Saturday, July 12. 2008
From Dr. Roy Spenser's excellent site, via piece at Am Thinker titled New Hope for Global Warming Deniers: 
Friday, July 11. 2008
As our News Junkie has noted in a link to Ed Driscoll, the Left has been behaving in ways that seem oddly, well, conservative in recent years. This behavior has been especially pronounced in the area of agriculture, where the fanatical opposition to genetic engineering, antibiotic feed additives and modern methods of farming and animal husbandry seems bizarrely Luddite for a faction which likes to wear the badge of science on its chest when shouting down evangelicals.  Take Michael Pollan's recent book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, where the left-wing New Yorker, anti-corporate and anti-factory-farm Pollan finds his utopia not in some Berkeley commune or fetishized indigenous village, but on a Virginia farm - not too far from Monticello, incidentally - run by a right-wing Christian fellow. The anti-corporate and pro-animal welfare concerns of the left and the anti-government, pro-traditionalist views of the right approach each other and, for an instant, cross paths. In its hurried dash away from big agriculture, the Left does not run into Karl Marx, but into Thomas Jefferson and the image of the virtuous republican farmer, tending to his fields and animals without help from nitrogen fertilizer, tomatoes from Monsanto, or growth-promoting antibiotics.
In this ideological battle, the anti-agribusiness left has aspired to portray itself as latter day Jeffersonian faction, fighting the perceived intrusion of the Hamiltonian merchant and manufacturing class into the livelihood of the free and independent farmer. If it sounds too absurd to be true, consider Jefferson’s own articulation of the plight of the farmer versus that of the manufacturer: “Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. .... Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phaenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on casualties and caprice of customers. Dependance begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” –Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787
This statement seems hardly relevant at a time when less than two percent of Americans make their living through farming, and where those few remaining farmers are totally dependant on products designed by scientists and supplied by manufacturers. Even at the time Jefferson was writing it may have seemed more romantic wishfulness than sound economic reasoning. Today’s “Conservative Left,” however, seems determined not just to stop the clock, as Jefferson wished to do, but to grab hold of the hands and turn it back. Many technological advancements are spurned as being tools of corporate control, while the appeal to nature is invoked frequently to justify the adoption of traditional farming methods. The libertarian successor to Jefferson merely wishes to be able to run his family farm as he wishes without burdensome federal regulations which disadvantage small farms and traditional methods. He does not seek to impose his farming methods on others. The conservative leftist, on the other hand, like his forebears, tends to view things in revolutionary terms, with a creeping capitalism as the age-old enemy. Rarely discussed are the potentially catastrophic consequences of serious state tampering with modern agricultural methods. The rather poor record of the Left in implementing agricultural revolutions during the past century – comrade Mugabe, in Zimbabwe, being only the latest in an undistinguished chain – does not inspire much confidence. Where the two points of view do overlap, and the Conservative Leftist meets the nature-loving, self-sufficient Libertarian or Conservative, there are actually worthwhile insights. Michael Pollan’s work is an good starting point for these, and rather than continue, I will defer to his excellent book, linked above. For the moment, though, a few words from Joel Salatin, whose Staunton, VA farm was the object of Pollan's admiration: "I don’t ask for a dime of government money. I don’t ask for government accreditation. I don’t want to register my animals with a global positioning tattoo. I don’t want to tell officials the names of my constituents. And I sure as the dickens don’t intend to hand over my firearms. I can’t even use the “U” word. On every side, our paternalistic culture is tightening the noose around those of us who just want to opt out of the system — and it is the freedom to opt out that differentiates tyrannical and free societies.How a culture deals with its misfits reveals its strength. The stronger a culture, the less it fears the radical fringe. The more paranoid and precarious a culture, the less tolerance it offers." -Joel Salatin, Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal!, 2003.
Monday, July 7. 2008
Samizdata used that word in an amusing bit, so I would venture to guess that it is a Libertarian term. It captures some of the religious-like faith some place in their governmental masters and institutions. I need to add that word to my lexicon.
Sunday, July 6. 2008
 Remarkable tennis today. Much more interesting than the men's tennis during the Sampras years. Today's match will be long-remembered. The Spanish are celebrating tonight, for sure. But to get to my main point -
Besides possibly helping to provide a minor degree of economic independence from the big oil nations, is there any logic behind biofuel? This question came up in conversation last night, when it was mentioned that the demand for biofuel may be driving up the cost of food, and even causing third-world starvation. One person mentioned the notion that biofuels are somehow greener and less polluting because they come from plants. Of course, the current geological consensus is that oil comes from plants too, but that's another topic. How much do biofuels pollute? I took a quick unscientific glance around the 'nets during the rain delay: Biofuels may produce more greenhouse gases than oil Biodiesel: How much pollution does it really create? Biofuel backlash: High prices, pollution worries hit consumers According to researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy, almost all the biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels, if the full environmental cost of producing them is factored in.
I think the message is that, even if you consider CO2 a "pollutant" (which I do not), and even if you consider global warming a planetary crisis (which I do not), the only convincing rationale for subsidizing biofuels with our taxes and with our higher food prices (a hidden tax) is a geopolitical one.
Friday, July 4. 2008
 A good day to remember what these good folks do for us.
God bless 'em all.
Wednesday, July 2. 2008
 The Supreme Count in its landmark case District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller is a limited victory for opponents of gun control laws, affirming a right to keep a handgun in the home for defensive purposes.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment . . . was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts . . . held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
It is therefore probable that state “shall issue” laws and other concealed weapon “carry” laws are discretionary, and not supported by the Second Amendment.
Next, “assault weapon” laws which ban ownership of semi-automatic rifles because they are ugly or scary-looking are clearly supported by Heller.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
. . . weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned . . ..
Looking at Part III of the Heller decision, we can see the future of gun control efforts: The clause allowing “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” could well be taken as permitting registration of purchased firearms, limitations on quantities owned and possibly buyer qualification (such as requiring drivers licenses for cars). Of course, gun advocates have long feared registration as a pre-cursor to confiscation (as happened in Australia), but that fear is substantially reduced by Heller. We have registered our SUV, but do not fear the state confiscating it. Furthermore, in view of the individual right to bear arms affirmed by Heller, an argument may be made that having an inventory of individually-owned firearms in the hands of the State may inhibit the right of possession, much as requiring publications critical of whatever administration is currently in power to be sent to and registered with a central bureau. Heller therefore is a narrow decision permitting handguns to be kept at home for defensive purposes, and should not be read as securing a broad right to hunt or even to carry arms for any non-defensive purpose. Photo: A Browning M2 machine gun, still not available for home defense.
Monday, June 30. 2008
As quoted at Evangelical Outpost from an interview with the superb Roger Scruton, titled The Market and Human Nature: MG: What deleterious consequences result from the "free market ideology" you mention? Are there particular economic arrangements that conservatives ought to prefer? Scruton: The free market is a necessary part of any stable community, and the arguments for maintaining it as the core of economic life were unanswerably set out by Ludwig von Mises. Hayek developed the arguments further, in order to offer a general defense of "spontaneous order", as the means to produce and maintain socially necessary knowledge. As Hayek points out, there are many varieties of spontaneous order that exemplify the epistemic virtues that he values: the common law is one of them, so too is ordinary morality. The problem for conservatism is to reconcile the many and often conflicting demands that these various forms of life impose on us. The free-market ideologues take one instance of spontaneous order, and erect it into a prescription for all the others. They ask us to believe that the free exchange of commodities is the model for all social interaction. But many of our most important forms of life involve withdrawing what we value from the market: sexual morality is an obvious instance, city planning another. (America has failed abysmally in both those respects, of course.) Looked at from the anthropological point of view religion can be seen as an elaborate (and spontaneous) way in which communities remove what is most precious to them (i.e. all that concerns the creation and reproduction of community) from the erosion of the market. A cultural conservative, such as I am, supports that enterprise. I would put the point in terms that echo Burke and Chesterton: the free market provides the optimal solution to the competition among the living for scarce resources; but when applied to the goods in which the dead and the unborn have an interest (sex, for instance) it wastes what must be saved.
Hayek's concept of "spontaneous order" is what knocks me out. The world is manifestly full of that kind of mysterious order, from the nature of the cosmos to human nature (aka "design" as opposed to chaos), and I'd love to post a lengthy riff on that enticing topic - but it's too late tonight and I avoid discussing transcendent issues here on Ye olde Blogge. So, instead, I'll post of photo from our men's Bible study group's prayer-and-cocktails-and-sunset dinner-and-cigar outing tonight, down on Long Island Sound. The very existence of our group is an example of "spontaneous order," one tiny example of the order in the universe which I believe to be a manifestation of God. I wish I could post a photo of this cheery, self-disparaging, Christ-centered and humorous group, each one waving a fine ceegar with a glass of wine in his hand - but I wouldn't do that. Nice boat. Thanks, bro, for taking us all out on the water tonight. The sea brings me close to Christ. It reminds me of how much of Scripture takes place on or near the water. 
Part 3 of Sowell's The Imitators series begins like this: Some of the people who are most adamant against outsourcing economic activity from the United States to other countries often seem to think we should outsource our foreign policy to "world opinion" or act only in conjunction "with our NATO allies." Like so many things that are said when it comes to public policy, there is very little attention paid to the actual track record of "world opinion" or of "our NATO allies."
When reflecting on my re-post yesterday on Lionel Trilling, I realized that I had neglected to reference what is perhaps his most-read work, The Liberal Imagination. It's still worth reading: “The Liberal Imagination (1950) applied the dialectical method to cultural themes by exploring the ways in which literary masterworks deflated the pieties of trendy left-wing politics. Trilling, who identified himself as a liberal, called for a new kind of criticism that 'might find its most useful work not in confirming liberalism in its sense of general rightness but rather in putting under some degree of pressure the liberal ideas and assumptions of the present time.' That statement was almost a blueprint, or prophecy, of the neoconservative creed.” –The New York Times
And my allusion to Jacques Barzun, who as far as I know is still alive and retired in Texas, reminded me to reference his sweeping book, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life 1500-Present. Via Amazon: From Publishers Weekly Now 92, Barzun, the renowned cultural critic, historian and former Columbia provost and professor, offers much more than a summation of his life's work in this profound, eloquent, often witty historical survey. A book of enormous riches, it's sprinkled with provocations. For example, Barzun contradicts Max Weber, arguing that the Protestant Reformation did not galvanize the capitalist spirit. With feminist ardor, he depicts the 16th century as molded and directed by women "as brilliant as the men, and sometimes more powerful" (e.g., Queens Elizabeth and Isabella). His eclectic synthesis is organized around a dozen or so themes--including emancipation, abstraction and individualism--that in his judgment define the modern era. Barzun keeps up the momentum with scores of snappy profiles, including of Luther, Erasmus, Cromwell, Mozart, Rousseau and Byron, as well as of numerous unsung figures such as German educator Friedrich Froebel, inventor of kindergarten, and turn-of-the-century American pioneer ecologist George Marsh. Other devices help make this tome user-friendly--the margins are chock-full of quotes, while vignettes of Venice in 1650, Weimar in 1790 and Chicago in 1895 give a taste of the zeitgeist. In Barzun's glum estimate, the late 20th century has brought decadence into full bloom--separatism in all forms, apathetic electorates, amoral art that embraces filth or mere shock value, the decline of the humanities, the mechanization of life--but he remains hopeful that humanity will find its way again. This is a book to be reckoned with. First serial to American Scholar; BOMC selection.
Both books well-worth reading, if you haven't. Would either of these great Columbia profs, who knew almost everything about almost everything, be welcomed on any campuses today?
Sunday, June 29. 2008
 We re-post this essay by Gertrude Himmelfarb each year. One quote, on the thoughtful Columbia guy Lionel Trilling's thoughts about T.S. Eliot:
Marxism was not the only thing that Trilling (by way of Eliot) called into question. He challenged liberalism as well. Totalitarianism, Eliot had said, was inherently "pagan," for it recognized no authority or principle but that of the state. And liberalism, far from providing an alternative to paganism, actually contained within itself the seeds of paganism, in its materialism and relativism. Only Christianity, Eliot argued--the "Idea" of Christianity, not its pietistic or revivalist expressions--could resist totalitarianism, because only Christianity offered a view of man and society that promoted the ideal of "moral perfection" and "the good life." "I am inclined," Trilling quoted Eliot, "to approach public affairs from the point of view of the moralist." Trilling hastened to qualify his endorsement of Eliot in "Elements That Are Wanted"; he did not believe morality was absolute or a "religious politics" desirable. But Eliot's vision of morality and politics was superior to the vision of liberals and radicals, who had contempt for the past and worshiped the future. Liberals, in the name of progress, put off the realization of the good life to some indefinite future; radicals put off the good life in the expectation of a revolution that would usher in not only a new society but also a new man, a man who would be "wholly changed by socialism." Marxism was especially dangerous, Trilling found, because it combined "a kind of disgust with humanity as it is and a perfect faith in humanity as it is to be."
A "new man" was all the rage for those who wanted me to be just like they weren't - but who wanted people like me to become some subservient but heroic prole they fantasized about. They were just the new version of the same "old men" of history - self-anointed for "virtue" and "wisdom," and seeking power and perks on our backs and on our nickel while they spun their grand theories. I think they forgot that proles like me learned to read in the meantime. Eliot, and Trilling, knew otherwise. Photo: Lionel Trilling. As demanding a Prof as you could ever have. The equally-great Jacques Barzun was out of that same mold: dignified, formal, remote, but willing to give you two chances to prove that you weren't a complete idiot and just an educated fool. No tolerance for fools, and these guys had a radar for glib assertions, shallow sentiment, and cant - and for out-of-context quotes. Academic boot camp is what these guys offered you.
Saturday, June 28. 2008
I wish I had written this piece by John Hawkins, Why Liberals lie about what they believe. It's really quite simple.
Thursday, June 26. 2008
 From the Supremes today:
“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right...” Without self-defense, a person becomes a sheep in a world with wolves. Bravo to the five Justices who honor our Constitution over their personal preferences, and bravo to Justice Scalia for putting it all in historical context. The justices' personal opinions should have no role in their job: it's not what they are paid to do. After all, everybody has an opinion on everything. Opinions on stuff are a dime a dozen. Anyway, it's a big step in the right direction. More later... Updates: Lots of links at Drudge and Memorandum. And here is the Supreme's announcement. Also, "Yahoo" at Yahoo.
Tuesday, June 24. 2008
Dalrymple begins: Is the European Union heading for a Yugoslavian-style denouement? It sometimes looks as if its political class, oblivious to the wishes or concerns of the EU’s various populations, is determined to bring one about. The French and the Dutch voted against the proposed European Constitution, but that did not deter the intrepid political class from pressing ahead with its plans for a superstate that no one else wants. To bypass the wishes of the people, the politicos reintroduced the constitution as a treaty, to be ratified by parliaments alone. Only the Irish had the guts—or was it the foolhardiness?—to hold a referendum on the issue. Unfortunately, the Irish people got the answer wrong.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, June 18. 2008
One year ago, as the Immigration Reform bill was being debated, David Frum wrote How I Rethought Immigration. One quote: It seems impossible that the immigration bill can succeed: A large majority of the American people claim to be following the immigration debate closely, and that majority opposes the immigration plan by a three-to-one majority. And when the bill collapses, it will take what little remains of the president's political capital with it. Did I say capital? No, that has long since been spent. It is his credit that he is now exhausting.
Tuesday, June 17. 2008
A quote from Arthur Brooks in City Journal, "Free People are Happy People:" Freedom and happiness are highly correlated, then; even more significant, several studies have shown that freedom causes happiness. In a famous 1976 experiment, psychologists in Connecticut gave residents on one floor of a nursing home the freedom to decide which night of the week would be “movie night,” as well as the freedom to choose and care for the plants on their floor. On another floor of the same nursing home, residents did not receive these choices and responsibilities. The first group of residents—no healthier or happier than the second when the experiment began—quickly showed greater alertness, more activity, and better mood. A year and a half later, they were still doing better, and even dying at half the rate of the residents on the other floor.
This chart from the article: 
Read the whole thing.
Monday, June 16. 2008
This is a re-posting from 2005:
Regular readers know that we are big fans of English political philosopher Roger Scruton. This is from a 6-page piece in the Intercollegiate Review this month:
Can there be a public spirit whose foundation is the internationalist idea? It seems at first that there can be. Some of the most public-spirited movements of our century have been expressly internationalist in their aims: the Olympic movement, the Red Cross, the United Nations, and the aptly named Médecins sans Frontières. Again, however, I do not think that any of these movements could have succeeded without the fund of national sentiment on which they drew—unless, that is, they take their inspiration, as does the Red Cross, from a religious idea. The Olympic movement seeks to bring about international cooperation through enhancing, rather than diminishing, national pride: for that is what competitive international sport requires. And as the Berlin Olympics of 1936 conclusively demonstrated, the result may enhance nationalist belligerence too.
Furthermore, public spirit is an attribute of nations. Not all people possess it in equal degrees. Indeed, there is a notorious difference between those people for whom family is the source and object of all social loyalty and those people who recognize the web of obligations to strangers. The Sicilians, being of the first kind, have often wrought havoc in America, where they have found themselves among people of the second kind, who are without effective defenses against them. And in the new international jurisdiction in Europe we find an interesting dividing line, which separates the Langue d’oc from the Langue d’oeil and the German-speaking from the Latin and Greekspeaking peoples. Above this line corruption is minimal; below it corruption is the normal state of affairs.
A serious read but well worth it: entire important essay here. If you need a reminder about langue d'oc and langue d'oeil, here's one.
Sunday, June 15. 2008
Boortz never actually delivered this comencement speech, which he wrote in 1998 to protest never having been asked to deliver one. Here's a sample of it: Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.
Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast... including your own assessment of just how much you really know. So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups -- The Blacks, the Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to in dividuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.
You can read the whole thing, with the background, at Snopes
Thursday, June 12. 2008
 Over the transom:
The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms. What's his record? FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1 FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2 FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3 FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2 FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4 FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5 His real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career. Read the rest:
Continue reading "Obama and the Second Amendment"
A colleague and I were recently talking about the nature of the modern American aristocracy - not an aristocracy of blood, refinement, family, or breeding but one of power, influence, money or access to it, and networks, combined with a dose of meritocracy and slick social climbing. Unfortunately, due to the ever-growing power of the Federal government, the modern aristocracy is beginning to resemble a Washington-NYC version that of the London-based aristocracy (and that aristocracy was not stupid at all - consider Lord North) against which we rebelled. For better or worse (for worse, IMO - but they are my people) in America, ye olde WASP dominance is history. But that is the American Way. Few know much about history today. We like "New." Harvard's Greg Mankiw addresses the Yale-Harvard Presidential Duopoly.
Wednesday, June 11. 2008
 Memo to Barack Hussein Obama: You were somehow taught American etiquette wrongly - or never bothered to learn it. We do take these signs of respect seriously. These traditions bind us, symbolically, as one proudly free people to our remarkable history, in a solemn way which is well-deserved and has been hard-earned. Folks who have served know what to do, automatically but not without feeling. For me, such ceremonies bring tears to my eyes.
From US Flag.org: The Pledge of Allegiance and National AnthemThe pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting in the appropriate manner. When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note. The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music. The SalutesTo salute, all persons come to attention. Those in uniform, or veterans, give the appropriate formal military salute. Citizens not in uniform salute by placing their right hand over the heart and men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart. Members of organizations in formation salute upon command of the person in charge. Non-citizens are not expected to do these things, and America-haters and academics - and even those who prefer for reasons of taste to be modest in their patriotism - will not be arrested if they do not follow the national etiquette - which represents something far larger and deeper than the word "etiquette" can capture. For your further information, Barack, our national anthem happens to be The Star Spangled Banner. Admittedly unsingable by the average bear, but written in 1812 - a time of trial while a young, hopeful, idealistic, and fragile but brave nation was under attack. In fact, they (the Brits) were the last enemy until 9-11 to effectively attack our Capital. I find myself thinking the old "America - Love it or Leave It" these days. It's a cliche, and a bit crude for California Chardonnay sippers, but it contains many important Yankee truths in its simple words. "Don't Tread on Me" is simple, too. So is "God Bless America." Millions aspire to come here, and break laws to do so. Perhaps many wish to leave this terrible place? Be my guest. It's not a good fit for you. Find a freer or a better place, and leave today. I'd suggest Dubai, France, Singapore, South Africa, or North Korea. Not England - it's become Moslem and you would be an oppressed dhimmi. Not Canada: no free speech. Argentina might be pleasant. Maggie's Farm could raise a large fund for one-way tickets to "elsewhere."
Tuesday, June 10. 2008
 Our post on Race in the Race a few weeks ago reminded me of the several posts we have done over recent years about tribalism and trust, making the rather obvious point that people tend towards "affinity groups" because they are more likely to know where the others are coming from. When there are enough socio-cultural affinities between people, we call it a "tribe." (I have often heard Jews refer to fellow Jews as "the tribe.")
Tribes share, among other things, social signals and cues - the most important being "trust cues." (I was amused and pleased to see that our 2006 bit on Trust Cues and Tribalism was the top of Google when you search "Trust Cues." Very cool.) I more or less know what to expect from a fellow white middle-aged heterosexual New England Protestant somewhat over-educated professional person who dresses sort-of like I do. I do not know exactly what to expect, but approximately and statistically. And if they like to study wildlife, to garden, to hunt, to mess with boats, and to talk about politics, then even more so. The odds are that we will know each other's rules, codes, signals, cues, language, manners, sense of humor, personal boundaries - even tastes. (Not necessarily their politics, though. My "tribe" has enormous political diversity.) The further we move from our own tribe into the realm of "the other," the less effective we become at reading the signals and cues. I can use as simple an example as attending a Roman Catholic Mass: I feel awkward because I don't know when to stand or sit, or whether they want me to join in Communion or not. All people, I think, have a comfort bias and a trust bias in favor of their own tribes, and I do not feel that that is a bad thing: it's rational. "Birds of a feather..." I believe that much of what is termed "racism" has little to do with race. Mitt Romney's Mormonism is a case in point. I think it was a real issue. People don't know what the Mormon view of the world is, what they are taught, how they raise their kids, what they think about, etc. - and are not interested enough in the subject to learn about it. All we know is "It seems kinda strange" - and "strange" = "a stranger." Thus are our "stranger," tribal instincts ignited. It's not about skin color at all. Some of us are fascinated by "the other," some are a little bit curious, some are hostile, but most folks just don't care to be bothered very much with other cultures. The "multiculturalism" movement of the last decade sought to suppress that Stranger Instinct (for some good reasons, and some bad) - but it cannot be done because it is anchored in reason as well as in biology. All the multicult fascists and nannies managed to do was to silence people while, unfortunately, heightening our everyday consciousness of our differences. So I finally arrive at the Rev. Wright subject. The Rev. Wright preaches a Black Liberation "theology" which, as best I can tell, seems to have only a superficial relationship to any Christianity I have seen (and which is an ideology that seems to have racial hatred built into its core). However, they seem to be dedicated to doing some good and charitable works in Chicago. But my point is that when Wright preaches "God damn America" I instantly know that I am dealing with another tribe. I cannot tell whether his is hyperbolically throwing red meat to work up the crowd, or whether he means it. I cannot read the signals at all, and that makes me uneasy and distrustful. Rightly so, in my view: I feel like I have wandered into the wrong pew. That's all a long-winded way of getting around to linking some of our past posts on the general subject: Scared by his own research on multiculturalism The Diversity Cult Signaling Theory Trust Cues and Tribalism Masquerades and Clothing Signaling Photo: Alaskan Eskimos exist in a culture which is totally alien to me.
Monday, June 9. 2008
Lifted from a comment here by Buddy:  Re oil here's two worthy reads: George Will's current WaPo column, The Gas Prices We Deserve, and an email from a gal in Louisiana, a friend of former Gov. Blanco & until recently an ardent Democrat.
and the body of the email, quoted:
For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don't seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that's because most people don't realize how different the two parties' energy policies have been.
Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
PAUL adds: It's useful to keep this sort of thing in mind when we hear (on something like a daily basis these days) that the Republicans have run out of ideas or that Republican ideas didn't work. The truth is that most major Republican ideas weren't tried because the Democrats blocked them. Increasing the domestic production of oil and gas (a move so obvious it barely meets the standard for being an idea) is hardly the only example. Social security reform and school choice also come quickly to mind. Republican-backed policies for increasing the number of Americans with health insurance were also blocked by Democrats. And so forth.
Because the bully pulpit wasn't effectively used, that news never really got out. The above numbers do not include the Dems' blocking of nuclear plants, which are going up all over the world including in Africa. Abundant power is the sine qua non of modern civilization. Combine it with free markets and free people and you have a civilizational rocket. I sort-of understand the Dems blocking every Repub initiative out of pure partisan bile, but I do not know what their energy plan is. All they talk about are "clean alternatives," which is a joke, and they gobble up oil as fast as I do without any apparent regret. I do know what my energy plan is: Lots of nuke power, plenty of clean coal technology, none of this dopey, subsidized and highly-polluting biofuel, and drilling for oil where we can: oil is great stuff and we are fortunate to have tons of it in the US. This should be a major campaign issue, if McCain would wake up to it. Related: Surber notes that gasoline accounts for only 45% of US oil use, in a piece titled What's the MPG of Your Soap? Thanks, reader. Most of the above quoted is via Paul at Powerline.
|
