Maggie's Farm

Malanga on the cost of local government:

"The pensions for which taxpayers must now foot the bill far outshine what many of those same taxpayers in the private sector receive. In New Jersey, for instance, a 62-year-old state employee who retires after 25 years gets 50 percent more in yearly pension payments than an employee retiring with the same salary from the Camden, New Jersey plant of Campbell Soup, a Fortune 500 company, according to the Asbury Park Press. In addition, the state employee receives free health insurance for life to supplement Medicare, while full health benefits for private-sector retirees are now rare. In California, a public employee with 30 years of service can retire at 55 with 60 percent of his salary, and public-safety workers can get 90 percent of their salary at age 50. By contrast to these rich payouts, the small (and shrinking) number of private firms that still provide “defined benefit” pension plans—instead of the now-common “defined contribution” plans that transfer all risk to the worker—pay on average 45 percent after 30 years of service."

Red entire in City Journal

When hurt by a friend

Mark Roberts:

"Yet bringing my feelings of betrayal to God has helped me to see something else, something distressing, but necessary to see. I've come to realize how much my own unfaithfulness to God has hurt Him. For most of my life I've thought of my sin as dishonoring God (which it does) and deserving His wrath (which it does). But the experience of a friend's betrayal has helped me to see that that God of the Universe, in addition to judging my sin, is also pained by it. The God who has sought me out in Jesus Christ grieves when I reject Him in favor of lesser gods, even as Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41; see also Ephesians 4:30). This realization has quickened my desire to remain in relationship with God and to honor Him in all that I do. Thus, ironically and mercifully, God has used injury from a friend to deepen my faith and strengthen my relationship with Him."

Wow. Read entire: Mark Roberts. A good blog: One True God Blog.

The Bill of Rights

It's time for me to re-read them.

The Left and the Military

Lieven in his review of Bacevitch's new book: The New American Militarism, in the excellent London Review of Books, suggests an approach for the American Left in which they can be both pro-military, and anti-imperialism. Lieven assumes that the war in Iraq is an imperialistic enterprise, which I believe is an error, unless he seeks to re-define imperialism as intellectual or cultural imperialism rather than territorial: I do not believe that the US wants to occupy Iraq, but that we want outta there ASAP. And Lieven, and Bacevitch, see Iraq as evidence of American "militarism" - which I do not: one data point does not make a pattern.

The US is in Iraq in an effort to stabilize and civilize the Middle East by creating a successful popular government which hopefully will not threaten the US, or aid enemies of the US. I believe that is an entirely justifiable and worthy and debatably moral use of force by a great power which is facing a global battle with an imperialistic Jihadist movement which has already made great inroads in Europe (via immigration/invasion) and around the world, but only time will tell whether the theory works. I hope it works: the Left hopes it won't.

One further word about that "imperialism" word: When, since our own Civil War (definitely an imperialist venture), the Indian Wars, and the Spanish-American War, has the US Government behaved imperialistically? We have been mainly anti-imperialist in our military ventures: saving Europe from imperial Germany twice, defeating an imperialist and expansionist Japan once (with no thank-you from China), and attempting to save many parts of the world from an imperialist, expansionist Soviet Union. And now, we are anti-imperialistic against a multi-national Jihadist movement. The Marxist propaganda, or Marxist "interpretation", does not hold up to reality.

Like many Leftists, Lieven concludes his piece by suggesting that the US reduce its military potency, which is of course what Bill (Make love, not war) Clinton did as President, and become isolationist. Why do "progressives" always want to disarm themselves in a dangerous world? I think that is the key question. Read the piece and see what you think.

Update: See further comments posted on Tues, Oct. 25

Loss and Grace: A good piece by Dr. Bob

Compassion as a way of life: "What would it look like if we could see others as Jesus see them? How would our daily interactions be different?" Real Meal.

The War against Bush

The Dems have been on a ruthless and relentless campaign to destroy the Bush administration since the first election. As unseemly as it has been, it's not much worse than the shameful efforts to destroy Clinton. In my opinion, there is loyal opposition, and there is war. Politics can be rough, but it shouldn't descend to war, because it is bad for the country, sets an ugly example, and turns people off to the issues.

Steyn addresses this ongoing war, and its failures:

Any port in a storm, especially after the storm has passed. I said in the Telegraph the other day that the minute Hurricane Katrina hit, the media started scampering around like Munchkins singing ‘Ding Dong, The Bush Is Dead’. They always do, and it always fails. In terms of destroying Bush and the Republicans, Katrina was a total bust. In so far as it has any political impact, it’s likely to make Louisiana less Democrat. That’s it. So the problem remains: how to slay Bush. And if this last week is anything to go by, it looks like Democrats are going to be denied that pleasure...

Read entire.

Colleges to Avoid

Mike Adams, Part One and Part Two

Not very quotable, but a powerful and provocative statement from Teddy Roosevelt:

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

Constitution: Dead or Alive?

Balkin has a piece in Slate claiming that no-one really believes in a dead, or static, Constitution. I think he's made a straw man here to make some points, but it's an interesting piece: 

The specific metaphor of a living, evolving Constitution arose in the 1920s to explain how a broad view of federal power that came with World War I (and later, the New Deal) was consistent with the American constitutional tradition. The Constitution's words, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in 1920, "called into life a being" whose "development … could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters." Hence we must interpret our Constitution "in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago."

Read entire.

The Repubs Blew It - Ignatius: Click here: How the Republicans Let It Slip Away

No they didn't - Hinderaker.

From Barone, on Dem Strategy (H/T, Instapundit):

"It is one of the interesting things about today's politics that most Democrats seem to have forgotten the lessons that Bill Clinton taught. Clinton's brand of Democratic governance was not as successful as some Democrats like to think: He was re-elected with just 49 percent of the vote in 1996 and his vice president won just 48 percent of the vote in 2000. And during the Clinton years, the Democratic percentages of the popular vote for the House of Representatives fell to 45 percent in 1994, 48.5 percent in 1996, and 49 percent in 1998 and 2000. The Democratic vote for president and House converged, at levels just below 50 percent. But Clinton and Gore did win popular vote pluralities in three straight presidential elections—something it was by no means clear in 1989 that Democratic nominees would do. And they did it because they followed much of Galston's and Kamarck's advice. So it is worthwhile, for Democrats and all of us, to pay attention to what they have to say now."

Read entire.

Robert Samuelson considers the Wealth Effect

Another must-read by the Newsweek columnist:

Ours is a wealth-driven era, when huge increases in home values and (before that) stock prices make people feel richer and cause them to buy more. They spend more of their regular incomes, borrow more or sell something, most likely stocks. You can imagine this "wealth effect" as a powerful afterburner that's boosted the economy for roughly 20 years.

Read entire.

Schelling and Aumann

Two Nobel winners who well-deserve it. Tyler writes it better than I do, here. Scroll down to read it all.

Auster on Miers and Bush

"Exactly like his pa, W knew that conservatives’ support was his ticket to the White House, so he set about courting them. He put on a much bigger and better conservative act than his father had done, but, just like his father, he never meant any of it, he never even liked the conservatives, he resented them and their constant demands that he live up to his pledges to them which he had never meant anyway."

Scathing. Read entire.

Bush needs to be taken to the woodshed

No doubt. Apparently his lousy polls are due to losing conservative support. He never had much liberal support to lose, did he? Hoagland at WaPo: Click here: A President in Need of a Blunt Friend

Gandhi and Hitler

Norm Geras' piece on non-violent resistance has attracted quite a bit of blog interest. Which Norm does deserve, but hasn't it always been clear that non-violence only works in Anglo-Saxon-derived cultures where conscience and Judeo-Christian religious ideals are embedded in both culture and government? Norm's piece here.

VDH on University Presidents:

More importantly, we have lost sight of what university presidents are supposed to be. Their first allegiance ought to be to honesty and truth, not campus orthodoxy masquerading as intellectual bravery amid a supposedly reactionary society. In a world of intellectual integrity, Robert Birgeneau would ask, "Why are Asians excelling, and what can Berkeley do to encourage emulation of their success by other ethnic groups?" Denice Denton might wonder whether open hiring, monitored by affirmative action officers, applies to university staff or only those who are not associates of the president. President Hoffman would decry Ward Churchill's crass behavior and order a complete review of affirmative action and the politicized nature of hiring, retention, and tenure practices at Colorado. And Larry Summers? In the old world of the campus, he would defend free inquiry and expression, and remind faculty that all questions are up for discussion at Harvard. And if self-appointed censors wished to fire him for that, then he would dare them to go ahead and try.

The signs of erosion on our campuses are undeniable, whether we examine declining test scores, spiraling costs, or college graduates' ignorance of basic facts and ideas. In response, our academic leadership is not talking about a more competitive curriculum, higher standards of academic accomplishment, or the critical need freely to debate important issues. Instead, it remains obsessed with a racial, ideological, and sexual spoils system called "diversity." Even as the airline industry was deregulated in the 1970s, and Wall Street now has come under long-overdue scrutiny, it is time for Americans, if we are to ensure our privileged future, to re-examine our era's politicized university.

Read entire.  Thanks for the tip, Instapundit

A Plan for Fisheries

Reasonableness finally enters the subject of preserving fisheries, and the Bush admin. is on the right side. The Commons.

A Festival of Excellent Essays

1. Star Parker takes issue with Bush's blaming racial discrimination for black poverty, here. One sentence:

The truth about black poverty today, as Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute has aptly put it, is that it is "intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city."

2. Leftist Taboos - What we are not allowed to say (except on blogs), where we say what we think. And the Presumption of Incompetence, coming from our betters. Chantrill at American Thinker:

The taboos of the welfare state mount a bodyguard of silence to protect this sacred totem, the Presumption of Helplessness.  When Barbara Bush incautiously observes that the helpless refugees of New Orleans are doing fine in Houston, she is suggesting they might be able to shift for themselves.  When John Roberts equivocates on Roe v. Wade he is genuflecting before the power of the sisters.  When candidate Angela Merkel proposes a flat tax, she disturbs the tangled system that guides the German people in making life choices approved by their betters. As long as the liberal taboos on race and abortion still have the power to shame, then liberals are still ahead in the culture war.

Read entire.

3. Ben Stein wrote about the Katrina media riot. VDH does it, without humor:

For all the media's efforts to turn the natural disaster of New Orleans into either a racist nightmare, a death knell for one or the other political parties or an indictment of American culture at large, it was none of that at all. What we did endure instead were slick but poorly educated journalists, worried not about truth but about preempting their rivals with an ever more hysterical story, all in a fuzzy context of political correctness about race, the environment and the war.

Read entire.

4. Powerline's Mirengoff and Johnson take on the influence of Hegel, via Wilson, on the Supreme Court and the Fed Govt in general:

How did the metaphysical speculation of a 19th century German historicist, whose teachings were congenial to Marxists but are anathema to modern analytic and positivist philosophers--as well as proponents of the Constitution as originally understood--come to influence our constitutional law? The answer lies in the concept of the "living constitution"--and in the influence of Woodrow Wilson.

Worth reading.

Guns and Hunting

Two sites: An intelligent rifle website. And Deer Hunting.com.

Disaster Politics, etc.

I have already done my rant. Better writers have written better on the subject of using a natural disaster as material for a low-life political gotcha game, below.

1. Jack Wheeler has it right:

What’s the difference between a disaster and an election in New Orleans?
-The buses run during an election.

Why isn’t New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin worried about all the dead people being found in Katrina’s aftermath?
-Because they’ll keep right on voting anyway.

Tasteless? Here’s what really tasteless: Cleaning up New Orleans physically without cleaning it up politically. Not draining New Orleans’ political cesspool of organized crime and corruption. Not evacuating Mayor Ray Nagin and every city official and police officer on the take before they get their greasy hands on all those billions of taxpayer dollars to rebuild the place.

Read the whole amusing thing at To The Point

2. And neo-neocon has a thoughtful take on the cynicism of journalists, who assume self-interest is all conservatives have in mind:

I don't recall any of the newspapers of my youth ever taking a Katrina-like tragedy or an attack and analyzing either of them in terms of how they affected the rise and fall of each party, and how each party was deciding to use the disaster/attack to its political advantage. It seems to be something that has cropped up in the last few decades only. When did we become so strategic in our thinking; when did journalists begin to resemble sports commentators, concentrating on ongoing play-by-play analyses of who is going to win the game?

Read her whole piece here.

3. And the masterful Steyn:

These days, the Republicans are the party of small government and the party of big government, and the party of all points in between. The Democrats, meanwhile, are the party of emotive know-nothings, the go-to guys for soap-operatic sobbing and righteous histrionics. You can understand why the 24-hour cable-news networks love the Dems. Just stick a camera in front of New Orleans's Mayor Nagin: "To those who would criticise, where the hell were you?" he roared the other day. "Where the hell were you?" In a town you're not the mayor of, happily. That's how most Americans react. But the media think, wow, this is great television, he really socks it to Bush. And, if life were an especially bad daytime soap, he would. But ask Democrats for specifics and they're either as blank as Mrs Pelosi or as mired in their ancient tropes as Jesse Jackson, who demanded Bush appoint more high-ranking blacks to the hurricane relief effort. Charges of Republican "racism" rang particularly hollow in the context of New Orleans, where sodden blacks might be better advised to ponder what they have to show for being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party for four decades.

His entire humorous and penetrating piece here.

Annie Get Your Gun

Eric uses the example of Katrina to explain why having firearms around the house can be essential for self-protection during civil emergencies. Once the emergency begins, it will be too late to buy them. Here.

Nice example of handy-dandy household firearm at right.

Globalism, Thomas Friedman, and Karl Marx

John Gray reviews Friedman's The World is Flat in the NY Review of Books:

The belief that a process of globalization is underway which is bringing about a fundamental change in human affairs is not new. Marx and Engels expressed it in 1848, when they wrote in a justly celebrated passage in The Communist Manifesto:

All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with his sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.... It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

Read the whole thing. It's about "market utopianism," and makes some provocative points albeit, I feel, against a straw man.

Taize

I see the Farmer mentioned heading off to Taize, which I have visited but I never could find words adequate to describe the experience. (I haven't met The Farmer, but I cannot picture him at Taize.) What I can recommend is their music. Here's one review from Amazon from a Mr. A. Hogan, an articulate fellow from Brooklyn:

Hyperbole notwithstanding, this is simply the purest prayer available in recording in the Western tradition (outside of Gregorian or Ambrosian Chant and Orthodox Chant). Taize, dubbed by JOHN XXIII (of blessed memory) as "that little springtime" has been re-connecting young people for 50 years to the sacred simplicity of early Christianity with its emphasis on prayer, hospitality and commonality. These songs here, very simple phrases repeated over and again, are meditative and achingly beautiful. From the opening BLESS THE LORD to the final stirring notes of cantante domino, this is deeply moving and almost pure in its essence. If music can improve a person, this will. Humbling.

Indeed, as Instapundit would say.