Peggy, Books, and Why

Peggy Noonan's latest article talks about her prediction that 2009 will be a year that more people are doing more book reading than in years past. I agree with her prediction, but my reason for more reading is not the 'why' of her prediction basis.

She thinks it will be because people will be scaling back their life activities in the wake of severe economic recession - less money, less restaurants, less shopping, less mobile living - traveling, external activities, etc. I agree those are all valid and plausible factors in a general movement to more reading. But...

For me, I am reading more because I am exhausted from the current condition of modern external stimuli - TV mostly is horrific - 24/7 news shows screaming "Breaking News" every 2 minutes on some mundane BS issue; talking heads screaming or sneering at others constantly; all of the reality shows that don't just sink to the lowest common denominator of American Society, they drag the lowest common denominator lower; the parade of despicable politicians across the screens on talk shows, their complete lack of honor and intellect being almost celebrated by the interviewers and the audiences; ... the almost total transformation of communication stimuli into a beeping, blinking fast food menu of images and sound bites that are incomprehensible. Well, I'm turning my back on all of that poison, and immersing myself in erudite essays, historical analysis, political philosophy books by William F. Buckley and his ilk, and well-written 'respectful of the reader's intelligence' novels. I'm having an in depth conversation with a better time with better thought and better discernment - not because I can't afford to engage in modern society's pace (and pathos) but because I'm rejecting modern society's current mental state. Old school would observe that the "world is going to Hell in a handbag", but I think "we're going there on the backs of a Bit Torrent download" better captures it.

Maggie and Sarah

Ode to a Rose, and a Rosebud ...HERE

Merry Christmas to All

May God bless you all

Peggy Noonan - What's Going On With You?

Peggy Noonan has slipped on her rose colored glasses, it seems.

First, she says a new WPA program to rebuild tangible infrastructure as a good way to address the following mindset: "Workers tapped on keyboards and produced work they cannot see, touch or necessarily admire. They’d like to make their country better, and stronger, in a way they can see."

Personally, I'd like to see programs that address real physical and economic NEEDS (and I would add here that much of our economy is morphing into PRECISELY things we cannot touch and see - medical tech, software, chips inside everything, etc), and leave to friends and doctors and others on a personal level the psychologically stroking of people who (this is her second lynchpin) "want to belong to something. If you’re a vibrant member of a church in America, or a casual member of a vibrant church, you’re part of something. If you’re a member of a family that’s together, you are part of something. A lot of Americans do not have these two things."

She makes it sound like the people who don't believe in God or belong to a church (their choice!) are victims that deserve something to belong to, too, and it's the taxpayers' (those 54% of us who will actually pay taxes going forward) responsibility to cough up the dough so these secular nomads can 'have something to belong to, too." Over and over and over, the mantra in today's society is that no one is responsible for doing anything for themselves.

There are churches on every corner (and synagogues, and increasingly mosques). Anyone who doesn't presently belong to a church (or synagogue or mosque) can find and join one in about 10 minutes.

I understand her point to be that a possible byproduct of the new 'jobs program' targeting infrastructure might be a sense of esprit de corps that resulted from our original WPA and WWII and the 60's effort to put a man on the moon. Fine. But let's proceed on the path of a jobs program by demanding that it stand on its own merits, and let byproducts be the tail, not the dog, ok? Peggy, what's wrong with you? Your desire to sway and intone "why can't we all just get along?" is fuzzying your history of conservative principles and thought.

Jimmy Carter as Peter Lorre in Casablanca

Jimmy Carter seeks to meet Hezbollah ... HERE.

But they reportedly refuse.

What a pathetic simp. He reminds me of Peter Lorre in Casablanca, the sniveling worm who is so desparate to have just a sliver of respect from Rick (Humphrey Bogart) and of course, doesn't get it. When he becomes despondent, he asks Rick "You despise me, don't you, Rick?" And just when you think that's the low point for Peter, it gets even worse when Rick replies (never looking up from his paperwork) "If I bothered to think about you at all, I would."

And so Jimmy ... can't even get some of the most vile scourge on the planet to give him any respect, which just about makes it unanimous.


Hat tip to Michael Rubin at NRO The Corner.

I can already hear the press conference later this week

Obama: "This is not the Rod Blagojevich I knew ..."

Syria, Nukes, and Media Worship of "the Process"

It's amazing that nothing at all is heard about the Israeli bomb strike on Syria's hidden nuclear reactor earlier this year. As Christopher Hitchens remarks (full article HERE) "The Syrian and Pakistani situations are a great deal more similar than most people have any interest in pointing out. In both cases, there is a state within the state that exerts the real parallel power and possesses the reserve strength. In both cases, official "secularism" is a mask (as it also was with the Iraqi Baathists) for the state sponsorship of theocratic and cross-border gangster groups like Lashkar and Hezbollah. In both cases, an unknown quantity of nuclear assets are at the disposal of the official and banana republic state and also very probably of elements within the unofficial and criminal and terrorist one. (It is of huge and unremarked significance that Syria did not take the recent Israeli bombing of its hidden reactor to the United Nations or make any other public complaint.)

Infrastructure - Gotta Hit the Ball

M,

This post by Rich Lowry at NRO, below and HERE, addresses our discussion yesterday about addressing a new push in updating/upgrading/expanding the USA physical infrastructure. It highlights, I think, the challenges that will confront Congress about what exactly should be the focus of the money - like a batter, you gotta swing the bat, but you also have to swing it in the right spot. Hopefully Congress will 'get that', and the whole thing won't devolve into a bunch of 'pork wrestling' turf fights among Congressman.
lks

Infrastructure [Rich Lowry]

Bob Poole is the Director of Transportation Studies at the Reason Foundation. Here is a bit from his latest newsletter:


The last time this country had a major debate over the role of infrastructure in the economy was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. One of the main voices in that debate was David Aschauer, who made the controversial claim that public capital investment was more economically productive than capital investment by the private sector (e.g., in new facilities, computers, etc.). Many scholars took issue with his thesis, and indeed the decade of the 1990s witnessed two key trends: an explosion in private-sector productivity thanks to the full integration of computers and the internet into business practice and the continued decline in the productivity of highway investment.


A paper from the end of that era was cited recently in congressional testimony by the National Association of Manufacturers. In 1996 Ishaq Nadiri and Theofanis Mamuneas did econometric modeling to assess the “Contribution of Highway Capital to Industry and National Productivity Growth,” funded by the Federal Highway Administration. Their September 1996 paper found that the level of highway capital (and especially of National Highway System capital) does contribute significantly to economic growth and productivity­but at a much smaller level than in previous studies (such as Aschauer’s). And they found that the impact of private capital investment (in industry) is about four times that of highway capital investment, again, contra Aschauer. But what I found especially interesting was their finding about the marginal benefit of highway investment. Here, they found that while it is positive overall, its main benefit is to manufacturing industries (and is actually negative for some service industries). Moreover, like most of the literature, they found that the net social rate of return on highway capital investment was about 35% in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Interstate system was being constructed, but declined to around 10% in the 1980s and since then (up to the mid-1990s, when they were writing this) has converged to about the long-term rate of interest.


As I’ve written elsewhere about similar findings, I don’t agree that this means there is no case for further investment in highway infrastructure. What today’s single-digit return on investment says is that much of what we spend on highways is not targeted to projects that can make a big difference­such as widening truck-clogged Interstate corridors and adding congestion-priced express lanes to gridlocked freeways. Instead, most of it funds lots of small stuff that keeps the wheels turning (and people employed) but doesn’t add much, if anything, to economic productivity.


And that is why I can’t get excited about transportation stimulus bills. Or about significantly increasing the size of the federal program in the next reauthorization bill­without fundamentally reforming how we decide to invest those funds.


12/08 02:34 PM

It's About Terrorists/Nukes, Stupid

As Thomas Sowell elucidates HERE, our government's top job - no matter who is President - is to keep Americans safe, and the pass/fail litmus test for that will be preventing "terrorists/terrorist states" from getting nukes. As he points out, just 2 nukes brought Japan to their knees in surrender. What would most Americans do in the wake of a nuclear bomb explosion in NYC or Chicago or Los Angeles?

Greg Maddux to Retire

Articles HERE. and HERE.

Greg Maddux encapsulated just about everything that is good about being a professional (in any endeavor). His consistent application of character-to-task personifies the person we all aspire to be, the person we want our kids to aspire to be, the person we want our political leaders to be. The consummate pro, without peer in his professional skill, without peer in his "walk-the-character walk."

In 1995, Sports Illustrated put him on the cover and proclaimed "The Best Right-Handed Pitcher You'll Ever See." That he was. His career was a sustained virtuoso performance - a symphony of talent and preparation. But my favorite memory is an off-the-field moment (and a demonstration of his intelligence and humbleness in using wry, subtle humor to deflect accolades or the temptation to hubris): In an interview with Roy Firestone on HBO some years ago, Roy waxed hyperbolic about Maddux's legendary control over his pitches - his unequaled ability to pinpoint the ball to exact locations to exploit a particular weakness of any given batter - and asked him to explain why he was so good at it. Maddux - with just a hint of a grin tugging at the corner of his mouth, deadpanned "Well ... I mean ... it's only 60 feet." Perfect...

Thanks, Greg. You were so good, and we were so lucky.

For the record, I concede that Obama was born in Hawaii

I've seen compelling evidence from different places - e.g. www.factcheck.org - to convince me that Obama has convincing documentation that proves his birth in Hawaii (although I still think the original digital doc offered on Daily Kos was a fake). Sigh ....

Jim Manzi and his Penchant for Quilts

The weave running through the Jim Manzi tapestry is all about stitching a majority, a coalition of tradeoffs or add ons. I see that pattern in his posts on seemingly random subjects. I sense he is, at heart, a negotiator. That's not a bad thing, sometimes. But it's not a good thing all the time, either. Sometimes "let's shake and be friends" is called for, but sometimes when the transgression is great enough, it's just over. I think he's wrong on the thrust of his point about tactical alliances with the likes of Andrew Sullivan. Of course, the acceptability levels of standards vary with the level of "direness" of one's situation (our alliance with Stalin, for example).

Is the conservative situation so dire that we have to run make nice with Andrew? How much are we willing to sell of our soul to be a contender again?

Orwellian - Free Speech under Attack

from NRO's The Corner ... "Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, has engaged six students as conversation police. The actual, even creepier term is “facilitators,” and the particular facilitations they will perform concern monitoring the speech of their classmates in the university’s residence halls. Should students be engaged in politically incorrect speech, and should a facilitator overhear them, then he ­ we beg your pardon: s/he ­ will step in to correct the offenders. Interviewed by the Toronto Globe and Mail, one of these facilitators explained that his interventions will help “to create an atmosphere of inclusivity.” An atmosphere of fearful silence punctuated with outbursts of rancor and litigation seems more probable. The adjective “Orwellian” has been seriously overworked, but nothing else fits here."

M: Oh that should work well......not......it's going to spur people to spout off.......damn sure would have that effect on me!!!!

Me: not if you're paying big bucks for tuition and one of your professors sits on the review board. Free speech (i.e. freedom itself - first of the mind, then of the body) is under attack. It's surreal.

M: well shut my mouth......NEVER!!!!

Me: it's no different from the internal calculus that you use to decide just how forthright to be with your opinions in workplace. You don't say some things - that you think - at the office because you don't want to get fired or sued.

It'll be no different on these college campuses. These students (and their parents who pay the tuition) will be intimidated to 'speak their mind' for fear of retribution in the form of lower grades, perhaps having negatives placed in their academic file that will prevent them from getting into the grad school of their choice, or just being ostracized by the 'liberal majority of students'.

Once the prevailing wind is to muzzle people's free speech, then to exercise free speech is to accept that you'll have to pay a real personal price for it (loss of job, loss of academic choices, etc). Free speech is paid for by our Founding Fathers and our soldiers - normal citizens shouldn't have to pay personal costs to exercise what has already been paid for by the bravery and sacrifice of others. In a way, it's 'stealing from our dead heroes'.

We've all lost real measures of freedoms over the last 25 years, and that pace is only going to accelerate.

I agree with you, though, that the first step to stem the tide is for people to 'Not. Shut. Their. Mouths.'

M: at least it's in Ontario....whatever happens in eastern Canada does not particularly concern me, as even the folks in western Canada would like to split off from the bunch of wackos that reside in the east side of the country.....maybe we can form a new country and include western Canada and let eastern Canada hook up with the liberal states here.....brilliant!

Me: not out of the realm of possibility!

Unfortunately, that kind of Orwellian insanity will insinuate itself here, too, over time. We might not live long enough to see it on a daily basis, but our kids will. Ick!

I bought your book!

Jonah,

I'm making a gameplan for the coming year that will keep me from being in front of the TV too much and getting too much irritating visible Obama input. Much of that gameplan revolves around soaking up 'the good stuff' - thought provoking, educating, intelligent discourse of how things - humans, events, movements - actually are.

That, of course, eliminates the MSM - TV and print - so what to do?

To that end, I've made NRO my homepage; am a subscriber and contributor of course; have accumulated a tremendous number of books by WFB; have accumulated about 20 dvd episodes of Firing Line; and also now your book, which I am very much looking forward to reading.

Congrats on the excellent reviews. I'll give you feedback after reading it. Thanks for your efforts!!

Larry
Laus Deo

Happiness

Kathryn,

regarding your 'thoughts from Georgetown' post on the Corner ... I would
comment that studies show that liberals are less happy than
conservatives. So if liberals are gaining in numbers, then it follows
that the world is becoming a less happy place, and we'll see more and more
evidence of the sort you describe.

A correlate: people parrot what they see on TV and read in the MSM papers
- so the relentless onslaught of bashing of free enterprise and
conservative principles inevitably results in the pseudo thinkers walking
around parroting the MSM party line.

A second correlate: "happy" people don't look knee-jerkedly to government
for solutions. So if you want to grow government control over free
peoples' lives, first you have to make them less happy .... thus the
constant stream of
hysteria/crisis-of-the-day!!!/negativity/there-are-no-heroes/etc.

--
LKS
lksseven@gmail.com
Laus Deo
http://front-toward-enemy.blogspot.com

Newsweek cover

Kathryn,

No thinking person - Republican or Democrat (and that includes some
Democrats) - gives serious consideration to a publication like Newsweek.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Newsweek doesn't have gobs of readers (and in the logical ensuing conclusion is the pity).

"How to Fix the World" ..... good gaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd!

Laus Deo

Obama's citizenship status - open letter to Mr. Franck

Mr. Franck,

Hello. In response to your NRO blog entry HERE. It seems to me it's not up to "someone else to show that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil." I believe the US Constitution stipulates that each President must be a natural born US citizen. Correct? If so, then the burden of proof falls to the Presidential candidate to "prove" that he/she is eligible to be President.

Logical argument:
- the law says I can't buy liquor unless I'm 21 years old.
- I want to buy liquor.
- Therefore, I must provide proof that I am at least 21 years old (no one is required to "prove" that I'm not 21). If I cannot provide that proof, then the liquor store is legally bound to deny me the purchase of liquor.

Likewise ....
- the law says I can't be President unless I'm a natural born US citizen
- I want to be a Presidential candidate
- Therefore, I must provide proof that I am a natural born US citizen. If I cannot provide such proof, then the US is legally bound to deny me the privilege of running for or actually being President.

The logic seems pretty straight forward to me.

Also, the proof should be readily available to any US citizen who wishes to see it.

Laus Deo