physical security and -- as we will see -- with good institutions that support the kind of culture needed for a free people.
What kind of culture is that? That's the real force of Aristotle's opening remarks on what is worthy of a free man and what is servile or irksome or injurious. Here we find significant common ground between Americans we might wish to persuade and Aristotle: he is suggesting enough focus on work to be able to be independent, but not letting it take over your life. He is giving advice on careers that is similar to the advice we give: don't end up digging ditches, or doing some other physically ruinous labor.
I pointed out in the comments below an alignment between Aristotle's remarks on being trapped in the household, and the mid-century feminist critique of the life of a housewife. It's a point on which I think they agree, and rightly: keeping a well-run house is a kind of necessary condition for happiness, but it's not enough for the good life. Some sort of public engagement is necessary too, whether it is with church or charity, public service, singing in a choir, or otherwise using your vital powers within the community.
Simplification
One advantage to yesterday is that it simplifies analysis of where we are going as a country. We have returned the same divided government that was unable to pass a budget for the last several years. Oddly, in the short term this means that there will be some clear fiscal changes:
1) Sequestration will happen.
2) We will dive over the 'fiscal cliff';
3) As a result, government spending is set to decline sharply and taxes are about to go up sharply.
That points to something like a start on the deficit, precisely because the government is incapable of action and agreement. Pre-planned fires like these, however, will not last forever: at some point, autopilot won't be good enough.
I'd feel sorry for any of you about to get hit by massive tax increases, except that really under Obama you're lucky to have jobs at all. I do regret the collapse of American military might that will be demanded by sequestration, but 'they won' -- and the one thing they've always hated most was military spending, which is the largest part of discretionary spending. They aren't ready to struggle with the entitlement issue, but they are ready to gut the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
1) Sequestration will happen.
2) We will dive over the 'fiscal cliff';
3) As a result, government spending is set to decline sharply and taxes are about to go up sharply.
That points to something like a start on the deficit, precisely because the government is incapable of action and agreement. Pre-planned fires like these, however, will not last forever: at some point, autopilot won't be good enough.
I'd feel sorry for any of you about to get hit by massive tax increases, except that really under Obama you're lucky to have jobs at all. I do regret the collapse of American military might that will be demanded by sequestration, but 'they won' -- and the one thing they've always hated most was military spending, which is the largest part of discretionary spending. They aren't ready to struggle with the entitlement issue, but they are ready to gut the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
Free enterprise vs. free stuff
The American people have spoken, and they want more unemployment, and free stuff. They'll get free stuff for a while. The unemployment may last longer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)