Here and there
A lovely collection of year-end thoughts by John Derbyshire, including comments on punctutation, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and the power of words. Thoroughly good stuff.
After I wrote this post last week on the rising tide of bad language, I noticed that John McWhorter wrote this logical but depressing article for the Washington Post. I hate to admit it, but he is probably right in saying: to resist using a particular vulgarity on television stands not as a conviction inherent to our national fabric, but as an emotional sentiment brandished by a minority. Rob and Laura's quaintness in our eyes reveals that the counterculture has become our warp and woof. We seek as narrow a gulf as possible between public show and private reality. To us, the sentiment Bono expressed with his "f -- -- ing brilliant" channels an individuality, humility and even warmth that no formal translation such as "truly amazing" could. It channels exactly the "get real" essence that makes it seem odd to us that when Laura is carrying Richie she must be referred to as "expecting" because of a sense that "pregnant" is too vulgar.
This "get real" mentality reminds me of my courtesy and civility post way back in November. The more "authentic" we get, the uglier and courser our language and behavior becomes.
So it's "Florence" and not "Dotty?" What difference does it really matter? Clearly Princess Anne is one of the most derelict dog owners around, raising not one but two bull terriers that attack children and other dogs.
And a nice post by Enoch Soames on the British writer George Gissing, who died December 28th, 1903, 100 years ago this past Sunday. Russell Kirk called Gissing a natural Tory.
Which brings me, finally, to this article from the latest issue of Smithsonian, about the descendents of American Loyalists now in Canada. They still don the British garb, celebrate George III's birthday, and look with suspicion at the U.S. Said one, Loyalists still view the United States as a dysfunctional family we just had to leave. Ouch.
Vituperative but thoughtful observations on history, politics, religion, and society.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Devilishly funny list of contemporary carols by John Derbyshire.
A crime! Call out Scotland Yard! One of the Queen's corgis was mauled by Princess Anne's bull terriers and had to be put down. As a corgi owner and afficionado of long standing, I urge a public investigation.
Christmas CDs were donated to a Scottish hospital to raise the spirits of patients. But they were not distributed because they might offend non-Christians. No joke.
A very merry Christmas to you all.
A crime! Call out Scotland Yard! One of the Queen's corgis was mauled by Princess Anne's bull terriers and had to be put down. As a corgi owner and afficionado of long standing, I urge a public investigation.
Christmas CDs were donated to a Scottish hospital to raise the spirits of patients. But they were not distributed because they might offend non-Christians. No joke.
A very merry Christmas to you all.
Watch your language
I hear it all the time walking across campus. Whether it is about the weather, food, drink, friends, family, tests, or whatever, students continually use the same two or three curse words to explain everything about their daily life. The irony of college students, who have before them in classes and libraries (I hope) the richness of Western Civilization's centuries of literature, philosophy, and politics, using the same gutter curse-word to express a multitude of feelings and situations is clear and depressing.
And I have brought this up in classes before, hoping to either shame or make them think about how silly and limiting their speech really is. According to this site, the average educated person uses 2,000 different words in a week, but I am sure, listening to people every week, it must be in the hundreds for the average college student. My spiel goes something like this: The English language is magnificently large and complicated, one of the largest and richest in the world, encompassing over 3 million words. And yet you use, on average, the same 500 words your whole life to express a bewildering variety of moods, situations, problems, and joys. Not only that, you use the same curse word over and over again to express dozens of situations: the weather is [bleep], I feel like [bleep], you look like [bleep], I did [bleep] on that test, last night's dinner was [bleep], and so on and so forth. It gets a laugh but who knows if they take it to heart.
I say all this because a column and editorial in recent days have bemoaned the widening use of the four-letter curse on television. Interesting how Hollywood always excuses its various programs and movies advocating this or that cause because it has the responsibility to lead public opinion, yet at the same time it claims to reflect real life and give us all manner of violence, bad taste, and foul language. The sum total of this, as pop culture makes clear, is that the model Hollywood American is a foul-mouthed liberal. With the college students I hear, they have succeeded in half that quest.
I hear it all the time walking across campus. Whether it is about the weather, food, drink, friends, family, tests, or whatever, students continually use the same two or three curse words to explain everything about their daily life. The irony of college students, who have before them in classes and libraries (I hope) the richness of Western Civilization's centuries of literature, philosophy, and politics, using the same gutter curse-word to express a multitude of feelings and situations is clear and depressing.
And I have brought this up in classes before, hoping to either shame or make them think about how silly and limiting their speech really is. According to this site, the average educated person uses 2,000 different words in a week, but I am sure, listening to people every week, it must be in the hundreds for the average college student. My spiel goes something like this: The English language is magnificently large and complicated, one of the largest and richest in the world, encompassing over 3 million words. And yet you use, on average, the same 500 words your whole life to express a bewildering variety of moods, situations, problems, and joys. Not only that, you use the same curse word over and over again to express dozens of situations: the weather is [bleep], I feel like [bleep], you look like [bleep], I did [bleep] on that test, last night's dinner was [bleep], and so on and so forth. It gets a laugh but who knows if they take it to heart.
I say all this because a column and editorial in recent days have bemoaned the widening use of the four-letter curse on television. Interesting how Hollywood always excuses its various programs and movies advocating this or that cause because it has the responsibility to lead public opinion, yet at the same time it claims to reflect real life and give us all manner of violence, bad taste, and foul language. The sum total of this, as pop culture makes clear, is that the model Hollywood American is a foul-mouthed liberal. With the college students I hear, they have succeeded in half that quest.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
The Tyranny of Self-Expression
Driving around recently, lost in my thoughts and therefore often missing turns, I was thinking how much of modern American life is framed in the language of individual self-expression rather than any common good. Everything, everything, is explained in terms of individual preference: politics, religion, culture, social relationships, buying and selling. Preference implies that none of the alternatives are better than any other. In short, all of life is simply a marketplace, a cafeteria, a flea market -- pick and choose what you like. Turn on the television and a sea of self-expression (and the advocacy thereof) washes over you: football players who celebrate to express their happiness (team, opposition, and spirit of the game be damned), soda advertisements that preach "be you" (apparently "it tastes good" is simply not good enough; it has to express the self to be really good), car commercials with a woman who constantly changes her outfits saying "change is good, right?" (to which I always say, no -- I'd like to give that woman the flu and then ask her how the change from health to illness has been). If it is true that Americans are united by an "idea" (a thesis I am not tempted to agree with), that idea is an ironic one: we all agree to disagree on what constitutes the good life, and in order to avoid any conflict let's make everything an individual preference. In short, we are all together in making different choices. This sounds like something written on the side of Orwell's Animal Farm barn.
This came to mind again reading a rather chilling article by Philip Turner in the November First Things. Speaking of the Anglican/Episcoplian crisis of Gene Robinson, he warns rather ominously that the problem is not simply with the ECUSA: The Robinson election in fact serves to highlight challenges that all American churches currently face, be they Catholic, Orthodox, "mainstream" Protestant, Evangelical, or Charismatic. I speak of the subversion of Christian belief and practice by the logic of autonomous individualism, and the churches' transformation into simulacra. Make no mistake: what has happened in ECUSA is not a problem limited to a once (overly) proud denomination. Rather, it provides an exemplary case study of the subversion and transformation that, in one way or another, threatens all American denominations today. What makes one so cold when reading these lines is the double threat. Not only are all denominations threatened by this, the threat is at the heart of American culture itself -- it is the American way of life.
Turner says you can see the insidious working of this liberal social economy on the ECUSA as early as the 1960s. Protest theology, calls for "local options" on various church policies, and a total lack of central control progressively eroded the moral coherence of the church, so that today the Anglican Church represents nothing more than a vague "God is inclusive" ideology. Everything is expressed in terms of preferences. Within a liberal social economy, the notion of moral agency gives particular significance to issues of sexual preference and sexual satisfaction, since such a society's members think of themselves not as inhabitants of a pre-established moral order but as individuals who are utterly unique, as selves that have particular personal histories and needs, and as persons who have rights that allow them to express their individuality and pursue their personal well-being. For moral agents who think of themselves as individuals, selves, and persons, sexuality becomes, along with money, both a marker of identity and a primary way of expressing the preferences that define identity.
It is precisely this sexualized notion of moral agency and personal identity that makes the Robinson election so predictable. Here is a unique individual, who is a self with a particular history, and a person with a right to express his preferences and put his talents to work in the social world he inhabits. To deny him that right on the basis of sexual preference is to deny his personal identity. This notion of moral agency also makes understandable why the issues of abortion and euthanasia take their place alongside self-chosen sexual expression as centers of moral controversy both within the churches and without. At the heart of each of these arguments lies the characterization of moral agents as individuals, selves, and persons who have the right to pursue their own preferences, whatever they may be.
Turner rightfully charges the inclusivity liberals with idolatry, of thinking of the self first, of the creation of a God made in our own image. We no longer mold ourselves in the image of the Other, we mold the Other in the image of our selves. And how to fight this tendency? Is it the invasion of a new heresy, new trends in thinking? Hardly. What makes it so disturbing and difficult is that it finds its source in the American way of life. In the culture wars that rage over abortion, euthanasia, and sexuality, defenders of more traditional Christian teaching and practice often miss the fact that they must confront American culture on a deeper level than any of these specific issues. If they are to be effective, they must take on the very way in which Americans think of themselves as moral agents.
Preference, idolatry, self-expression. Not to sound like Pat Buchanan, but traditionalist Christianity faces a culture war and an intellectual fight against how Americans think about themselves, their community, and their souls. And in the current environment, when both grocery shopping and church-going use the logic of individual preference, that is a mighty tough battle. How many times have I heard people use the well-worn phrase there are many paths up the mountain? I always reply, yes, but most of them lead off a cliff.
Driving around recently, lost in my thoughts and therefore often missing turns, I was thinking how much of modern American life is framed in the language of individual self-expression rather than any common good. Everything, everything, is explained in terms of individual preference: politics, religion, culture, social relationships, buying and selling. Preference implies that none of the alternatives are better than any other. In short, all of life is simply a marketplace, a cafeteria, a flea market -- pick and choose what you like. Turn on the television and a sea of self-expression (and the advocacy thereof) washes over you: football players who celebrate to express their happiness (team, opposition, and spirit of the game be damned), soda advertisements that preach "be you" (apparently "it tastes good" is simply not good enough; it has to express the self to be really good), car commercials with a woman who constantly changes her outfits saying "change is good, right?" (to which I always say, no -- I'd like to give that woman the flu and then ask her how the change from health to illness has been). If it is true that Americans are united by an "idea" (a thesis I am not tempted to agree with), that idea is an ironic one: we all agree to disagree on what constitutes the good life, and in order to avoid any conflict let's make everything an individual preference. In short, we are all together in making different choices. This sounds like something written on the side of Orwell's Animal Farm barn.
This came to mind again reading a rather chilling article by Philip Turner in the November First Things. Speaking of the Anglican/Episcoplian crisis of Gene Robinson, he warns rather ominously that the problem is not simply with the ECUSA: The Robinson election in fact serves to highlight challenges that all American churches currently face, be they Catholic, Orthodox, "mainstream" Protestant, Evangelical, or Charismatic. I speak of the subversion of Christian belief and practice by the logic of autonomous individualism, and the churches' transformation into simulacra. Make no mistake: what has happened in ECUSA is not a problem limited to a once (overly) proud denomination. Rather, it provides an exemplary case study of the subversion and transformation that, in one way or another, threatens all American denominations today. What makes one so cold when reading these lines is the double threat. Not only are all denominations threatened by this, the threat is at the heart of American culture itself -- it is the American way of life.
Turner says you can see the insidious working of this liberal social economy on the ECUSA as early as the 1960s. Protest theology, calls for "local options" on various church policies, and a total lack of central control progressively eroded the moral coherence of the church, so that today the Anglican Church represents nothing more than a vague "God is inclusive" ideology. Everything is expressed in terms of preferences. Within a liberal social economy, the notion of moral agency gives particular significance to issues of sexual preference and sexual satisfaction, since such a society's members think of themselves not as inhabitants of a pre-established moral order but as individuals who are utterly unique, as selves that have particular personal histories and needs, and as persons who have rights that allow them to express their individuality and pursue their personal well-being. For moral agents who think of themselves as individuals, selves, and persons, sexuality becomes, along with money, both a marker of identity and a primary way of expressing the preferences that define identity.
It is precisely this sexualized notion of moral agency and personal identity that makes the Robinson election so predictable. Here is a unique individual, who is a self with a particular history, and a person with a right to express his preferences and put his talents to work in the social world he inhabits. To deny him that right on the basis of sexual preference is to deny his personal identity. This notion of moral agency also makes understandable why the issues of abortion and euthanasia take their place alongside self-chosen sexual expression as centers of moral controversy both within the churches and without. At the heart of each of these arguments lies the characterization of moral agents as individuals, selves, and persons who have the right to pursue their own preferences, whatever they may be.
Turner rightfully charges the inclusivity liberals with idolatry, of thinking of the self first, of the creation of a God made in our own image. We no longer mold ourselves in the image of the Other, we mold the Other in the image of our selves. And how to fight this tendency? Is it the invasion of a new heresy, new trends in thinking? Hardly. What makes it so disturbing and difficult is that it finds its source in the American way of life. In the culture wars that rage over abortion, euthanasia, and sexuality, defenders of more traditional Christian teaching and practice often miss the fact that they must confront American culture on a deeper level than any of these specific issues. If they are to be effective, they must take on the very way in which Americans think of themselves as moral agents.
Preference, idolatry, self-expression. Not to sound like Pat Buchanan, but traditionalist Christianity faces a culture war and an intellectual fight against how Americans think about themselves, their community, and their souls. And in the current environment, when both grocery shopping and church-going use the logic of individual preference, that is a mighty tough battle. How many times have I heard people use the well-worn phrase there are many paths up the mountain? I always reply, yes, but most of them lead off a cliff.
Monday, December 22, 2003
Finally something worth reading in the NY Times
A standing ovation to this piece in the NY Times, which discusses the tragic abuse of the once noble standing ovation. Hear, hear! This past weekend, a friend and I went to a performance of the Messiah. It was a competent performance, but no more. Nonetheless at the end, people throughout the hall rocketed to their feet like frightened quail, making the standing ovation the most energetic part of the performance.
A standing ovation to this piece in the NY Times, which discusses the tragic abuse of the once noble standing ovation. Hear, hear! This past weekend, a friend and I went to a performance of the Messiah. It was a competent performance, but no more. Nonetheless at the end, people throughout the hall rocketed to their feet like frightened quail, making the standing ovation the most energetic part of the performance.
Making the rounds
The Edinburgh Evening News rightfully ponders the pointlessness of modern celebrity -- apparently someone named Nell McAndrew visited the troops in Kuwait but found the camp accommodations icky and wanted to stay back at her Kuwait City hotel. Says the News: Nell is a perfect example of the celebrity monsters we have created. Whole TV series have been artfully woven around discovering why so many sad people all over Britain make heroes and heroines out of other sad people whose greatest ambition is to live their dysfunctional lives in the glare of publicity ... As the troops pointed out she can't sing, dance or tell jokes so exactly how she was planning to entertain them and boost their morale I can't imagine. But Nell didn't put herself up there in the glossy mags, at the showbiz parties and on the celebrity circuit - we did. I use the word "we" loosely because I have never, except for work-related reasons, bought a copy of Hello-type magazines or cared for one minute what the people in them wore or how they decorated their "lovely homes" (usually with ghastly drapery and cheap, faux, curly-legged, French furniture). Why does anyone else care? Exactly. Why in the wide world does anyone care?
Feeling charitable? William Dennis on NRO says how about giving to old dame alma mater? He must have went to school a long time ago. Here is how he describes college nostalgia: Perhaps right now you are wondering whether you should cut the college another check on top of the already generous donations you have made over the years. After all, you had a terrific time there as an undergraduate. You worked hard and played hard in college, and got the foundation for a professional life that has taken you far. There you met your soul mate for life. You still follow the football team and go to class reunions. And you are flattered by all the invitations from the college president to serve on advisory councils for this and that, and to take the alumni cruise to the Greek islands. Why, you even have fond memories of several old professors, long gone from the scene, who tried to lead you through the intricacies of the Federalist Papers, Shakespeare, Aristotle, and Edward Gibbon.
Pray tell, what school was this and when? Ok, let's break this down against my own experience lo' those 10+ years ago at a good Catholic liberal arts school. (1.) Well, I did enjoy myself, worked and played reasonably hard, and made friendships that endure to this day. (2.) Undergraduate education did not lay the foundation of my professional life as a professor, other than liking certain profs I had and today emulating their style and approach. The curriculum was frankly unsatisfying and I could often be found browsing in the library reading books I should have been learning in class. How odd that I teach American history, yet I never took an undergraduate American history class. (3.) I met my wife in grad school. (4.) We didn't have a football team (a pathetic fact that makes me envious of those who actually follow college sports -- I was always say, why bother?) and I have yet to go to a class reunion. (4.) The college president won't be asking for my input any time soon, and I can't afford any school sponsored trips -- do they even have them? (5.) I did read the Federalist Papers at college, but not Shakespeare, Aristotle, or Gibbon -- can you believe that?
For all this, I have never given money to my alma mater because I am frankly afraid of what they will do with it. At the last Homecoming I attended (what, eight years ago?), the library had a display of gay and lesbian literature for the alums to admire. Maybe this is why I didn't read Shakespeare -- maybe I'll donate a collected volume of his plays. Although, I'd probably find it at the annual book sale soon after.
Maybe Scrooge was right. Here is the classic defense of that idea. And here is another, spiced with an appalling contemporary story, on NRO.
And how the Christmas season will be celebrated by New Hampshire Episcopalians. Who ever would have thought some would flee to Massachusetts for spiritual succor?
The Edinburgh Evening News rightfully ponders the pointlessness of modern celebrity -- apparently someone named Nell McAndrew visited the troops in Kuwait but found the camp accommodations icky and wanted to stay back at her Kuwait City hotel. Says the News: Nell is a perfect example of the celebrity monsters we have created. Whole TV series have been artfully woven around discovering why so many sad people all over Britain make heroes and heroines out of other sad people whose greatest ambition is to live their dysfunctional lives in the glare of publicity ... As the troops pointed out she can't sing, dance or tell jokes so exactly how she was planning to entertain them and boost their morale I can't imagine. But Nell didn't put herself up there in the glossy mags, at the showbiz parties and on the celebrity circuit - we did. I use the word "we" loosely because I have never, except for work-related reasons, bought a copy of Hello-type magazines or cared for one minute what the people in them wore or how they decorated their "lovely homes" (usually with ghastly drapery and cheap, faux, curly-legged, French furniture). Why does anyone else care? Exactly. Why in the wide world does anyone care?
Feeling charitable? William Dennis on NRO says how about giving to old dame alma mater? He must have went to school a long time ago. Here is how he describes college nostalgia: Perhaps right now you are wondering whether you should cut the college another check on top of the already generous donations you have made over the years. After all, you had a terrific time there as an undergraduate. You worked hard and played hard in college, and got the foundation for a professional life that has taken you far. There you met your soul mate for life. You still follow the football team and go to class reunions. And you are flattered by all the invitations from the college president to serve on advisory councils for this and that, and to take the alumni cruise to the Greek islands. Why, you even have fond memories of several old professors, long gone from the scene, who tried to lead you through the intricacies of the Federalist Papers, Shakespeare, Aristotle, and Edward Gibbon.
Pray tell, what school was this and when? Ok, let's break this down against my own experience lo' those 10+ years ago at a good Catholic liberal arts school. (1.) Well, I did enjoy myself, worked and played reasonably hard, and made friendships that endure to this day. (2.) Undergraduate education did not lay the foundation of my professional life as a professor, other than liking certain profs I had and today emulating their style and approach. The curriculum was frankly unsatisfying and I could often be found browsing in the library reading books I should have been learning in class. How odd that I teach American history, yet I never took an undergraduate American history class. (3.) I met my wife in grad school. (4.) We didn't have a football team (a pathetic fact that makes me envious of those who actually follow college sports -- I was always say, why bother?) and I have yet to go to a class reunion. (4.) The college president won't be asking for my input any time soon, and I can't afford any school sponsored trips -- do they even have them? (5.) I did read the Federalist Papers at college, but not Shakespeare, Aristotle, or Gibbon -- can you believe that?
For all this, I have never given money to my alma mater because I am frankly afraid of what they will do with it. At the last Homecoming I attended (what, eight years ago?), the library had a display of gay and lesbian literature for the alums to admire. Maybe this is why I didn't read Shakespeare -- maybe I'll donate a collected volume of his plays. Although, I'd probably find it at the annual book sale soon after.
Maybe Scrooge was right. Here is the classic defense of that idea. And here is another, spiced with an appalling contemporary story, on NRO.
And how the Christmas season will be celebrated by New Hampshire Episcopalians. Who ever would have thought some would flee to Massachusetts for spiritual succor?
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Lewis and Tolkien
While sipping chardonnay last night, I watched the PBS retrospective on C.S. Lewis and thought it well done if brief. While sipping brandy directly after, I watched the PBS retrospective on Tolkien and came away less impressed (with the show, not the brandy). How odd, I thought, that the Lewis documentary rightly emphasized the centrality of Christianity in his fiction, while the Tolkien peice did not. Instead, viewers were given a map overview of Middle Earth and a plot description of the trilogy, spiced in between with fantasy illustrations and commentary. I kept thinking, these are like Star Trek convention people, who dress up like the characters and decorate their homes with comic book art -- there is more than just hobbits and orcs here. There is a message. Do they understand?
While sipping chardonnay last night, I watched the PBS retrospective on C.S. Lewis and thought it well done if brief. While sipping brandy directly after, I watched the PBS retrospective on Tolkien and came away less impressed (with the show, not the brandy). How odd, I thought, that the Lewis documentary rightly emphasized the centrality of Christianity in his fiction, while the Tolkien peice did not. Instead, viewers were given a map overview of Middle Earth and a plot description of the trilogy, spiced in between with fantasy illustrations and commentary. I kept thinking, these are like Star Trek convention people, who dress up like the characters and decorate their homes with comic book art -- there is more than just hobbits and orcs here. There is a message. Do they understand?
Saturday, December 20, 2003
A Tudor from beyond?
When a fire door was continually left open at Hampton Court Palace, security guards went to the closed circuit tv for answers. And what did they see? Who is this strange, pale-faced, Tudor ghost?
When a fire door was continually left open at Hampton Court Palace, security guards went to the closed circuit tv for answers. And what did they see? Who is this strange, pale-faced, Tudor ghost?
Friday, December 19, 2003
Disturbing Trends
What is it with all the sudden press on the state of the English Christmas? I'm a proud "'murican" as some say up in the homeland, and yet all day long I've been deluged by information about the current state of Christmas festivities in England. Is this punishment for going to an Anglo-Catholic service this morning? Does the LCMS hierachy have a direct line to God after all?
At any rate, if I'm going to be tortured, everyone else should be too. So here's Mark Steyn on Christmas movies, English style and an article in the NY Times on the horrors of English Christmas dinner. At some point during the Christmas season, I will write an impassioned defense of the plum pudding and mincemeat, but not today.
What is it with all the sudden press on the state of the English Christmas? I'm a proud "'murican" as some say up in the homeland, and yet all day long I've been deluged by information about the current state of Christmas festivities in England. Is this punishment for going to an Anglo-Catholic service this morning? Does the LCMS hierachy have a direct line to God after all?
At any rate, if I'm going to be tortured, everyone else should be too. So here's Mark Steyn on Christmas movies, English style and an article in the NY Times on the horrors of English Christmas dinner. At some point during the Christmas season, I will write an impassioned defense of the plum pudding and mincemeat, but not today.
There's an awful lots of nuts in the EU, but only a few in Brazil
Gracious. After that last round of posts, one would think this blog was run by historians...oh wait.
As the sole non-historian among we three non kings of Orient or any other place, I feel compelled to open the window and let in some damaging UV rays and some bracing bleak Midwinter's air before the good Doctor succumbs to more history of the day action. (However, as my education in poetry depended heavily upon 1920's poetry texts, I did appreciate the shout out for John Greenleaf Whittier, direct descendant of Legolas through the distaff line.)
In this festive season, I direct your attention to this short piece in the Daily Telegraph, "EU Bans Christmas". The only thing that assures me that this is a parody is that the EU did not issue directives against the Christmas pudding, which, as all readers of Dickens know, is traditionally decorated with flammable objects, such as sprigs of holly, and then is set ablaze with high proof alcohol, or against the Christmas cracker, which contains gunpowder that could doubtless be used for nefarious purposes, much less that glorious creation, the Tischbombe. Believe me; no bureaucrat could pass up the opportunity to ban a Tischbombe. Of course judging from all reports, if the EU were so rash as to ban the Tischbombe, Denmark would leave the EU immediately. And need I mention the practice of real candles on Christmas trees? I think it safe to conclude therefore that the piece is parody, for the moment at least.
But Great Britain labours under another Christmas Cheer Crusher, a declining supply of Brazil nuts. Now, I know several people who would opine that what the world needs to make it a better place is fewer Brazil nuts. They will be happy to know that the EU, in its continuing quest to abolish death from its borders, has adopted their position. The EU has demanded that all Brazil nuts be tested to ensure that their aflatoxin levels are less than four milligrams of toxin per kilogram of nuts.
Of course, no self respecting Brazil nut would be caught with less than four milligrams of toxin per kilogram of nuts. They grow in Brazil in the jungle for goodness sake. Has anyone noticed that the laws of Nature are particularly stark in jungles? If the Brazil nut tree wishes to propagate, it has to protect its wee seed (True, its fruit weighs 3 pounds, but to Bertholletia Excelsa that's wee.) from being eaten it needs to stuff it full of insecticides hence the high levels of aflatoxin, Nature's own Sevin. Thus, unaware of the dire necessity of having to comply with an EU directive, the Brazil Nut tree keeps producing aflatoxin laden nuts.
This recalcitrance upon the part of the Brazil nut, riots in Bolivia, and a below average harvest have brought about a Brazil nut shortage. Not only has this caused panic among Three Musketeers devotees, but it has come as a blow to the English people who apparently view the over consumption of Brazil nuts as a key part of the Christmas celebrations. (I have no idea why the Brazil nut has attained this mythic status. Surely the noble English walnut should occupy this position, but no doubt Wiccans have established a link between Brazil nuts and ancient Celtic solstice rituals, and that was that.) As chestnuts roasting over the open fire are to we Yanks, who sadly no longer have chestnuts and have to import them from Europe, so apparently are Brazil nuts to the English Christmas psyche. Thus, panic sweeps the nation at the notion of a shortage and the gloom only increases. Bah, Humbug.
But for the truly festive, I always says it is hard to surpass the joie de vive of an Eagles fan. True, I embrace the Negadelphia theory. (If the Eagles lose to the Redskins, however, I'm going to have to do some Visigoth through Thrace rampaging of my own, right down K Street.) Nonetheless, I say, "Fly, Eagles, fly! "
Gracious. After that last round of posts, one would think this blog was run by historians...oh wait.
As the sole non-historian among we three non kings of Orient or any other place, I feel compelled to open the window and let in some damaging UV rays and some bracing bleak Midwinter's air before the good Doctor succumbs to more history of the day action. (However, as my education in poetry depended heavily upon 1920's poetry texts, I did appreciate the shout out for John Greenleaf Whittier, direct descendant of Legolas through the distaff line.)
In this festive season, I direct your attention to this short piece in the Daily Telegraph, "EU Bans Christmas". The only thing that assures me that this is a parody is that the EU did not issue directives against the Christmas pudding, which, as all readers of Dickens know, is traditionally decorated with flammable objects, such as sprigs of holly, and then is set ablaze with high proof alcohol, or against the Christmas cracker, which contains gunpowder that could doubtless be used for nefarious purposes, much less that glorious creation, the Tischbombe. Believe me; no bureaucrat could pass up the opportunity to ban a Tischbombe. Of course judging from all reports, if the EU were so rash as to ban the Tischbombe, Denmark would leave the EU immediately. And need I mention the practice of real candles on Christmas trees? I think it safe to conclude therefore that the piece is parody, for the moment at least.
But Great Britain labours under another Christmas Cheer Crusher, a declining supply of Brazil nuts. Now, I know several people who would opine that what the world needs to make it a better place is fewer Brazil nuts. They will be happy to know that the EU, in its continuing quest to abolish death from its borders, has adopted their position. The EU has demanded that all Brazil nuts be tested to ensure that their aflatoxin levels are less than four milligrams of toxin per kilogram of nuts.
Of course, no self respecting Brazil nut would be caught with less than four milligrams of toxin per kilogram of nuts. They grow in Brazil in the jungle for goodness sake. Has anyone noticed that the laws of Nature are particularly stark in jungles? If the Brazil nut tree wishes to propagate, it has to protect its wee seed (True, its fruit weighs 3 pounds, but to Bertholletia Excelsa that's wee.) from being eaten it needs to stuff it full of insecticides hence the high levels of aflatoxin, Nature's own Sevin. Thus, unaware of the dire necessity of having to comply with an EU directive, the Brazil Nut tree keeps producing aflatoxin laden nuts.
This recalcitrance upon the part of the Brazil nut, riots in Bolivia, and a below average harvest have brought about a Brazil nut shortage. Not only has this caused panic among Three Musketeers devotees, but it has come as a blow to the English people who apparently view the over consumption of Brazil nuts as a key part of the Christmas celebrations. (I have no idea why the Brazil nut has attained this mythic status. Surely the noble English walnut should occupy this position, but no doubt Wiccans have established a link between Brazil nuts and ancient Celtic solstice rituals, and that was that.) As chestnuts roasting over the open fire are to we Yanks, who sadly no longer have chestnuts and have to import them from Europe, so apparently are Brazil nuts to the English Christmas psyche. Thus, panic sweeps the nation at the notion of a shortage and the gloom only increases. Bah, Humbug.
But for the truly festive, I always says it is hard to surpass the joie de vive of an Eagles fan. True, I embrace the Negadelphia theory. (If the Eagles lose to the Redskins, however, I'm going to have to do some Visigoth through Thrace rampaging of my own, right down K Street.) Nonetheless, I say, "Fly, Eagles, fly! "
Thursday, December 18, 2003
An archduke and an American priest
I hope this doesn't sound like some "today in history" site, but two more birthdays of note today. On this day in 1863, the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was born, only becoming heir when Franz Joseph's only son Rudolf killed himself. A.J.P. Taylor wrote unkindly of Ferdinand, Violent, reactionary, and autocratic, Francis Ferdinand combined a crazy insistence on dynastic power with a marriage to a woman of non-royal blood, in breach of dynastic rules. Clericalism dominated his political schemes ... Francis Ferdinand was one of the worst products of the Habsburg House: reactionary, clerical, brutal and overbearing, he was also often insane. He lacked even the pessimism and hesitation which had made Francis Joseph a tolerable ruler. Ironic that it wasn't Ferdinand's autocratic and aggressive policies that caused WW1, but his assassination before even ascending to the throne in June 1914.
The more likable and temperate Isaac Hecker, Catholic priest and founder of the Paulists, was born on this day in 1819. The son of a New York flour merchant, Hecker was a good Jacksonian Democrat, drawn to Brook Farm (and surrounded by an sea of Whigs -- he and Hawthorne were the exceptions), and finally to Roman Catholicism. Originally a Redemptorist, he asked the Pope to found a distinctly American band of missionary priests, the Paulists. Hecker started with optimism -- everyone loves the truth and is seeking it out with sincerity and would embrace it if he could only see clearly -- and sought to educate Americans on the necessity of Catholic religious life and the compatibility of faith and reason. The more a civilization solicits the exercise of man's intelligence and enlarges the field for the action of his free will, the broader will be the basis it offers for sanctity, he wrote. Ignorance and weakness are the negation of life.
I hope this doesn't sound like some "today in history" site, but two more birthdays of note today. On this day in 1863, the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was born, only becoming heir when Franz Joseph's only son Rudolf killed himself. A.J.P. Taylor wrote unkindly of Ferdinand, Violent, reactionary, and autocratic, Francis Ferdinand combined a crazy insistence on dynastic power with a marriage to a woman of non-royal blood, in breach of dynastic rules. Clericalism dominated his political schemes ... Francis Ferdinand was one of the worst products of the Habsburg House: reactionary, clerical, brutal and overbearing, he was also often insane. He lacked even the pessimism and hesitation which had made Francis Joseph a tolerable ruler. Ironic that it wasn't Ferdinand's autocratic and aggressive policies that caused WW1, but his assassination before even ascending to the throne in June 1914.
The more likable and temperate Isaac Hecker, Catholic priest and founder of the Paulists, was born on this day in 1819. The son of a New York flour merchant, Hecker was a good Jacksonian Democrat, drawn to Brook Farm (and surrounded by an sea of Whigs -- he and Hawthorne were the exceptions), and finally to Roman Catholicism. Originally a Redemptorist, he asked the Pope to found a distinctly American band of missionary priests, the Paulists. Hecker started with optimism -- everyone loves the truth and is seeking it out with sincerity and would embrace it if he could only see clearly -- and sought to educate Americans on the necessity of Catholic religious life and the compatibility of faith and reason. The more a civilization solicits the exercise of man's intelligence and enlarges the field for the action of his free will, the broader will be the basis it offers for sanctity, he wrote. Ignorance and weakness are the negation of life.
New England Gothic
Tuesday marked the birthday of the architect Ralph Adams Cram, the pride of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, born in 1863. When we think of American college campuses, the image of gothic-style buildings, wrapped in ivy, often comes to mind. In large part, we have Cram to thank for that. An anti-modern medievalist (architecture's version of Henry Adams), horrified at the "impulse toward individualism" he detected in post-1500 Western Civilization, he helped design many of the buildings at Princeton, West Point, and Sweet Briar College. He wrote in The Gothic Quest (1907) that since 1500, history has been a record of just principles driven to excess; of liberty changing into license; of license changing into anarchy; of revolution and counter-revolution; and through it all has run the slow but determined success of the less worthy cause, until at last the old tendencies have won their goal, and life has become a riot of individualism.
In the end, Cram turned against democracy itself, becoming that oddity of oddities, an American monarchist more at home in Catholic cathedrals than the meeting house of his youth. The high gods we had revered and before whom we had made sacrifice of so much of the best we had, show thin and impotent, or vanish in the flame of disaster, he wrote in 1936. Political and social democracy, with their plausible devices and panaceas; popular sovereignty, the Protestant religion of the masses; the technological triumphs that were to emancipate labor and redeem the world; all the multiple manifestations of a free and democratic society fail of their predicted issue, and we find ourselves lapped in confusion and numb with disappointment and chagrin.
Yesterday was the birthday of the oft forgotten Quaker poet, John Greenleaf Whittier. Pick up an American literature textbook from 1920 and Whittier figures prominently; try today and Whittier is seldom there. His abolitionist politics made him an anathema to many, North and South, prior to the Civil War. But time soothes all wounds, and he became a figure of nostalgic affection for many postbellum Americans hungering after a simpler (if largely imaginary) antebellum life. Snowbound sealed his fame, and few poems read better on a cold, snowy winter's night, corgi at your feet, wine at your side (the Quaker might disapprove), sitting in front of a fire.
Shut in from all the world without,
We sat the clean-winged hearth about,
Content to let the north-wind roar
In baffled rage at pane and door,
While the red logs before us beat
The frost-line back with tropic heat;
And ever, when a louder blast
Shook beam and rafter as it passed,
The merrier up its roaring draught
The great throat of the chimney laughed;
The house-dog on his paws outspread
Laid to the fire his drowsy head,
The cat's dark silhouette on the wall
A couchant tiger's seemed to fall;
And, for the winter fireside meet,
Between the andirons' straddling feet,
The mug of cider simmered slow,
The apples sputtered in a row,
And, close at hand, the basket stood
With nuts from brown October's wood.
He died in 1892, in Hampton Falls, the town of Cram's birth.
Tuesday marked the birthday of the architect Ralph Adams Cram, the pride of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, born in 1863. When we think of American college campuses, the image of gothic-style buildings, wrapped in ivy, often comes to mind. In large part, we have Cram to thank for that. An anti-modern medievalist (architecture's version of Henry Adams), horrified at the "impulse toward individualism" he detected in post-1500 Western Civilization, he helped design many of the buildings at Princeton, West Point, and Sweet Briar College. He wrote in The Gothic Quest (1907) that since 1500, history has been a record of just principles driven to excess; of liberty changing into license; of license changing into anarchy; of revolution and counter-revolution; and through it all has run the slow but determined success of the less worthy cause, until at last the old tendencies have won their goal, and life has become a riot of individualism.
In the end, Cram turned against democracy itself, becoming that oddity of oddities, an American monarchist more at home in Catholic cathedrals than the meeting house of his youth. The high gods we had revered and before whom we had made sacrifice of so much of the best we had, show thin and impotent, or vanish in the flame of disaster, he wrote in 1936. Political and social democracy, with their plausible devices and panaceas; popular sovereignty, the Protestant religion of the masses; the technological triumphs that were to emancipate labor and redeem the world; all the multiple manifestations of a free and democratic society fail of their predicted issue, and we find ourselves lapped in confusion and numb with disappointment and chagrin.
Yesterday was the birthday of the oft forgotten Quaker poet, John Greenleaf Whittier. Pick up an American literature textbook from 1920 and Whittier figures prominently; try today and Whittier is seldom there. His abolitionist politics made him an anathema to many, North and South, prior to the Civil War. But time soothes all wounds, and he became a figure of nostalgic affection for many postbellum Americans hungering after a simpler (if largely imaginary) antebellum life. Snowbound sealed his fame, and few poems read better on a cold, snowy winter's night, corgi at your feet, wine at your side (the Quaker might disapprove), sitting in front of a fire.
Shut in from all the world without,
We sat the clean-winged hearth about,
Content to let the north-wind roar
In baffled rage at pane and door,
While the red logs before us beat
The frost-line back with tropic heat;
And ever, when a louder blast
Shook beam and rafter as it passed,
The merrier up its roaring draught
The great throat of the chimney laughed;
The house-dog on his paws outspread
Laid to the fire his drowsy head,
The cat's dark silhouette on the wall
A couchant tiger's seemed to fall;
And, for the winter fireside meet,
Between the andirons' straddling feet,
The mug of cider simmered slow,
The apples sputtered in a row,
And, close at hand, the basket stood
With nuts from brown October's wood.
He died in 1892, in Hampton Falls, the town of Cram's birth.
More from Dr. Potomac
Dr. Potomac, a Washington Insider, recently sent this email through the electronic transom of Dr. Curmudgeon & Co. on Sunday, just after the announcement of Saddam's capture. He'll be musing on the political consequences of that incident next week, no doubt:
"In re: the capture of Saddam Hussein, which guarantees months of favorable media coverage concerning the dictator's human rights abuses not to mention a treasure trove of information about the WMD program, his relationship to bin Laden and a variety of other subjects, three questions:
1) Could Al Gore's sense of timing be any worse?
2) What is the opening bell quote in the Howard Dean for Presidential Futures Market?
3) With Saddam in hand, the economy surging and prescription drugs off the table, what exactly is the Democratic presidential platform in 2004 irrespective of the standard bearer?
Those seeking an explanation for Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean need to consider the banal along with the baroque. The focus this week in DC has largely been on the baroque, how the endorsement is part of a crafty, long-term strategy to block Hillary Clinton from the 2004 nomination and position Gore either for a second run (in the event Dean loses) or to secure for himself appointment as Secretary of State should Dean unseat W.
These rationales fail to account for the most salient feature of Al Gore's post-2000 personality: his permanent state of rage. At the event with Dean in Harlem, Gore looked like nothing so much as one of the rage virus zombies from "28 Days Later", complete with the flopping hair, glistening skin and dilated pupils. Seen from this perspective, Gore endorsed Dean because Dean is the one candidate in the race who says he is as angry about the outcome of the 2000 election as Al Gore himself. There's a certain logical inversion in Gore's psychological perception, of course. Without the Florida recount, the 5-4 Supreme Court that ratified W's electoral college victory, and subsequent alienation of the lower reaches of the Democratic base, Dean would not be surging to the nomination right now. Dean didn't create the briar patch but he can hardly regret finding himself in it.
The deepening infantilism of the Democratic party is a short-term political boon for the Republicans, and one that virtually guarantees a big W victory in 2004 and significant gains in the Senate. (I leave the House aside since high-tech gerrymanders limit the number of seats either side is likely to win through elections. Off-year gerrymandering in Texas and Colorado holds out some hope for some Republican gains.) As many have noted, however, the foundering of the Democratic party is not in the long-term interests of the country or the Republican party. An effective two-party system requires, well, two parties -- not one party and a loose confederation of angry children. A heavy weight champ doesn't stay in shape sparing with a 98-pound weakling.
Exhibit A in this phenomenon is the alarming way Democrats have mishandled the failure of pre-war intelligence in Iraq. No matter how much Republicans would like to wish it away, the absence of significant chemical, biological weapons programs in Iraq is deeply troubling with potentially fatal consequences if left unaddressed. The problems for the U.S. are deepened immeasurably when the Democrats fail to identify correctly the core issue. The fact is that the intelligence failure was as broad and deep as it could possibly get. No one, including Hans Blix and Dominique de Villepin, was in disagreement over the fact that Iraq had and was developing further its WMD programs. It was the one absolute given of the pre-war debate. The argument was over how to disarm Saddam and how long to wait before taking military action. Rather than asking the mature political question, "How did the intelligence services misjudge this so badly and how can this kind of failure be avoided in the future?" Democrats, in infant mode, reduce a critical issue to an accusation that George W. Bush lied. Meanwhile, George Tenent stays on as CIA director and what should be an emergency overhaul of our intelligences services lags.
For heaven's sake, Democrats, grow up! You owe it to your country."
Dr. Potomac, a Washington Insider, recently sent this email through the electronic transom of Dr. Curmudgeon & Co. on Sunday, just after the announcement of Saddam's capture. He'll be musing on the political consequences of that incident next week, no doubt:
"In re: the capture of Saddam Hussein, which guarantees months of favorable media coverage concerning the dictator's human rights abuses not to mention a treasure trove of information about the WMD program, his relationship to bin Laden and a variety of other subjects, three questions:
1) Could Al Gore's sense of timing be any worse?
2) What is the opening bell quote in the Howard Dean for Presidential Futures Market?
3) With Saddam in hand, the economy surging and prescription drugs off the table, what exactly is the Democratic presidential platform in 2004 irrespective of the standard bearer?
Those seeking an explanation for Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean need to consider the banal along with the baroque. The focus this week in DC has largely been on the baroque, how the endorsement is part of a crafty, long-term strategy to block Hillary Clinton from the 2004 nomination and position Gore either for a second run (in the event Dean loses) or to secure for himself appointment as Secretary of State should Dean unseat W.
These rationales fail to account for the most salient feature of Al Gore's post-2000 personality: his permanent state of rage. At the event with Dean in Harlem, Gore looked like nothing so much as one of the rage virus zombies from "28 Days Later", complete with the flopping hair, glistening skin and dilated pupils. Seen from this perspective, Gore endorsed Dean because Dean is the one candidate in the race who says he is as angry about the outcome of the 2000 election as Al Gore himself. There's a certain logical inversion in Gore's psychological perception, of course. Without the Florida recount, the 5-4 Supreme Court that ratified W's electoral college victory, and subsequent alienation of the lower reaches of the Democratic base, Dean would not be surging to the nomination right now. Dean didn't create the briar patch but he can hardly regret finding himself in it.
The deepening infantilism of the Democratic party is a short-term political boon for the Republicans, and one that virtually guarantees a big W victory in 2004 and significant gains in the Senate. (I leave the House aside since high-tech gerrymanders limit the number of seats either side is likely to win through elections. Off-year gerrymandering in Texas and Colorado holds out some hope for some Republican gains.) As many have noted, however, the foundering of the Democratic party is not in the long-term interests of the country or the Republican party. An effective two-party system requires, well, two parties -- not one party and a loose confederation of angry children. A heavy weight champ doesn't stay in shape sparing with a 98-pound weakling.
Exhibit A in this phenomenon is the alarming way Democrats have mishandled the failure of pre-war intelligence in Iraq. No matter how much Republicans would like to wish it away, the absence of significant chemical, biological weapons programs in Iraq is deeply troubling with potentially fatal consequences if left unaddressed. The problems for the U.S. are deepened immeasurably when the Democrats fail to identify correctly the core issue. The fact is that the intelligence failure was as broad and deep as it could possibly get. No one, including Hans Blix and Dominique de Villepin, was in disagreement over the fact that Iraq had and was developing further its WMD programs. It was the one absolute given of the pre-war debate. The argument was over how to disarm Saddam and how long to wait before taking military action. Rather than asking the mature political question, "How did the intelligence services misjudge this so badly and how can this kind of failure be avoided in the future?" Democrats, in infant mode, reduce a critical issue to an accusation that George W. Bush lied. Meanwhile, George Tenent stays on as CIA director and what should be an emergency overhaul of our intelligences services lags.
For heaven's sake, Democrats, grow up! You owe it to your country."
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Apologies for not posting since last week, but finals are upon me and I am up to my neck in correcting. More detailed posts will follow this weekend.
Did you notice, however (he says, hinting that future posts will mention this) that several significant birthdays, all deserving extended comment, will pass by us December 16-18? Yesterday was the birthday of George Santayana and Ralph Adams Cram (two good New Englanders, God bless) and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (a protest by smugglers, ugh). Today is the birthday of John Greenleaf Whittier and Rev. Thomas Starr King (two more more good New Englanders, although Whittier's politics get up my nose). Tomorrow is the birthday of Saki, Father Isaac Hecker, and Franz Ferdinand. Quite a crew.
Lots of mighty good posts there! Culture, politics, religion. (Sigh) More correcting.
Did you notice, however (he says, hinting that future posts will mention this) that several significant birthdays, all deserving extended comment, will pass by us December 16-18? Yesterday was the birthday of George Santayana and Ralph Adams Cram (two good New Englanders, God bless) and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (a protest by smugglers, ugh). Today is the birthday of John Greenleaf Whittier and Rev. Thomas Starr King (two more more good New Englanders, although Whittier's politics get up my nose). Tomorrow is the birthday of Saki, Father Isaac Hecker, and Franz Ferdinand. Quite a crew.
Lots of mighty good posts there! Culture, politics, religion. (Sigh) More correcting.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Intelligence Experts Among Us My goodness, who needs the CIA when you have op-ed columnists, cable news readers and the rest of the panoply of the 24-7 news culture? Consider Richard Cohen, Washington Post op-ed columnist, who today informs us that there was no way Saddam could have been running the insurgency from the bottom of his spider hole. In fairness to Richard, he did not come up with that lame brain-dead point all by himself...he's kind of borrowing it from lots of other people in the last news-cycle. That should make him feel better, because it's only plagiarism that keeps him from being a complete idiot.
I mean, what do these people think? (I know, they don't, but still.) That Saddam was spending all his time in a hole for the last six months? Cohen, obviously a trained counterintelligence analyst, says that since he only had two people with him, he obviously wasn't in charge of much. Maybe, Richard, his usual entourage of 60 would attract too much attention. Richard, who is not only a Skilled Counterintelligence Operative but quite the Comic, observes that the $750,000 found with Saddam is just what Paris Hilton uses in a Rodeo Drive shopping spree. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's about 1% of what was removed in cash from the Iraqi national bank before the 3rd Infantry entered Baghdad...some of which has been recovered. And considering the somewhat, ah, low standard of living in Saddam's Iraq, I think that would pay for a lot of hits on American troops...though of course it might not pick up too many Gucci's or Armani's, which is quite the comparison, Richard, you kill me.
Richard, Richard...first think, then write. Right now you are just writing. And the same to all your media friends.
Knowing something before you think is also a good idea. Try it by reading something other than the wire service.
I mean, what do these people think? (I know, they don't, but still.) That Saddam was spending all his time in a hole for the last six months? Cohen, obviously a trained counterintelligence analyst, says that since he only had two people with him, he obviously wasn't in charge of much. Maybe, Richard, his usual entourage of 60 would attract too much attention. Richard, who is not only a Skilled Counterintelligence Operative but quite the Comic, observes that the $750,000 found with Saddam is just what Paris Hilton uses in a Rodeo Drive shopping spree. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's about 1% of what was removed in cash from the Iraqi national bank before the 3rd Infantry entered Baghdad...some of which has been recovered. And considering the somewhat, ah, low standard of living in Saddam's Iraq, I think that would pay for a lot of hits on American troops...though of course it might not pick up too many Gucci's or Armani's, which is quite the comparison, Richard, you kill me.
Richard, Richard...first think, then write. Right now you are just writing. And the same to all your media friends.
Knowing something before you think is also a good idea. Try it by reading something other than the wire service.
Friday, December 12, 2003
A nice essay for the bibliophiles among us -- the British Library is selling off 2.5 million books via Amazon? Might have to investigate that.
And be careful how loud you play your bagpipes. They could be impounded.
And be careful how loud you play your bagpipes. They could be impounded.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Has anyone noticed that this week is the 315th anniversary of the Glorious Revolution, or at least the beginning of it? This week in 1688, King James II, the last Catholic and last Stuart King of England, fled London for France as William of Orange advanced from Torbay. The BBC has some interesting pages giving the basic history.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
A short but direct article by Peter Hitchens this week, claiming that Tony Blair is the most left-wing English leader since Oliver Cromwell.
There hasn't been such a Left-wing government since Oliver Cromwell died. The anti-English bias, the tyranny of political correctness, the semi-Marxist assault on the constitution, the project to tax the middle class out of existence, the unstoppable creation of non-jobs for Labour supporters in the public sector, the frenzied egalitarianism and promotion of dependency on the State - all will continue as before.
Will the Tory Party then finally realise what it is up against and stop trying to copy New Labour? Will the Labour Left realise how pleased they ought to be? Will the British people realise the danger they are in? I can only hope so.
Coincidentally, today is the birthday of Cromwell's secretary, John Milton, born on this day in 1608.
There hasn't been such a Left-wing government since Oliver Cromwell died. The anti-English bias, the tyranny of political correctness, the semi-Marxist assault on the constitution, the project to tax the middle class out of existence, the unstoppable creation of non-jobs for Labour supporters in the public sector, the frenzied egalitarianism and promotion of dependency on the State - all will continue as before.
Will the Tory Party then finally realise what it is up against and stop trying to copy New Labour? Will the Labour Left realise how pleased they ought to be? Will the British people realise the danger they are in? I can only hope so.
Coincidentally, today is the birthday of Cromwell's secretary, John Milton, born on this day in 1608.
In defense of being mulish
Stephen Bayley, author the Dictionary of Idiocy, opines in the Telegraph that only the opinionated, the original thinkers, the contrarians are worth listening to. The rest are just followers and fuddy-duddys, treading well-worn and boring paths of knowledge and unoriginal opinion. May I throw a wrench in the works? Three things come to mind.
We must be careful not to confuse eccentricity with originality. One has its basis in spite and difference for difference sake, the other in making a contribution to thought. Perhaps my favorite political thinker (right up there with Hume, Burke, and assorted others), the perspicacious James Fitzjames Stephen, warned that if John Stuart Mill's preference for "mere variety" in thought and action were followed, the world would be a silly ugly place. If this advice were followed, we should have as many little oddities in manner and behavior as we have people who wish to pass for men of genius. Eccentricity is far more often a mark of weakness than a mark of strength. Weakness wishes, as a rule, to attract attention by trifling distinctions, and strength wishes to avoid it. Originality consists in thinking for yourself, not in thinking differently from other people. That seems an important distinction, separately out mere difference from solid, original thought. And can you have an original thought that bulwarks established things? Can you have a conservative or reactionary genius?
Further, should society blandly smile and accept original opinions? One could certainly argue that the social stigma attached to uttering new ideas is burdensome and uncomfortable, but could we also say it is absolutely necessary? We judge the truthfulness and goodness of new ideas by putting them through hell, a sort of intellectual Darwinism. Stephen continues: Till a man has carefully formed his opinions on these subjects, thought them out, assured himself of their value, and decided to take the risk of proclaiming them, the strong probability is that they are not much worth having. Speculation on government, morals, and religion is a matter of vital importance, and not mere food for curiosity. Curiosity, no doubt, is generally the motive which leads a man to study them; but, till he has formed opinions on them for which he is prepared to fight, there is no hardship in his being compelled by social intolerance to keep them to himself and to those who sympathise with him. Thus we have the odd dance of opposites. On one hand, we have original ideas born of curiosity and the quest for knowledge and wisdom; on the other, we have the social pressure and intellectual criticism persecuting the original thought to test its meddle. In truth, unless we are intolerant of the original idea, how do we know its worth?
On this question, Jacques Barzun even goes so far as to bemoan the death of the philistine in modern life. Surely it took courage of the best mulish sort to make the same protest, generation after generation, on seeing each new school of 19C art and literature produced and derided, then accepted, and at last exhalted and lodged at public expense in museums, libraries, and concert halls. But they slowly died away by the 1920s, transformed into a new breed of trimmers and cowards. Intolerance is no longer tolerated. Shame on you for being shameful. Yet, without a dab of the philisitine in us, how will we separate the bad from the good?
Finally, we should also be on guard against mere "open-mindedness," one of my least favorite phrases. I detest it when, in the heat of discussion and debate, someone retorts "well, try to be open-minded." To be open-minded is very often to be empty-headed. It is better to be narrow-minded than to have no mind, said Evelyn Waugh, to hold limited and rigid principles than none at all. That is the danger which faces so many people today -- to have no considered opinions on any subject, to put up with what is wasteful and harmful with the excuse that there is 'good in everything' -- which in most cases means an inability to distinguish between good and bad. You must begin with some frame of reference, with some structure based on the best that has been thought and written previous to your time. This allows you to judge original ideas and see their value or worthlessness.
Bayley notes, Opinions flourish only in periods or cultures without a dominant religion. A medieval monk in his Cluniac abbey or a contemporary mullah in his mosque and, indeed, a fine Victorian gentleman, had little use for original opinions. The collective opinions of religion are inflexible dogma, not interesting expressions of private thought. The best opinions are contrarian, not conformist, although that is in itself a matter of opinion. It is this irreverent quality that attracted Flaubert, the perpetual adolescent. And it was for the same reason that the Duke of Wellington disapproved of his soldiers cheering because this was very nearly an expression of a personal opinion and, by suggestion, insubordination or even mutiny. Is this true? Interesting expressions of private thought have more value than collective opinions based upon thousands of years of experience and habit? I recall one semester, having a particularly unruly and outspoken class (many with very strong opinions indeed), telling them if this was a ship and I was the captain, I'd throw half of you overboard for insubordination and insolence. I'll stick with the Iron Duke.
Stephen Bayley, author the Dictionary of Idiocy, opines in the Telegraph that only the opinionated, the original thinkers, the contrarians are worth listening to. The rest are just followers and fuddy-duddys, treading well-worn and boring paths of knowledge and unoriginal opinion. May I throw a wrench in the works? Three things come to mind.
We must be careful not to confuse eccentricity with originality. One has its basis in spite and difference for difference sake, the other in making a contribution to thought. Perhaps my favorite political thinker (right up there with Hume, Burke, and assorted others), the perspicacious James Fitzjames Stephen, warned that if John Stuart Mill's preference for "mere variety" in thought and action were followed, the world would be a silly ugly place. If this advice were followed, we should have as many little oddities in manner and behavior as we have people who wish to pass for men of genius. Eccentricity is far more often a mark of weakness than a mark of strength. Weakness wishes, as a rule, to attract attention by trifling distinctions, and strength wishes to avoid it. Originality consists in thinking for yourself, not in thinking differently from other people. That seems an important distinction, separately out mere difference from solid, original thought. And can you have an original thought that bulwarks established things? Can you have a conservative or reactionary genius?
Further, should society blandly smile and accept original opinions? One could certainly argue that the social stigma attached to uttering new ideas is burdensome and uncomfortable, but could we also say it is absolutely necessary? We judge the truthfulness and goodness of new ideas by putting them through hell, a sort of intellectual Darwinism. Stephen continues: Till a man has carefully formed his opinions on these subjects, thought them out, assured himself of their value, and decided to take the risk of proclaiming them, the strong probability is that they are not much worth having. Speculation on government, morals, and religion is a matter of vital importance, and not mere food for curiosity. Curiosity, no doubt, is generally the motive which leads a man to study them; but, till he has formed opinions on them for which he is prepared to fight, there is no hardship in his being compelled by social intolerance to keep them to himself and to those who sympathise with him. Thus we have the odd dance of opposites. On one hand, we have original ideas born of curiosity and the quest for knowledge and wisdom; on the other, we have the social pressure and intellectual criticism persecuting the original thought to test its meddle. In truth, unless we are intolerant of the original idea, how do we know its worth?
On this question, Jacques Barzun even goes so far as to bemoan the death of the philistine in modern life. Surely it took courage of the best mulish sort to make the same protest, generation after generation, on seeing each new school of 19C art and literature produced and derided, then accepted, and at last exhalted and lodged at public expense in museums, libraries, and concert halls. But they slowly died away by the 1920s, transformed into a new breed of trimmers and cowards. Intolerance is no longer tolerated. Shame on you for being shameful. Yet, without a dab of the philisitine in us, how will we separate the bad from the good?
Finally, we should also be on guard against mere "open-mindedness," one of my least favorite phrases. I detest it when, in the heat of discussion and debate, someone retorts "well, try to be open-minded." To be open-minded is very often to be empty-headed. It is better to be narrow-minded than to have no mind, said Evelyn Waugh, to hold limited and rigid principles than none at all. That is the danger which faces so many people today -- to have no considered opinions on any subject, to put up with what is wasteful and harmful with the excuse that there is 'good in everything' -- which in most cases means an inability to distinguish between good and bad. You must begin with some frame of reference, with some structure based on the best that has been thought and written previous to your time. This allows you to judge original ideas and see their value or worthlessness.
Bayley notes, Opinions flourish only in periods or cultures without a dominant religion. A medieval monk in his Cluniac abbey or a contemporary mullah in his mosque and, indeed, a fine Victorian gentleman, had little use for original opinions. The collective opinions of religion are inflexible dogma, not interesting expressions of private thought. The best opinions are contrarian, not conformist, although that is in itself a matter of opinion. It is this irreverent quality that attracted Flaubert, the perpetual adolescent. And it was for the same reason that the Duke of Wellington disapproved of his soldiers cheering because this was very nearly an expression of a personal opinion and, by suggestion, insubordination or even mutiny. Is this true? Interesting expressions of private thought have more value than collective opinions based upon thousands of years of experience and habit? I recall one semester, having a particularly unruly and outspoken class (many with very strong opinions indeed), telling them if this was a ship and I was the captain, I'd throw half of you overboard for insubordination and insolence. I'll stick with the Iron Duke.
Monday, December 08, 2003
Horace
As an instructor in a Great Texts program, the Doc can be relied upon to note such important things as Horace's birthday. As a man who has tried as many Latin courses as the majority of Americans have tried diets, I think it only right that I post Horace's most famous ode in the language in what he done wrote it.
Tu ne quaesieris - scire nefas - quem mihi, quem tibi
finem di dederint, Leuconoë, nec Babylonios
temptaris numeros. ut melius, quicquid erit, pati!
seu plures hiemes, seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,
quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare
Tyrhenum. Sapias, vina liques, et spatio brevi
spem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida
aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
It comes courtesy of the Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy homepage, where you can consult their rather questionable translation. But since I wouldn't dream of attempting my own translation, I should probably not say too much about that. Just enjoy the roll and taste of the Latin.
As an instructor in a Great Texts program, the Doc can be relied upon to note such important things as Horace's birthday. As a man who has tried as many Latin courses as the majority of Americans have tried diets, I think it only right that I post Horace's most famous ode in the language in what he done wrote it.
Tu ne quaesieris - scire nefas - quem mihi, quem tibi
finem di dederint, Leuconoë, nec Babylonios
temptaris numeros. ut melius, quicquid erit, pati!
seu plures hiemes, seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,
quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare
Tyrhenum. Sapias, vina liques, et spatio brevi
spem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida
aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
It comes courtesy of the Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy homepage, where you can consult their rather questionable translation. But since I wouldn't dream of attempting my own translation, I should probably not say too much about that. Just enjoy the roll and taste of the Latin.
A few things
Busy digging out from two feet of snow and juggling a hectic end-of-semester confluence of correcting exams and papers, I haven't posted very much. Let's remedy that.
Here is a book review on a new rather critical biography of James K. Polk, one of my blog compatriot's favorite presidents. Apparently, the author, William Dusinberre, tackles Polk for being a slaveholder first rather than a true American nationalist, more concerned for securing the prosperity of the "lords of the lash" than the long-term interests of the country. Even further, sayeth the review, Dismissing warnings about racial chaos, proposals for colonization, and appeals to "Southern Honor" as nothing more than demagoguery, Dusinberre argues that Polk and his Democratic comrades should have backed off on demands for the right to take slavery into the territories, abandoned efforts to secure more slave states, and stressed to Southern voters the distinction between the abolitionists--who had relatively little popular following in the free states--and the mass of Northerners, who opposed slavery's extension but agreed that the federal government could not affect the institution within individual states. Masters then could have continued to reap the benefits of their slaves' labor until the cotton economy finally became unprofitable; at that point, the Southern states could have moved toward gradual emancipation.
I, of course, applaud this thesis. Was it not Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan who did the very thing in the 1850s, stout northern Democrats desperately standing the middle ground, consistently arguing that abolition was not the prevalent northern viewpoint, that, good or ill, slavery was the creature of individual states, that pressing the issue further (from either direction, expansion or contraction) would lead to a fratricidal war? Could we say, in fact, that Polk's actions made Pierce and Buchanan's Unionism in the 1850s a long-shot indeed? I await the inevitable rejoinder.
In an age where few adults can recite even the basic facts of national history, Western Civilization, or human accomplishment, here is a truly stupid idea: reducing the voting age to 16. Prithee, if the goal of voting is quality decision-making, how does this improve the franchise? Here is how one British Liberal Democrat justifies the extension: Denying 16-year-olds the vote because some consider them politically immature is trite nonsense. If 16-year-olds can marry, have children of their own, pay taxes and join the Army, why should they not be able to vote for the Government they want. Oh my. Could not we swing this statement around and ask, have you considered that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to marry, should be shamed by political, social, cultural, and religious leaders for even considering children at such an immature age, and should be excluded from the Army unless Devon is invaded by Huns? Are you saying the ability to procreate (my dog can do this too) gives them the ability to make sound political decisions? Shouldn't the government, at the least the responsible members, be more interested in qualitative improvement of the franchise rather than quantitative expansion?
And today is the birthday of the poet Horace, born on this day in 65 B.C.
Alas, our scars and fratricides
shame us. What has this hard generation
balked at, what iniquity left
undone? From what have our youth
refrained through fear of the Gods?
What altars spared? Fortuna, reforge
against the Arabs and Massagetae
on new anvils our blunted swords.
Busy digging out from two feet of snow and juggling a hectic end-of-semester confluence of correcting exams and papers, I haven't posted very much. Let's remedy that.
Here is a book review on a new rather critical biography of James K. Polk, one of my blog compatriot's favorite presidents. Apparently, the author, William Dusinberre, tackles Polk for being a slaveholder first rather than a true American nationalist, more concerned for securing the prosperity of the "lords of the lash" than the long-term interests of the country. Even further, sayeth the review, Dismissing warnings about racial chaos, proposals for colonization, and appeals to "Southern Honor" as nothing more than demagoguery, Dusinberre argues that Polk and his Democratic comrades should have backed off on demands for the right to take slavery into the territories, abandoned efforts to secure more slave states, and stressed to Southern voters the distinction between the abolitionists--who had relatively little popular following in the free states--and the mass of Northerners, who opposed slavery's extension but agreed that the federal government could not affect the institution within individual states. Masters then could have continued to reap the benefits of their slaves' labor until the cotton economy finally became unprofitable; at that point, the Southern states could have moved toward gradual emancipation.
I, of course, applaud this thesis. Was it not Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan who did the very thing in the 1850s, stout northern Democrats desperately standing the middle ground, consistently arguing that abolition was not the prevalent northern viewpoint, that, good or ill, slavery was the creature of individual states, that pressing the issue further (from either direction, expansion or contraction) would lead to a fratricidal war? Could we say, in fact, that Polk's actions made Pierce and Buchanan's Unionism in the 1850s a long-shot indeed? I await the inevitable rejoinder.
In an age where few adults can recite even the basic facts of national history, Western Civilization, or human accomplishment, here is a truly stupid idea: reducing the voting age to 16. Prithee, if the goal of voting is quality decision-making, how does this improve the franchise? Here is how one British Liberal Democrat justifies the extension: Denying 16-year-olds the vote because some consider them politically immature is trite nonsense. If 16-year-olds can marry, have children of their own, pay taxes and join the Army, why should they not be able to vote for the Government they want. Oh my. Could not we swing this statement around and ask, have you considered that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to marry, should be shamed by political, social, cultural, and religious leaders for even considering children at such an immature age, and should be excluded from the Army unless Devon is invaded by Huns? Are you saying the ability to procreate (my dog can do this too) gives them the ability to make sound political decisions? Shouldn't the government, at the least the responsible members, be more interested in qualitative improvement of the franchise rather than quantitative expansion?
And today is the birthday of the poet Horace, born on this day in 65 B.C.
Alas, our scars and fratricides
shame us. What has this hard generation
balked at, what iniquity left
undone? From what have our youth
refrained through fear of the Gods?
What altars spared? Fortuna, reforge
against the Arabs and Massagetae
on new anvils our blunted swords.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Profound silliness from eminent historian: Watch Edmund Morgan slobber over Gore Vidal's jackboots, if you have the stomach for it. It contains such pungent admiring sighs as "Vidal is an unreconstructed son of the South"; says of allegations by Vidal that FDR encouraged the attack on Pearl Harbor and Truman began the Cold War that "Though he advances none of them without evidence, he delivers them with the certitude we too easily associate with the paranoia"; and concludes that Vidal's latest rant feels as if "Vidal had us with him in easy chairs by the fireside, as he chats about familiar friends and the things they have done."
Oh, buh-ruh-thaaaaahhh. For someone who admires Morgan as much as I do, it is an appalling farrago. Tautologies, special pleading, Uriah Heepish blather, fawning admiration--it is miserable stuff coming from the man who is probably the Greatest Living American Historian. He still is, I guess; but just barely.
Oh, buh-ruh-thaaaaahhh. For someone who admires Morgan as much as I do, it is an appalling farrago. Tautologies, special pleading, Uriah Heepish blather, fawning admiration--it is miserable stuff coming from the man who is probably the Greatest Living American Historian. He still is, I guess; but just barely.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Partitioning Iraq?!?!
Over at Parapundit, a lot of time is being given to Steven Sailer's arguments in favour of partitioning Iraq.
Oh dear, is all I have to say to that idea. I mean, I know the Doc's favorite (former) Oxonian, Niall Ferguson, argues that America needs to realize that the burden of Empire is now resting upon its shoulders. But do we have to do so by copying some of the Old Empire's worst idea?
It all reminds me of a superb episode of Yes, Prime Minister, "A Victory for Democracy", in the course of which the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs opines that they should have partitioned an island currently embroiled in civil war; after all, he says, that was invariably the Imperial policy, as seen in India, Cyprus, Ireland and Palestine. But didn't that lead to decades of warfare in India, Cyprus, Ireland and Palestine, asks Sir Humphrey, the Cabinet Secretary? Yes, it did, agrees the Permanent Secretary, but that meant they had no time to invade other countries.
If we are going to have an Pax Americana, could we do so by implementing a few American-tested ideas, like federalism? It even worked for the Swiss.
Over at Parapundit, a lot of time is being given to Steven Sailer's arguments in favour of partitioning Iraq.
Oh dear, is all I have to say to that idea. I mean, I know the Doc's favorite (former) Oxonian, Niall Ferguson, argues that America needs to realize that the burden of Empire is now resting upon its shoulders. But do we have to do so by copying some of the Old Empire's worst idea?
It all reminds me of a superb episode of Yes, Prime Minister, "A Victory for Democracy", in the course of which the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs opines that they should have partitioned an island currently embroiled in civil war; after all, he says, that was invariably the Imperial policy, as seen in India, Cyprus, Ireland and Palestine. But didn't that lead to decades of warfare in India, Cyprus, Ireland and Palestine, asks Sir Humphrey, the Cabinet Secretary? Yes, it did, agrees the Permanent Secretary, but that meant they had no time to invade other countries.
If we are going to have an Pax Americana, could we do so by implementing a few American-tested ideas, like federalism? It even worked for the Swiss.
He wasn't an Oxford don, but Saintsbury did live a rather long life, 88 robust years. And if he wasn't reading, writing, or lecturing at Edinburgh (surely a city almost as charming as Oxford, although it's been over 20 years since I was there), he was drinking. I have yet to get a copy of his Notes on a Cellar-Book, but it's on my list. Here is a short snippet I just found, with Doctor Saintsbury speaking of beer: In the year 1875, when I was resident at Elgin, I and a friend now dead, the Procurator-Fiscal of the district, devoted the May “Sacrament holidays,” which were then still kept in those remote parts, to a walking tour up the Findhorn and across to Loch Ness and Glen Urquhart. At the Freeburn Inn on the first-named river we found some beer of singular excellence: and, asking the damsel who waited on us about it, were informed that a cask of Bass had been put in during the previous October, but, owing to a sudden break in the weather and the departure of all visitors, had never been tapped till our arrival.
Oh my, to be there on that trip. Here is the complete link.
Oh my, to be there on that trip. Here is the complete link.
Saintsbury? His family must have dropped the T and started a grocery store.
Hmmmm...Christmas at Sainsbury's. Makes me almost nostalgic for Oxford.
Speaking of Oxford, there's a fascinating little piece in The Economist on how an Oxford lifestyle makes you live four years longer.
YOU work on the subject that most interests you, mostly at your own pace. The surroundings are beautiful, the colleagues stimulating. You take gentle exercise; there is excellent food and drink. A long-dead philanthropist pays for it all. That, more or less, was the lifestyle of Oxbridge dons for most of the past century. Now a research paper has shown that there is a practical benefit: four years on your life.
Well, why not? Your average Oxford don drinks more wine than a Frenchman, that's for sure. There's plenty of exercise as you gently bicycle hither and yon in all weathers. Free room and board...what's not to like?
Of course that can't be said of the lifestyle of the American academic. Boozeless, no exercise unless you go to a gym, and then it's just one more thing on a busy schedule, committee meetings, publish or perish...that must shorten the life expectancy.
Hmmmm...Christmas at Sainsbury's. Makes me almost nostalgic for Oxford.
Speaking of Oxford, there's a fascinating little piece in The Economist on how an Oxford lifestyle makes you live four years longer.
YOU work on the subject that most interests you, mostly at your own pace. The surroundings are beautiful, the colleagues stimulating. You take gentle exercise; there is excellent food and drink. A long-dead philanthropist pays for it all. That, more or less, was the lifestyle of Oxbridge dons for most of the past century. Now a research paper has shown that there is a practical benefit: four years on your life.
Well, why not? Your average Oxford don drinks more wine than a Frenchman, that's for sure. There's plenty of exercise as you gently bicycle hither and yon in all weathers. Free room and board...what's not to like?
Of course that can't be said of the lifestyle of the American academic. Boozeless, no exercise unless you go to a gym, and then it's just one more thing on a busy schedule, committee meetings, publish or perish...that must shorten the life expectancy.
Back from the Land of the Cleves, unscathed, a little plumper.
Peter Hitchens' on-target column about the death of traditional marriage in Britain is here. What is most interesting is the total lack of religion in his article; there is no use of Christianity in his case. It is a naturalistic case, based (1.) on the necessity of traditional marriage to soothe savage man, (2.) on the historical case for traditional marriage, aka, those things that stand the test of time show their value by their perseverance, (3.) on the value of traditional marriage to raising socially adept children the rest of us have to live with later on, and (4.) on the importance of the family as a check against state power. This is a simple yet powerful case for the social utility (based upon history) of traditional marriage.
Many thanks to Enoch Soames for his lovely profile of the great George Saintsbury, a master curmudgeon of the last century. I read his first Scrap-Book this fall and found it thoroughly entertaining; I may draw from it occasionally for blog ammo. His comments on education are interesting, being opposed to universal education and the concept of a "right" to education, which he calls educational fetish-worship. He writes, Education (no matter of what kind it be) in any of the usual senses can 'develop' nothing that is not there already, and can rather doubtfully develop some things that are. Indeed, complete 'letting alone' -- if it were possible -- would probably be the best 'developer' [of children] ... If you let a child alone and he burns himself, he will, unless he is an utter idiot, almost certainly dread the fire: that result is by no means so certain to follow if you indoctrinate him with theories of combustion and of lesion of the epidermis.
Now if those aren't the words of a curmudgeon -- he was called the biggest Tory in England at one point -- nothing is.
Peter Hitchens' on-target column about the death of traditional marriage in Britain is here. What is most interesting is the total lack of religion in his article; there is no use of Christianity in his case. It is a naturalistic case, based (1.) on the necessity of traditional marriage to soothe savage man, (2.) on the historical case for traditional marriage, aka, those things that stand the test of time show their value by their perseverance, (3.) on the value of traditional marriage to raising socially adept children the rest of us have to live with later on, and (4.) on the importance of the family as a check against state power. This is a simple yet powerful case for the social utility (based upon history) of traditional marriage.
Many thanks to Enoch Soames for his lovely profile of the great George Saintsbury, a master curmudgeon of the last century. I read his first Scrap-Book this fall and found it thoroughly entertaining; I may draw from it occasionally for blog ammo. His comments on education are interesting, being opposed to universal education and the concept of a "right" to education, which he calls educational fetish-worship. He writes, Education (no matter of what kind it be) in any of the usual senses can 'develop' nothing that is not there already, and can rather doubtfully develop some things that are. Indeed, complete 'letting alone' -- if it were possible -- would probably be the best 'developer' [of children] ... If you let a child alone and he burns himself, he will, unless he is an utter idiot, almost certainly dread the fire: that result is by no means so certain to follow if you indoctrinate him with theories of combustion and of lesion of the epidermis.
Now if those aren't the words of a curmudgeon -- he was called the biggest Tory in England at one point -- nothing is.
Friday, November 28, 2003
Reading the Political Tea Leaves
Here's the latest from a Washington insider who asks not to be named. Sure, he's a Republican, but he has never drunk from the party Kool-Aid that would preclude him from examining a forthcoming election in a cool and rational manner.
"Let's see what the political tea leaves say about next year's presidential election:
1) We have a stunning 7.2 percent economic growth figure has been revised upwards to a staggering 8.2 percent rate that is predicted to level off at a comfortable 4% rate later this year.
2) We have a Democratic frontrunner, Howard Dean, who proposes to re-regulate key sectors of the American economy, a la Jimmy Carter BEFORE Carter de-regulated the airlines.
3) We have Governor Dean first embracing the pick-up driving, Confederate flag bumper sticker-toting crowd only to be forced into repudiating the very same people by the rest of the Democratic field there-by locking the forthcoming Democratic ticket out of the South for the balance of the election.
4) We have Congressional Democrats despondent over a Republican Medicare reform package that a disciplined majority drove through the House to wails of Pelosi-led protest putting the Democratic Party directly at odds with a $400 billion benefit to seniors.
5) We have a Democratic Party in critical disarray over the only issue that will ultimately matter in the next election: national security policy. To the extent that one could say a Democratic national security policy exists it would seem to argue that U.S. interests are best defined and defended by...the French.
6) We have a Republican incumbent who enjoys the mirror-image of advantages to be derived from the failure and dissaray of the opposition: a strong economy, an economic policy that seems connected to the way the a free economy actually works, an impregnable regional political base in those areas of the country that are growing the fastest, a Nixon-goes-to-China Medicare program, and a national security policy that seeks to fight the war on terror in terrorism's front yard instead of Central Park.
7) Add to this a $200 million political warchest for President Bush and the near-unanimous support of his party.
Anyone care to wager on who takes the Oath of Office in January, 2005?"
Here's the latest from a Washington insider who asks not to be named. Sure, he's a Republican, but he has never drunk from the party Kool-Aid that would preclude him from examining a forthcoming election in a cool and rational manner.
"Let's see what the political tea leaves say about next year's presidential election:
1) We have a stunning 7.2 percent economic growth figure has been revised upwards to a staggering 8.2 percent rate that is predicted to level off at a comfortable 4% rate later this year.
2) We have a Democratic frontrunner, Howard Dean, who proposes to re-regulate key sectors of the American economy, a la Jimmy Carter BEFORE Carter de-regulated the airlines.
3) We have Governor Dean first embracing the pick-up driving, Confederate flag bumper sticker-toting crowd only to be forced into repudiating the very same people by the rest of the Democratic field there-by locking the forthcoming Democratic ticket out of the South for the balance of the election.
4) We have Congressional Democrats despondent over a Republican Medicare reform package that a disciplined majority drove through the House to wails of Pelosi-led protest putting the Democratic Party directly at odds with a $400 billion benefit to seniors.
5) We have a Democratic Party in critical disarray over the only issue that will ultimately matter in the next election: national security policy. To the extent that one could say a Democratic national security policy exists it would seem to argue that U.S. interests are best defined and defended by...the French.
6) We have a Republican incumbent who enjoys the mirror-image of advantages to be derived from the failure and dissaray of the opposition: a strong economy, an economic policy that seems connected to the way the a free economy actually works, an impregnable regional political base in those areas of the country that are growing the fastest, a Nixon-goes-to-China Medicare program, and a national security policy that seeks to fight the war on terror in terrorism's front yard instead of Central Park.
7) Add to this a $200 million political warchest for President Bush and the near-unanimous support of his party.
Anyone care to wager on who takes the Oath of Office in January, 2005?"
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Hmmmm, reciting a whole poem from memory.
That's a tricky one.
After extensive self-interrogation, I am pretty sure that I cannot recite an entire poem either, unless you count The Horseshoe Nail (more a morality tale, or lecture on historical contingency than a poem, I'd say), or the 23rd Psalm...and I suspect that there are bits of both I'd leave out.
Shocking, really.
That's a tricky one.
After extensive self-interrogation, I am pretty sure that I cannot recite an entire poem either, unless you count The Horseshoe Nail (more a morality tale, or lecture on historical contingency than a poem, I'd say), or the 23rd Psalm...and I suspect that there are bits of both I'd leave out.
Shocking, really.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Just a bunch of prose mavens?
November, instead of the month in which we give thanks, now appears to be the month in which we are to bewail culture lost. US News and World Report ran an article at the beginning of the month, "Losing Our History", which lamented the fact that children don't sing any longer and so folk songs and the history they contain are disappearing from the culture. The New York Times ran an interview with John McWhorter discussing his new book, "Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care" , which laments the decline of the spoken word.
For someone who apparently is passionate about the language (he taught himself 12 languages), is a singer, a Broadway aficionado, and has acted in amateur theatricals, McWhorter makes a curious statement. "I cannot recite a single poem," he says.
Dude, like, whatever.
November, instead of the month in which we give thanks, now appears to be the month in which we are to bewail culture lost. US News and World Report ran an article at the beginning of the month, "Losing Our History", which lamented the fact that children don't sing any longer and so folk songs and the history they contain are disappearing from the culture. The New York Times ran an interview with John McWhorter discussing his new book, "Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care" , which laments the decline of the spoken word.
For someone who apparently is passionate about the language (he taught himself 12 languages), is a singer, a Broadway aficionado, and has acted in amateur theatricals, McWhorter makes a curious statement. "I cannot recite a single poem," he says.
Dude, like, whatever.
Monday, November 24, 2003
America, Eastern Branch
I had the unfortunate experience earlier this month of seeing the movie Love Actually. If you must go, have two martinis (3/4 Plymouth Gin, 1/4 vermouth, shaken, 2 queen olives) ahead of time, so that you are either insensible to the sentimentalized drivel on-screen or are led into a well-timed two hour nap. Watching it cold sober gives you the unpleasant trapped feeling of wanting to come out of your skin. Two things kept coming to mind while enduring the movie. First, one of the necessary factors to enjoying a film is somehow, someway liking the characters. Instead, I thought "what an awful group of people here -- mostly young, modern, trendy, urban Brits." Second, that being so, I further thought to myself, "they are awful because they don't even seem British -- they seem like young, modern, trendy, urban Americans with British accents." This wasn't an exercise in self-hatred on my part. I just could not fathom why were aping the very worst America has to offer rather than the best.
Which brings me to Theodore Dalrymple's latest article in the Spectator, showing how young, modern, trendy, urban Brits are unconsciously exhibiting American habits of speech, dress, and attitudes because of their consumption of American pop culture. This is not a pretty picture. Rather than reflecting America's best qualities and habits (a nation of fabulous educational and cultural institutions, a nation of tremendous religious belief while the Western world goes cooly secular), these young people dress like Brittany Spears, talk like Eminem, and act like Al Bundy. Dalrymple notes: The problem with the demonstration effect of Virtual America is that it is confined purely to externals, often of the least attractive kind. White-trash clothing, for example, must be among the most unattractive ever devised by man. It is impossible to look intelligent or dignified, and difficult even to look civil, in a baseball cap. The popular music is appalling and brutalising, the food horrible and the manners depicted selfish and egocentric. Virtual America will never convey the message that the Americans are, in fact, a courteous people, whose manners are (at least nowadays) vastly superior to our own.
Even further, superficial mimicking of American pop culture without America's better qualities of individual striving leaves young, modern, trendy, urban Brits void of ideas and bored. When the demotic culture is not combined with or ameliorated by a belief in personal striving for material improvement, but rather with the idea that affluence is delivered by the government through confiscation and redistribution — that is to say by the promotion of ‘social justice’ — a uniquely horrible, new culture is forged, the culture of embittered slovenliness. The British are increasingly a nation of angry slobs.
If Love Actually is even a partial reflection of British realities, Dalrymple's forecasts are coming to pass. London looked like LA.
I had the unfortunate experience earlier this month of seeing the movie Love Actually. If you must go, have two martinis (3/4 Plymouth Gin, 1/4 vermouth, shaken, 2 queen olives) ahead of time, so that you are either insensible to the sentimentalized drivel on-screen or are led into a well-timed two hour nap. Watching it cold sober gives you the unpleasant trapped feeling of wanting to come out of your skin. Two things kept coming to mind while enduring the movie. First, one of the necessary factors to enjoying a film is somehow, someway liking the characters. Instead, I thought "what an awful group of people here -- mostly young, modern, trendy, urban Brits." Second, that being so, I further thought to myself, "they are awful because they don't even seem British -- they seem like young, modern, trendy, urban Americans with British accents." This wasn't an exercise in self-hatred on my part. I just could not fathom why were aping the very worst America has to offer rather than the best.
Which brings me to Theodore Dalrymple's latest article in the Spectator, showing how young, modern, trendy, urban Brits are unconsciously exhibiting American habits of speech, dress, and attitudes because of their consumption of American pop culture. This is not a pretty picture. Rather than reflecting America's best qualities and habits (a nation of fabulous educational and cultural institutions, a nation of tremendous religious belief while the Western world goes cooly secular), these young people dress like Brittany Spears, talk like Eminem, and act like Al Bundy. Dalrymple notes: The problem with the demonstration effect of Virtual America is that it is confined purely to externals, often of the least attractive kind. White-trash clothing, for example, must be among the most unattractive ever devised by man. It is impossible to look intelligent or dignified, and difficult even to look civil, in a baseball cap. The popular music is appalling and brutalising, the food horrible and the manners depicted selfish and egocentric. Virtual America will never convey the message that the Americans are, in fact, a courteous people, whose manners are (at least nowadays) vastly superior to our own.
Even further, superficial mimicking of American pop culture without America's better qualities of individual striving leaves young, modern, trendy, urban Brits void of ideas and bored. When the demotic culture is not combined with or ameliorated by a belief in personal striving for material improvement, but rather with the idea that affluence is delivered by the government through confiscation and redistribution — that is to say by the promotion of ‘social justice’ — a uniquely horrible, new culture is forged, the culture of embittered slovenliness. The British are increasingly a nation of angry slobs.
If Love Actually is even a partial reflection of British realities, Dalrymple's forecasts are coming to pass. London looked like LA.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
David Frum has a lovely article in the Daily Telegraph about Nevilles first act/first day. Quite a despicable group of people, really.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Speaking of Nevilles, Austin Bay has a little essay over at www.strategypage.com on the Axis of Neville. Snicker, snicker, snicker.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Doing Neville Chamberlain proud
Well, good luck to the President over the next several days, winding his away around Britain, his heels being nipped by...by...what shall we call them? The Neville Chamberlain Society? The Baathists, Western Branch? Because the clear implication of their "ideas" -- if we can call them that -- is the continued rule of Hussein, complete with his dictatorial apparatus of prisons, secret police, ritual murder and rape, and torture chambers. In fact, what greater ally can brutal dictators and international terrorists have then the "Nevilles?" Skilled at making big puppets, their "ideas" are less creative, merely the thin skin of idealism covering a corrupt core of accomodation, retreat, and anti-Western self-hatred.
Perhaps the Bush visit can result in some good: (1.) the British disrespect could anger Americans into continued support for the President's positions, (2.) anger reasonable non-puppet making Britons into continued support for Blair, (3.) discredit the Nevilles by giving them the press coverage they so dearly want. Does anyone doubt there will be a few rather revealing anti-Israel, anti-Semitic placards in the throng?
Still, the Guardian has an interesting poll this morning, showing a trend of British frustration with the Nevilles, so perhaps the Bush visit will appall sufficient numbers of people into a backlash
Well, good luck to the President over the next several days, winding his away around Britain, his heels being nipped by...by...what shall we call them? The Neville Chamberlain Society? The Baathists, Western Branch? Because the clear implication of their "ideas" -- if we can call them that -- is the continued rule of Hussein, complete with his dictatorial apparatus of prisons, secret police, ritual murder and rape, and torture chambers. In fact, what greater ally can brutal dictators and international terrorists have then the "Nevilles?" Skilled at making big puppets, their "ideas" are less creative, merely the thin skin of idealism covering a corrupt core of accomodation, retreat, and anti-Western self-hatred.
Perhaps the Bush visit can result in some good: (1.) the British disrespect could anger Americans into continued support for the President's positions, (2.) anger reasonable non-puppet making Britons into continued support for Blair, (3.) discredit the Nevilles by giving them the press coverage they so dearly want. Does anyone doubt there will be a few rather revealing anti-Israel, anti-Semitic placards in the throng?
Still, the Guardian has an interesting poll this morning, showing a trend of British frustration with the Nevilles, so perhaps the Bush visit will appall sufficient numbers of people into a backlash
Monday, November 17, 2003
Political Prognostications
I was up there in Washington, DC (Our Nation's Capital) this weekend, and got to hear some good political thinking from some Operatives. Hopefully their Prognostications will be a feature from here to the election, so long as they keep talking to me.
Anyway, here's the roundup:
Louisiana- Jindal's defeat was due, in the consensual opinion, to shading the difference between Blanco's pro-life position, except in case of rape or incest, and Jindal's no-exceptions on rape position. In Louisiana anti-abortion except in case of rape or incest counts as a moderate stance, I guess. As one of my informatns says, "a slight shading of difference on the rape and incest issue hurt Jindal among suburban women." Another says, rather darkly, "It would be interesting to see some real numbers on that, plus numbers on the racist factor."
How could Dean win the general election?- Considering the results of the 2000 election, how could a Democratic contender get a winning number of electoral votes?
One of my informants, who is a wizard at the numbers, shares the following information:
Electoral factoids to chew on:
"A total of 12 electoral votes have shifted from blue country to red country as a result of the 2000 census.
If the electoral map of 2004 had been in place in 2000, red would have won 283 electoral votes.
NH has recently moved from the lean red to lean blue category, -4 for blue.
PA and IA are now lean red; NM solid red.
Red winning in 2004 with 307."
Democrats on Iraq- What are they thinking? Frederick Kagan, an Interventionist Neo-Con Hawk whom no one could accuse of shilling for the Democratic National Committee, had an op-ed in the Washington Post today saying that, all things considered, the major Democratic candidates weren't that weak when it came to Iraq.
Myself, I think Fred is whistling a happy bipartisan tune that doesn’t have an ending. I don’t think, in the end, that what he observes amounts to much. I think I see him mentally contrasting Democratic candidates with the anti-war people in Europe, and thinking, “Man, what a bunch of Anti-Saddamites!” But what he quotes is electioneering fluff. Sure, it’s not George McGovern. But the important words, the words that describe what any of these chaps would do as President, have been and continue to be conspicuous in their absence. They will be thrust into a Crisis Situation, and they don’t seem to acknowledge that. Instead they tip their hat to the “War on Terrorism” and then move on to comparing W to Herbert Hoover, or some old chestnut like that.
One of my informants agrees, adding that "all of the criticisms offered by the Dems relative to Iraq do not, taken together, add up to an alternative policy. They are just ankle biting. Dean just happens to be the most ferocious of the ankle biters. In the right circumstances (e.g. total meltdown in Iraq) he could get a hold of Bush he could do a lot of damage with his message."
I was up there in Washington, DC (Our Nation's Capital) this weekend, and got to hear some good political thinking from some Operatives. Hopefully their Prognostications will be a feature from here to the election, so long as they keep talking to me.
Anyway, here's the roundup:
Louisiana- Jindal's defeat was due, in the consensual opinion, to shading the difference between Blanco's pro-life position, except in case of rape or incest, and Jindal's no-exceptions on rape position. In Louisiana anti-abortion except in case of rape or incest counts as a moderate stance, I guess. As one of my informatns says, "a slight shading of difference on the rape and incest issue hurt Jindal among suburban women." Another says, rather darkly, "It would be interesting to see some real numbers on that, plus numbers on the racist factor."
How could Dean win the general election?- Considering the results of the 2000 election, how could a Democratic contender get a winning number of electoral votes?
One of my informants, who is a wizard at the numbers, shares the following information:
Electoral factoids to chew on:
"A total of 12 electoral votes have shifted from blue country to red country as a result of the 2000 census.
If the electoral map of 2004 had been in place in 2000, red would have won 283 electoral votes.
NH has recently moved from the lean red to lean blue category, -4 for blue.
PA and IA are now lean red; NM solid red.
Red winning in 2004 with 307."
Democrats on Iraq- What are they thinking? Frederick Kagan, an Interventionist Neo-Con Hawk whom no one could accuse of shilling for the Democratic National Committee, had an op-ed in the Washington Post today saying that, all things considered, the major Democratic candidates weren't that weak when it came to Iraq.
Myself, I think Fred is whistling a happy bipartisan tune that doesn’t have an ending. I don’t think, in the end, that what he observes amounts to much. I think I see him mentally contrasting Democratic candidates with the anti-war people in Europe, and thinking, “Man, what a bunch of Anti-Saddamites!” But what he quotes is electioneering fluff. Sure, it’s not George McGovern. But the important words, the words that describe what any of these chaps would do as President, have been and continue to be conspicuous in their absence. They will be thrust into a Crisis Situation, and they don’t seem to acknowledge that. Instead they tip their hat to the “War on Terrorism” and then move on to comparing W to Herbert Hoover, or some old chestnut like that.
One of my informants agrees, adding that "all of the criticisms offered by the Dems relative to Iraq do not, taken together, add up to an alternative policy. They are just ankle biting. Dean just happens to be the most ferocious of the ankle biters. In the right circumstances (e.g. total meltdown in Iraq) he could get a hold of Bush he could do a lot of damage with his message."
Please and Thank You
To no one's surprise who uses their eyes and ears, and leaves their house, Americans are losing (or have already lost) good manners -- even more devastating, they have forsaken the very idea of etiquette. This article, discussing the post-1960 abandonment of American manners, in last week's Globe flew under my radar, but is worth considering.
Despite the 19th century cliches about uncouth Americans, spitting and swearing their way through life, there once was a day when etiquette informed our behavior, silently and unconsciously regulating and directing our social activities. Certain ways of acting were shamed, condemned, and looked down upon. Other ways were encouraged by practice and every day use, by teaching and parenting, and "the soft collar of social esteem," Edmund Burke's telling phrase about how we value our neighbor's opinion of us. I bought the 1941 New American Etiquette the other week at a used book sale (does the fact that is cost me $1 say anything?). The book is remarkably, almost ridiculously, thorough, covering everything -- how to act in restaurants, how to name your children, how to act on-board ships, how to address royalty, how to write letters to, well, every type of person, how to act on the phone, etc. Today, many would consider this a silly contrivance, a sort of social intimidation bent on infringing the "real self," but read what the preface says: The rules of etiquette are not swords hanging over our heads by a slender thread which we may sever by a violation. The true aim of all etiquette is the development of a kindly interest in and consideration for others. Some of the most liked persons who have ever lived have known little of the arbitrary rules of the etiquette of their day but invariably they were kind and considerate of others and inspired those qualities in all with whom they were in contact. Etiquette is not about arbitrary social force, pressure to conform with no aim, but about enforcing consideration to make what could be (and now too often is) an ugly inconsiderate daily life into a livable and lovable one.
Good manners drifted away, the Globe article asserts, in the 1960s when young Boomers rejected social artificiality for individual authenticity, never realizing that when people are unmoored from the "soft collar" and humane purposes of social etiquette they become rather selfish unfriendly boors -- terribly authentic, terribly rude. We have never recovered and now the "ugly American" is thought to have always existed, as if the pre-1960 nation which had a least a semblance of good manners and restraint was a bad dream. Swearing in public is commonplace (walking across a college campus, one usually hears a collection of about 10 words, none of them fit for repetition, all used to express a variety of emotions), dress is sloppy, road manners are non-existent. Don't believe me? Think I am exaggerating? Check out this site called Etiquette Hell.
So what is there to do? Teach it anew, I guess. There are etiquette classes one can take, filling the void for those who were not taught such things at home. There are books to buy on the subject of good behavior. I taught one such book, P. M. Forni's Choosing Civility, to my college seniors. My undergraduates seemed to "get it," that good manners are not a burden, but a liberation meant to make life livable. Yet, they chafed at being told what to do by social pressure. For example, a solid majority could not understand why playing loud music in your car with the windows open was rude -- "if it bothers you, it's your problem, not mine," "I'm just driving by, it'll be gone in a few seconds," "get a life," "hey, it's my car and my radio, I can do as I please." So effectively drilled by pop culture and perhaps their parents that "doing as you please" is natural and right, these young people see etiquette as fake and burdensome. They cannot make the connection between an ugly rude world (one which they often complain about) and a "liberated, more authentic" way of acting. The world has always been this way, they say, let me be who I am. In the tug o' war between social consideration and individual expression, expressing and "doing as I please when it pleases me" wins out.
Unfortunately for all of us, that attitude is how the world became ugly in the first place.
To no one's surprise who uses their eyes and ears, and leaves their house, Americans are losing (or have already lost) good manners -- even more devastating, they have forsaken the very idea of etiquette. This article, discussing the post-1960 abandonment of American manners, in last week's Globe flew under my radar, but is worth considering.
Despite the 19th century cliches about uncouth Americans, spitting and swearing their way through life, there once was a day when etiquette informed our behavior, silently and unconsciously regulating and directing our social activities. Certain ways of acting were shamed, condemned, and looked down upon. Other ways were encouraged by practice and every day use, by teaching and parenting, and "the soft collar of social esteem," Edmund Burke's telling phrase about how we value our neighbor's opinion of us. I bought the 1941 New American Etiquette the other week at a used book sale (does the fact that is cost me $1 say anything?). The book is remarkably, almost ridiculously, thorough, covering everything -- how to act in restaurants, how to name your children, how to act on-board ships, how to address royalty, how to write letters to, well, every type of person, how to act on the phone, etc. Today, many would consider this a silly contrivance, a sort of social intimidation bent on infringing the "real self," but read what the preface says: The rules of etiquette are not swords hanging over our heads by a slender thread which we may sever by a violation. The true aim of all etiquette is the development of a kindly interest in and consideration for others. Some of the most liked persons who have ever lived have known little of the arbitrary rules of the etiquette of their day but invariably they were kind and considerate of others and inspired those qualities in all with whom they were in contact. Etiquette is not about arbitrary social force, pressure to conform with no aim, but about enforcing consideration to make what could be (and now too often is) an ugly inconsiderate daily life into a livable and lovable one.
Good manners drifted away, the Globe article asserts, in the 1960s when young Boomers rejected social artificiality for individual authenticity, never realizing that when people are unmoored from the "soft collar" and humane purposes of social etiquette they become rather selfish unfriendly boors -- terribly authentic, terribly rude. We have never recovered and now the "ugly American" is thought to have always existed, as if the pre-1960 nation which had a least a semblance of good manners and restraint was a bad dream. Swearing in public is commonplace (walking across a college campus, one usually hears a collection of about 10 words, none of them fit for repetition, all used to express a variety of emotions), dress is sloppy, road manners are non-existent. Don't believe me? Think I am exaggerating? Check out this site called Etiquette Hell.
So what is there to do? Teach it anew, I guess. There are etiquette classes one can take, filling the void for those who were not taught such things at home. There are books to buy on the subject of good behavior. I taught one such book, P. M. Forni's Choosing Civility, to my college seniors. My undergraduates seemed to "get it," that good manners are not a burden, but a liberation meant to make life livable. Yet, they chafed at being told what to do by social pressure. For example, a solid majority could not understand why playing loud music in your car with the windows open was rude -- "if it bothers you, it's your problem, not mine," "I'm just driving by, it'll be gone in a few seconds," "get a life," "hey, it's my car and my radio, I can do as I please." So effectively drilled by pop culture and perhaps their parents that "doing as you please" is natural and right, these young people see etiquette as fake and burdensome. They cannot make the connection between an ugly rude world (one which they often complain about) and a "liberated, more authentic" way of acting. The world has always been this way, they say, let me be who I am. In the tug o' war between social consideration and individual expression, expressing and "doing as I please when it pleases me" wins out.
Unfortunately for all of us, that attitude is how the world became ugly in the first place.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
A quick plug for a magazine I've come to enjoy. I noticed that Enoch Soames (whom Doc & Co. thank for linking) sings the praises of G. K. Chesterton today, and I'll second that sentiment. Since I've read through a bit of GKC in the past couple of years, I've found him terribly skilled in pointing out the obvious (or what should be the obvious) silliness, hubris, and inanity of twentieth century life. For example, quoting from Chesterton's Orthodoxy, what better way to explain the tired intellectual habit of bemoaning the conformity and blandness of contemporary life than this: [O]ddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life. Pity more people didn't say something like this to William Burroughs and Allan Ginsburg in the 1950s, Chesterton contra the Beats, "the reason you find things so stifling and bland is because you are so damned odd you don't notice the difference. If you were a normal person, you'd see the thrilling peculiarity and excitement of life."
That said, check out the very clever and entertaining Chestertonian magazine Gilbert!. The Doc is a proud subscriber and looks forward to it every month.
That said, check out the very clever and entertaining Chestertonian magazine Gilbert!. The Doc is a proud subscriber and looks forward to it every month.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Here's a modest proposal for Veteran's Day. Well, two, actually.
In view of the fact that Veteran's Day is in a) danger of merging completely in the psyche with Memorial Day and b) becoming unremarked because it isn't celebrated on a Monday, like everything else, we ought to take the following steps to mark it.
One, the President and all members of the Political Class should start to wear poppies in their lapel for the two weeks prior to Veteran's Day. This is a custom universally followed in Britain (in many ways Remembrance Day is the only national holiday in Britain; hmmm, there's an essay there), and one that I rather miss over here. It would set aside November 11th in a special, non-hyped way.
Second, Veteran's Day should be a day off for all of those who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States, in time of peace and war, and for them alone. Period. [Hat-tip here to the slightly mad Buchananite Carlton Meyer at www.g2mil.com].
There, that should do it...and for crying out loud, keep at bay all those who would move Veteran's Day to the Monday closest to November 11th. Cretins. Orcs. They must be destroyed.
In view of the fact that Veteran's Day is in a) danger of merging completely in the psyche with Memorial Day and b) becoming unremarked because it isn't celebrated on a Monday, like everything else, we ought to take the following steps to mark it.
One, the President and all members of the Political Class should start to wear poppies in their lapel for the two weeks prior to Veteran's Day. This is a custom universally followed in Britain (in many ways Remembrance Day is the only national holiday in Britain; hmmm, there's an essay there), and one that I rather miss over here. It would set aside November 11th in a special, non-hyped way.
Second, Veteran's Day should be a day off for all of those who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States, in time of peace and war, and for them alone. Period. [Hat-tip here to the slightly mad Buchananite Carlton Meyer at www.g2mil.com].
There, that should do it...and for crying out loud, keep at bay all those who would move Veteran's Day to the Monday closest to November 11th. Cretins. Orcs. They must be destroyed.
On Veteran's Day, an interesting article by Norman Allen, commenting about public forgetfulness of World War One. He writes: It has been said that beauty and grace died on the battlefields of the Western Front between 1914 and 1918. But the war also succeeded in breaking through the corseted snobbery of Victorian grande dames and the self-indulgence of Edwardian aesthetes. It gave birth to a new and vital worldview. American forces didn’t enter the conflict until April 1917, but the stories they brought back, and the dead they left behind, altered forever the outlook of a nation still riding the wave of Western expansion and pioneer pride. For better and for worse, the Great War was the beginning of our modern era. We live now in a post-apocalyptic age, dating from those days. Fallen monarchies, global communism, Nazism and the Holocaust, cultural vacuity, religious collapse. I am not a pessimist by nature, but I cannot find positives here -- I'd rather have the beauty and grace with "corseted snobbery" and "aesthetes." It's well worth the price.
I found Evelyn Waugh's remarks on the "pre-war Georgian" period most interesting: One is naturally inclined to regard all periods but one's own as a conservative Utopia, where everything was tranquilly rooted in tradition, the rich respected, the poor contented, and everyone slept well and ate with a hearty appetite. Fair enough -- historians are major violators in this regard, picking out their utopias from the dustpin of history, Old South, Medieval Europe, 1960s America. But...still...can we today claim cultural superiority to 1910? Hardly. Political superiority? Doubtful -- quantitative enlargement rather than qualitative improvement, really. Can we really say the world is far improved from the days when these men fell in trenches at Ypres?
I found Evelyn Waugh's remarks on the "pre-war Georgian" period most interesting: One is naturally inclined to regard all periods but one's own as a conservative Utopia, where everything was tranquilly rooted in tradition, the rich respected, the poor contented, and everyone slept well and ate with a hearty appetite. Fair enough -- historians are major violators in this regard, picking out their utopias from the dustpin of history, Old South, Medieval Europe, 1960s America. But...still...can we today claim cultural superiority to 1910? Hardly. Political superiority? Doubtful -- quantitative enlargement rather than qualitative improvement, really. Can we really say the world is far improved from the days when these men fell in trenches at Ypres?
Monday, November 10, 2003
Is this a good or bad thing? I scored 10.45365% on the Geek Test, saved from further humiliation by a total lack of interest in science fiction or wacko fantasy shows/books/games. But the historian bit pushed me over, I'm afraid.
Saturday, November 08, 2003
First, scientists have computed just how much damage Guy Fawkes would have caused if his plot to kill James I and blow up Parliament succeeded -- the "big bang" would have destroyed a huge swath of downtown London because Fawkes used much more gunpowder than he needed.
Second, a member of the Scottish Socialist Party (one of three, perhaps?) pinned up a poster in his office picturing Fawkes with the line "Vote Guy Fawkes, the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions."
Not surprisingly, many are not amused.
And how about this? Looking for an interesting email address, one that reflects your historical, regional, ideological preferences? Well, how about "yourname@scottishtories.com"? David Hume would be proud.
Second, a member of the Scottish Socialist Party (one of three, perhaps?) pinned up a poster in his office picturing Fawkes with the line "Vote Guy Fawkes, the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions."
Not surprisingly, many are not amused.
And how about this? Looking for an interesting email address, one that reflects your historical, regional, ideological preferences? Well, how about "yourname@scottishtories.com"? David Hume would be proud.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Not only is Michael Howard the first Jewish Conservative leader since Disraeli, he is also the first Welshman ever to lead the Tories.
But before you get carried away by Howard, take a peek at Peter Hitchens lovely bitter article about him. A few snippets to wet your appetite: Bah, humbug. The Tory Party currently resembles a cage in which several savage small animals are kept in order only by the threat that the pet shop owner will drown the lot of them if they succumb to the biting and gouging that they instinctively long to do ... Mr Howard has declared that he will 'lead from the centre', which means he will offer no real challenge to this anti-British, politically correct regime of penal taxation, no serious opposition to the Labour policy of winking at mass illegal immigration, no serious thinking about crime and disorder, no discussion of leaving the oppressive EU, no help for the married family, no radical reform for the worst education system in Europe.
The last remaining British Military Medal winner is still alive at 104 (despite being pronounced dead by unaware veteran associations a few years ago). Lance Corporal James Lovell lied about his age to enlist in 1915 and fought at the Somme.
But before you get carried away by Howard, take a peek at Peter Hitchens lovely bitter article about him. A few snippets to wet your appetite: Bah, humbug. The Tory Party currently resembles a cage in which several savage small animals are kept in order only by the threat that the pet shop owner will drown the lot of them if they succumb to the biting and gouging that they instinctively long to do ... Mr Howard has declared that he will 'lead from the centre', which means he will offer no real challenge to this anti-British, politically correct regime of penal taxation, no serious opposition to the Labour policy of winking at mass illegal immigration, no serious thinking about crime and disorder, no discussion of leaving the oppressive EU, no help for the married family, no radical reform for the worst education system in Europe.
The last remaining British Military Medal winner is still alive at 104 (despite being pronounced dead by unaware veteran associations a few years ago). Lance Corporal James Lovell lied about his age to enlist in 1915 and fought at the Somme.
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Well, the 18th century isn't the best century in which to find a Scottish nationalist hero. You've got guys like Rob Roy who, while being pretty cool if you're a McGregor, aren't too great if you're a MacDonald whom the Gregora find asleep in the heather. Your best bet is a Frenchy kid with good manners and a passion for cherry brandy and chasing skirt--but it's hard to get enthusiastic about Bonnie Prince Charlie after Culloden. Then everyone gets hung right and left, the English suborn the Scots into Highland regiments, and before you know it they're playing the bagpipes on the Plains of Abraham and tearing into the other half of the Auld Alliance, the Frogs.
Not, if you're a spin doctor for the Scottish Nationalist Party, altogether the best century in which to find an appropriate poster boy.
That's why they were pretty darn happy when Braveheart rolled into the theaters.
Accurate? Accuracy? It's medieval, no one can remember that far back.
Not, if you're a spin doctor for the Scottish Nationalist Party, altogether the best century in which to find an appropriate poster boy.
That's why they were pretty darn happy when Braveheart rolled into the theaters.
Accurate? Accuracy? It's medieval, no one can remember that far back.
So what you are saying, my vaunted Colonialist friend, is that Rob Roy has more in common with Don Corleone than George Washington? An out-of-date tribalist robbing and lying for the good of his clan, later hijacked by Scottish nationalists desperate for a symbol of their resolve? Then who would you choose as the 18th century embodiment of Scottish "national" pride? Who is the Scottish General Lee? Or is this a loaded question, assuming there actually is something called Scottish national (or should I say regional) pride?
The Doc emails me and asks:
"But was Rob Roy duplicitious for national reasons or purely personal? To say the first is coy and good Machiavellian politics; to say the second is greed and treason."
Nation? What nation? And what personal reasons? My goodness, Doc, I am a little shocked. I think that both of those categories are a wee bit anachronistic for a 1700's Highland Chieftan.
Rob Roy was looking after Clan McGregor who were already, if I mistake not, forbidden to actually use their name; hence they were called "The Nameless Clan", and hence we know him as Rob Roy rather than Rob Roy McGregor. This is all tucked into Kidnapped and Catriona; Stevenson knew his history. As a Highland Chief at this moment in time, Rob Roy was really the last generation to think of the tribe as the paramount political, social and cultural identifier. So I think that "treason" is a bit much; sure, from either the Jacobite or Hanoverian perspective he was betraying them. But as far as the McGregor's were concerned, their Chief was looking after them.
And I am just a little amused that this good Professor is all flabberghasted that Rob Roy was a "confidence man". Con man? Hah! He stole cattle and committed murder. And his sons stole women (or a woman, a very famous case), and forced her to marry. Con man is the least of it.
This is a whole lot of newspaper article about nothing.
"But was Rob Roy duplicitious for national reasons or purely personal? To say the first is coy and good Machiavellian politics; to say the second is greed and treason."
Nation? What nation? And what personal reasons? My goodness, Doc, I am a little shocked. I think that both of those categories are a wee bit anachronistic for a 1700's Highland Chieftan.
Rob Roy was looking after Clan McGregor who were already, if I mistake not, forbidden to actually use their name; hence they were called "The Nameless Clan", and hence we know him as Rob Roy rather than Rob Roy McGregor. This is all tucked into Kidnapped and Catriona; Stevenson knew his history. As a Highland Chief at this moment in time, Rob Roy was really the last generation to think of the tribe as the paramount political, social and cultural identifier. So I think that "treason" is a bit much; sure, from either the Jacobite or Hanoverian perspective he was betraying them. But as far as the McGregor's were concerned, their Chief was looking after them.
And I am just a little amused that this good Professor is all flabberghasted that Rob Roy was a "confidence man". Con man? Hah! He stole cattle and committed murder. And his sons stole women (or a woman, a very famous case), and forced her to marry. Con man is the least of it.
This is a whole lot of newspaper article about nothing.
Rob Roy a Traitor??
I hope this doesn't sound too cynical, but there were very few political luminaries in any part of Britain who didn't work both sides of the political schism in the late 17th and early 18th century. John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, was in correspondence with the Stuart court at St. Germain in Paris, even when he was kicking around the French Army. He fed them inconsequential intelligence, lies, and perhaps even the occasional tidbit of good intelligence. Why? Was this all brilliant spycraft? Probably...but he was also, perhaps, keeping his options open. After all, he had been one of James II's most trusted subordinates, his sister had been James' mistress, and thus James' illegitimate son the Duke of Berwick was his nephew.
Likewise James Oglethorpe, founder of Georgia, was always suspected of being a secret Jacobite. He had made his obeisance at the Jacobite court in Italy in 1717. When he failed to catch up with Bonnie Prince Charlie's army in the '45, it was widely suspected that it was not a consequence of bad weather. Oglethorpe was never given a command in the British Army after that, though he remained its senior officer until his death forty years later.
So Rob Roy was working both sides of the fence? He was a Highlander! Of course he was! It's like expressing surprise that a mafioso sometimes informs on his rival gangs. I am shocked-- shocked!-- to find that sort of behavior going on in the Highlands.
It's what I like about the Highlands--they're a bunch of paesan who wear tartan and substitute oats for pasta.
I hope this doesn't sound too cynical, but there were very few political luminaries in any part of Britain who didn't work both sides of the political schism in the late 17th and early 18th century. John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, was in correspondence with the Stuart court at St. Germain in Paris, even when he was kicking around the French Army. He fed them inconsequential intelligence, lies, and perhaps even the occasional tidbit of good intelligence. Why? Was this all brilliant spycraft? Probably...but he was also, perhaps, keeping his options open. After all, he had been one of James II's most trusted subordinates, his sister had been James' mistress, and thus James' illegitimate son the Duke of Berwick was his nephew.
Likewise James Oglethorpe, founder of Georgia, was always suspected of being a secret Jacobite. He had made his obeisance at the Jacobite court in Italy in 1717. When he failed to catch up with Bonnie Prince Charlie's army in the '45, it was widely suspected that it was not a consequence of bad weather. Oglethorpe was never given a command in the British Army after that, though he remained its senior officer until his death forty years later.
So Rob Roy was working both sides of the fence? He was a Highlander! Of course he was! It's like expressing surprise that a mafioso sometimes informs on his rival gangs. I am shocked-- shocked!-- to find that sort of behavior going on in the Highlands.
It's what I like about the Highlands--they're a bunch of paesan who wear tartan and substitute oats for pasta.
Monday, November 03, 2003
Rob Roy a fraud?
That's what a new book is about to say. The font of Scottish nationalism is revealed as a British spy (he sold secrets to the Government during the Jacobite revolt of 1715) and a swindler (caught attempting to hide assets and fraudulently declare bankrupcy). The author, Dr. David Stevenson of St. Andrew's University, told Scotland on Sunday this past weekend: I have found evidence that he was selling intelligence to the chief of the Hanoverian army in Scotland. This is typical of Rob Roy. He sells himself as a Jacobite, but at the same time he was selling information to the government ... I was surprised at the extent of his double dealing and criminality. He encouraged comparisons with the Robin Hood myth. He was a confidence trickster and was very clever at getting people to take his side. He sells himself as the little man being done down by the powerful.
Yikes. Good luck to Dr. Stephenson next time he drops by the local for a pint.
That's what a new book is about to say. The font of Scottish nationalism is revealed as a British spy (he sold secrets to the Government during the Jacobite revolt of 1715) and a swindler (caught attempting to hide assets and fraudulently declare bankrupcy). The author, Dr. David Stevenson of St. Andrew's University, told Scotland on Sunday this past weekend: I have found evidence that he was selling intelligence to the chief of the Hanoverian army in Scotland. This is typical of Rob Roy. He sells himself as a Jacobite, but at the same time he was selling information to the government ... I was surprised at the extent of his double dealing and criminality. He encouraged comparisons with the Robin Hood myth. He was a confidence trickster and was very clever at getting people to take his side. He sells himself as the little man being done down by the powerful.
Yikes. Good luck to Dr. Stephenson next time he drops by the local for a pint.
Favorite headline of the day, from the Washington Post:
"U.S. Administrator Imposes Flat Tax System on Iraq"
First, only the Post (and perhaps the LA Times, NY Times, and Boston Globe) would use the verb "imposes" in connection with a flat tax. A flat 15% income tax rate is an imposition? "Imposes" seems to suggest "against their will." Wouldn't the headline be better: "U.S. Administrator Awards Flat Tax System to Iraq?"
Second, what does it say that Iraq gets the flat tax before the US does? Next thing you know, Baghdad will be an "enterprise zone" ahead of Washington, DC.
"U.S. Administrator Imposes Flat Tax System on Iraq"
First, only the Post (and perhaps the LA Times, NY Times, and Boston Globe) would use the verb "imposes" in connection with a flat tax. A flat 15% income tax rate is an imposition? "Imposes" seems to suggest "against their will." Wouldn't the headline be better: "U.S. Administrator Awards Flat Tax System to Iraq?"
Second, what does it say that Iraq gets the flat tax before the US does? Next thing you know, Baghdad will be an "enterprise zone" ahead of Washington, DC.
A couple of things this dreary Monday morning:
Gene Robinson was consecrated yesterday over in Durham, NH, and this likely marks the beginning of the end of the American Episcopal Church as we know it. Some are even announcing that the Robinson scandal will be the most serious crisis in the Anglican Church since the American Revolution. Condemnations are already rolling in from Canterbury and Africa, and well as across the US and Canada. Robinson has his miter, but he will lose the church to which it belongs.
The most eloquent voice in Durham was a parishioner named Meredith Harwood, who read out a very thoughtful statement objecting to the consecration. She said, in part: It will tear us apart at our deepest level. This is foundational tearing, the most painful rupturing which human beings can experience. Jesus prayed for his followers to be one. The Anglican Communion is a sacred gift which has been entrusted to us. How dare this diocese rend asunder that which God has joined together! This is also the cowardly and conforming act of a church that has capitulated to elite culture. Many superficially appealing voices are telling us, "express yourselves."
But Jesus brought a gospel of salvation and transformation, not a watered down message of affirmation. Of course everyone is invited to God's party no matter who they are, no matter what their background or struggle in life. Yes, part of what Jesus offers is a profound love and welcome, but it is not a love that leaves people where they are, but a holy love which calls them to be who God wants them to become.
This is why Jesus said to the woman in John 8 on whom he had compassion, "go and sin no more," which he would say to Gene Robinson if he were physically here today. Inclusivity without transformation is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot be deaf, we shall not capitulate to what some in elite culture insist the church should do.
Churches hijacked by "elite culture" and "inclusivity without transformation" -- could there be a better description of the modern Christian crisis? The rest of her statement and a bevy of others can be found here.
All this brings to mind John Derbyshire's interesting article from last June, bemoaning the "gay-ghettoization" of modern Western Christianity; as it turns out, the article got Derbyshire into hot water with hang-wringing Midwestern academics who found such utterances insensitive.
I just finished Adam Nicholson's God's Secretaries, about the making of the King James Bible. It is popular history at its best and worst, taking a dusty but important event and making it accessible to the non-specialist, yet conjecturing and making the participants speak in a loose imaginative manner, unbecoming of a history text. Edmund Morris comes to mind, as Nicholson wonders what people are thinking and saying when the sources fail him.
The book also struck me as a paean to Jacobean society in general and King James I in particular, both of which I am unused to seeing. Granted, I spend most of my time lurking in nineteenth century America, but what I have read has always cast condemnations on those monarchs (James I & II, Charles I & II) who were more at home with divine right than popular rights. Perhaps Nicholson's take is a healthy one, giving the Stuarts and the Cavaliers a polite nod in the midst of an audience full of frowns.
Gene Robinson was consecrated yesterday over in Durham, NH, and this likely marks the beginning of the end of the American Episcopal Church as we know it. Some are even announcing that the Robinson scandal will be the most serious crisis in the Anglican Church since the American Revolution. Condemnations are already rolling in from Canterbury and Africa, and well as across the US and Canada. Robinson has his miter, but he will lose the church to which it belongs.
The most eloquent voice in Durham was a parishioner named Meredith Harwood, who read out a very thoughtful statement objecting to the consecration. She said, in part: It will tear us apart at our deepest level. This is foundational tearing, the most painful rupturing which human beings can experience. Jesus prayed for his followers to be one. The Anglican Communion is a sacred gift which has been entrusted to us. How dare this diocese rend asunder that which God has joined together! This is also the cowardly and conforming act of a church that has capitulated to elite culture. Many superficially appealing voices are telling us, "express yourselves."
But Jesus brought a gospel of salvation and transformation, not a watered down message of affirmation. Of course everyone is invited to God's party no matter who they are, no matter what their background or struggle in life. Yes, part of what Jesus offers is a profound love and welcome, but it is not a love that leaves people where they are, but a holy love which calls them to be who God wants them to become.
This is why Jesus said to the woman in John 8 on whom he had compassion, "go and sin no more," which he would say to Gene Robinson if he were physically here today. Inclusivity without transformation is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot be deaf, we shall not capitulate to what some in elite culture insist the church should do.
Churches hijacked by "elite culture" and "inclusivity without transformation" -- could there be a better description of the modern Christian crisis? The rest of her statement and a bevy of others can be found here.
All this brings to mind John Derbyshire's interesting article from last June, bemoaning the "gay-ghettoization" of modern Western Christianity; as it turns out, the article got Derbyshire into hot water with hang-wringing Midwestern academics who found such utterances insensitive.
I just finished Adam Nicholson's God's Secretaries, about the making of the King James Bible. It is popular history at its best and worst, taking a dusty but important event and making it accessible to the non-specialist, yet conjecturing and making the participants speak in a loose imaginative manner, unbecoming of a history text. Edmund Morris comes to mind, as Nicholson wonders what people are thinking and saying when the sources fail him.
The book also struck me as a paean to Jacobean society in general and King James I in particular, both of which I am unused to seeing. Granted, I spend most of my time lurking in nineteenth century America, but what I have read has always cast condemnations on those monarchs (James I & II, Charles I & II) who were more at home with divine right than popular rights. Perhaps Nicholson's take is a healthy one, giving the Stuarts and the Cavaliers a polite nod in the midst of an audience full of frowns.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
I feel obligated, as a recent resident of the Island Kingdom, to say a little something about the latest round of Tory backstabbing, which has resulted in the disposal of Iain Duncan Smith (known as IDS), and seems fair to end up with Michael Howard as Leader of the Opposition.
The BBC has an unusually fair summary of events here. The Daily Telegraph, aka Torygraph, has a knowing insiders news-story here.
It seems clear that IDS was a goner once there were 25 names on a petition to vote on his leadership; Boris Johnson in an unusually heavy-hearted essay explains that, after all, the Tories are such a tiny band that 25 is to all intents and purposes a plurality. Boris explains in succinct fashion how he in the best English public school tradition stabbed deep for the heart when a sign of weakness was detected in the leader. Well, its a tradition, I suppose, so it has that going for it. Boris, however, explains that "now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party." Which reminds me of something another Johnson should have said: Sir, party loyalty is the last refuge of the political scoundrel.
My biggest surprise is the ease and speed with which Michael Howard is moving towards coronation as Leader of the Tories. I had assumed, quite mistakenly, that David Davis would put up more of a fight. It all makes me smell a conspiracy. It was just too bloody easy. The fix was, somehow, in.
Anyway, Howard is an interesting chap, a brilliant debater, tough on crime, a Jew from Wales (the first Jew to lead a British party since Disraeli, I imagine), committed Atlanticist, and has the blonde wife which it is de rigeur for any Tory leader to have attached to his arm. (See his BBC profile, and this Torygraph profile by Alice Thomson.) Not too long ago Howard was judged well out of the running for any leadership position, this usually be attributed to a remark by Anne Widdecombe (Shadow Home Secretary after the Blair triumph over Major) that Howard "had something of the night about him."
And now Howard could well be the next Prime Minister, and Anne is sulking on the backbenches in her new platinum dyed hair. It's a funny old world.
Perhaps she wants to marry.
The BBC has an unusually fair summary of events here. The Daily Telegraph, aka Torygraph, has a knowing insiders news-story here.
It seems clear that IDS was a goner once there were 25 names on a petition to vote on his leadership; Boris Johnson in an unusually heavy-hearted essay explains that, after all, the Tories are such a tiny band that 25 is to all intents and purposes a plurality. Boris explains in succinct fashion how he in the best English public school tradition stabbed deep for the heart when a sign of weakness was detected in the leader. Well, its a tradition, I suppose, so it has that going for it. Boris, however, explains that "now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party." Which reminds me of something another Johnson should have said: Sir, party loyalty is the last refuge of the political scoundrel.
My biggest surprise is the ease and speed with which Michael Howard is moving towards coronation as Leader of the Tories. I had assumed, quite mistakenly, that David Davis would put up more of a fight. It all makes me smell a conspiracy. It was just too bloody easy. The fix was, somehow, in.
Anyway, Howard is an interesting chap, a brilliant debater, tough on crime, a Jew from Wales (the first Jew to lead a British party since Disraeli, I imagine), committed Atlanticist, and has the blonde wife which it is de rigeur for any Tory leader to have attached to his arm. (See his BBC profile, and this Torygraph profile by Alice Thomson.) Not too long ago Howard was judged well out of the running for any leadership position, this usually be attributed to a remark by Anne Widdecombe (Shadow Home Secretary after the Blair triumph over Major) that Howard "had something of the night about him."
And now Howard could well be the next Prime Minister, and Anne is sulking on the backbenches in her new platinum dyed hair. It's a funny old world.
Perhaps she wants to marry.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
11/2 is fast approaching
Interesting article in this morning's Union-Leader by Congregationalist leader Rev. David Runnion-Bereford, warning against the upcoming "consecration" of Gene Robinson as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. He brings up some interesting facts. Did you know New Hampshire has the lowest church attendance in the nation? He continues: The congregational churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ are the founding spiritual bodies of most of New England’s towns and villages. Yet our denomination has led the nation in promoting male homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and other folks involved in the behavior of sexual license to ordained ministry and positions of leadership.
The consequences have been devastating. We have lost and continue to lose more members and children on a percentage basis than any other denomination in the United States. Congregations are disaffiliating at a steady rate. Growing numbers refuse to provide any financial support to the denomination. One third of the churches have suffered such decline they can no longer support a full-time pastor and are in danger of closing. There is an acute clergy shortage with fewer than 200 clergy under the age of 40 in the entire denomination.
Much of the spiritual malaise of our state is directly reflective of the indigenous churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ who have sold their birthright in Christ to conform to the moral confusion of a post sexual revolution society.
Quite deplorable, yet unsurprising in so many ways. All eyes will be on Manchester on November 2nd.
Interesting article in this morning's Union-Leader by Congregationalist leader Rev. David Runnion-Bereford, warning against the upcoming "consecration" of Gene Robinson as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. He brings up some interesting facts. Did you know New Hampshire has the lowest church attendance in the nation? He continues: The congregational churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ are the founding spiritual bodies of most of New England’s towns and villages. Yet our denomination has led the nation in promoting male homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and other folks involved in the behavior of sexual license to ordained ministry and positions of leadership.
The consequences have been devastating. We have lost and continue to lose more members and children on a percentage basis than any other denomination in the United States. Congregations are disaffiliating at a steady rate. Growing numbers refuse to provide any financial support to the denomination. One third of the churches have suffered such decline they can no longer support a full-time pastor and are in danger of closing. There is an acute clergy shortage with fewer than 200 clergy under the age of 40 in the entire denomination.
Much of the spiritual malaise of our state is directly reflective of the indigenous churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ who have sold their birthright in Christ to conform to the moral confusion of a post sexual revolution society.
Quite deplorable, yet unsurprising in so many ways. All eyes will be on Manchester on November 2nd.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
I'll let Waugh rest for a bit after this, but BBC 4 has linked up a series of audio clips from a 1960 interview with EW on various aspects of his life. And apparently, they are re-airing a half hour Waugh roundtable discussion this Friday the 31st.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
All Profile, No Courage; All Sail, No Anchor
What I say here about Virginia Postrel's new book The Style of Substance runs two risks. One, I haven't read the book yet, so I have to rely merely on the reviews, trusting they "have the book right." Two, I have looked at so many of these reviews that anything I say begins to look like a literary "Kevin Bacon Game," linking six reviews back to the original book.
That said, David Frum's comments on Postrel's book (himself commenting on George Will's review of the same) brings several things to mind. Postrel writes about how style and design have become the substance of our buying preferences in the past 50 years -- that we purchase cars, toasters, and computers not only because they take us places, make good toast, and create spreadsheets, but because they tell others by how these products look how we want to be seen. Producers are selling, and consumers are buying, purpose and personal identity. As Will writes, Americans are consuming design and designing themselves.
Frum brings up two problems: designer babies and the bioethical problems therein, and artistic decay. This second dilemma he links to Charles Murray's new book bemoaning the decay of art and beauty in a world that does not treasure God. Says Frum, almost nobody in a secularized world can see any reason to sacrifice the rewards of the here-and-now for the artistic vocation. Hence there are no 21st century Michelangelos in a designer world more interested in what the neighbors think of their new Honda than in tending to the salvation of their soul.
Now, finally, where does this leave me? Reading this, I thought of Schumpeter's warning of capitalism's pervasive tendency to "marketize" and rationalize everything, thereby extending the strict economic reasoning that sets prices and wages to social institutions like church and family. In doing so, these institutions come under pressure and scorn as irrational silly relics, held in contempt by intellectuals and economists alike. Yet these institutions are the structure upon which capitalism depends, impressing upon people the value of hard work, diligence, principle, and honesty. Thus in the end, totalistic capitalism tends to undermine itself, and I found myself wondering: Is Postrel's stylistic thesis an example of Schumpeter's and Murray's fear? That without the social and historical non-market foundations pointing us beyond price tags and pay checks, beauty becomes a Brittany Spears' song rather than a Haydn Mass -- that which sells the most and appeals to people's constantly changing feeling of style, rather than that which appeals to our history and common traditions.
Frum continues: But if the idea spreads that there really is no difference – that what say Cezanne did is just a rarified version of what the stylists at Starbucks do – one should not be surprised that potential Cezannes decide to forgo the hardships and risks inherent in the life of the artist and sign up for the certain benefits of working as a stylist. With those who can actually draw or compose a tune or write clever words absconding for work in the style economy, the art world is left empty to be filled up with misfits and weirdos attracted to the life of the artist precisely because of its hardships. We’ve created a world in which those with artistic talents are systematically hired away from artistic vocations – while just about everyone drawn to an artistic vocation lacks basic artistic talents. By "marketizing" everything, including art and music, freeing it from its religious moorings and making it a rational, buyable, consumable extension of personal identity here-and-now, are we destroying our history and social identity? Are we destroying those things that make us a distinct community and allow us to survive as a society?
Julian Johnson's new book, Who Needs Classical Music?, struggles with this idea, that style (commercial success) trumping all other considerations is both historically unique (the pre-1800 world would have thought America nuts by saying all artistic value is personal taste) and thoroughly corrosive. In other words, if style is everything, all value is determined by what sells the most, and in near syllogistic logic, because Brittany Spears sells more than Haydn, her music is more valuable. Johnson writes, [Classical music's] lack of commercial success, following this logic, is de facto proof that it is effectively good for nobody: it has zero value. Peter Hitchins fears the same with his Spectator article a few weeks back, defending the seemingly indefensible BBC -- where would intelligent, historically aware conversation about art, music, or thought be without non-market institutions?
If everything is style and design (and hence fleeting, marketable, and consumable), what is steady and reliable? Where are the cultural and social compass points, the necessary foundation upon which we innovate and create, that point us in fruitful directions and warn us away from the shoals? Personal identity based upon style passes nothing from one generation to the next but outmoded fashions. That is a gloomy and perilous prospect.
What I say here about Virginia Postrel's new book The Style of Substance runs two risks. One, I haven't read the book yet, so I have to rely merely on the reviews, trusting they "have the book right." Two, I have looked at so many of these reviews that anything I say begins to look like a literary "Kevin Bacon Game," linking six reviews back to the original book.
That said, David Frum's comments on Postrel's book (himself commenting on George Will's review of the same) brings several things to mind. Postrel writes about how style and design have become the substance of our buying preferences in the past 50 years -- that we purchase cars, toasters, and computers not only because they take us places, make good toast, and create spreadsheets, but because they tell others by how these products look how we want to be seen. Producers are selling, and consumers are buying, purpose and personal identity. As Will writes, Americans are consuming design and designing themselves.
Frum brings up two problems: designer babies and the bioethical problems therein, and artistic decay. This second dilemma he links to Charles Murray's new book bemoaning the decay of art and beauty in a world that does not treasure God. Says Frum, almost nobody in a secularized world can see any reason to sacrifice the rewards of the here-and-now for the artistic vocation. Hence there are no 21st century Michelangelos in a designer world more interested in what the neighbors think of their new Honda than in tending to the salvation of their soul.
Now, finally, where does this leave me? Reading this, I thought of Schumpeter's warning of capitalism's pervasive tendency to "marketize" and rationalize everything, thereby extending the strict economic reasoning that sets prices and wages to social institutions like church and family. In doing so, these institutions come under pressure and scorn as irrational silly relics, held in contempt by intellectuals and economists alike. Yet these institutions are the structure upon which capitalism depends, impressing upon people the value of hard work, diligence, principle, and honesty. Thus in the end, totalistic capitalism tends to undermine itself, and I found myself wondering: Is Postrel's stylistic thesis an example of Schumpeter's and Murray's fear? That without the social and historical non-market foundations pointing us beyond price tags and pay checks, beauty becomes a Brittany Spears' song rather than a Haydn Mass -- that which sells the most and appeals to people's constantly changing feeling of style, rather than that which appeals to our history and common traditions.
Frum continues: But if the idea spreads that there really is no difference – that what say Cezanne did is just a rarified version of what the stylists at Starbucks do – one should not be surprised that potential Cezannes decide to forgo the hardships and risks inherent in the life of the artist and sign up for the certain benefits of working as a stylist. With those who can actually draw or compose a tune or write clever words absconding for work in the style economy, the art world is left empty to be filled up with misfits and weirdos attracted to the life of the artist precisely because of its hardships. We’ve created a world in which those with artistic talents are systematically hired away from artistic vocations – while just about everyone drawn to an artistic vocation lacks basic artistic talents. By "marketizing" everything, including art and music, freeing it from its religious moorings and making it a rational, buyable, consumable extension of personal identity here-and-now, are we destroying our history and social identity? Are we destroying those things that make us a distinct community and allow us to survive as a society?
Julian Johnson's new book, Who Needs Classical Music?, struggles with this idea, that style (commercial success) trumping all other considerations is both historically unique (the pre-1800 world would have thought America nuts by saying all artistic value is personal taste) and thoroughly corrosive. In other words, if style is everything, all value is determined by what sells the most, and in near syllogistic logic, because Brittany Spears sells more than Haydn, her music is more valuable. Johnson writes, [Classical music's] lack of commercial success, following this logic, is de facto proof that it is effectively good for nobody: it has zero value. Peter Hitchins fears the same with his Spectator article a few weeks back, defending the seemingly indefensible BBC -- where would intelligent, historically aware conversation about art, music, or thought be without non-market institutions?
If everything is style and design (and hence fleeting, marketable, and consumable), what is steady and reliable? Where are the cultural and social compass points, the necessary foundation upon which we innovate and create, that point us in fruitful directions and warn us away from the shoals? Personal identity based upon style passes nothing from one generation to the next but outmoded fashions. That is a gloomy and perilous prospect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)