Tuesday, February 24. 2009
 Everyone has the choice of whether to live in Christ, or not to. I am grateful that I have the choice of whether to accept that offered gift, or to refuse it.
I once thought that living in Christ just sort-of happened when one deliberately accepted the gift, but I think differently now. I no longer think that I can be aligned with God on autopilot, as Augustine said he, or we, could. Maybe he could.
I need a discipline, both internal and external, to partake of the blessing of the Christian faith and of a life in Christ because sometimes I am there, but sometimes I am far away.
I have been thinking about the old-fashioned virtue of "self-command" recently, and about our cultural values - "authenticity," "genuineness," "follow your heart and emotions" and things like that. Why isn't "self-command" and "self-discpline" as much a part of our selves as anything else? Are our precious selves were so splendidly worthy and wonderful when on autopilot? If anybody is that wonderful, God bless 'em. I am not.
Internal discipline is about self-command. How good am I at commanding myself? And how often, like a bad parent, do I fail to be a good Chairman and CEO of myself and let things slide that should not slide, and permit leeway where there is no leeway? To let myself play in the street, as it were?
My discipline muscles need constant exercise. I have a few planned for this Lenten season.
Even the "best" Christians are sometimes prone to overlooking the beam in their own eye while noting the motes and beams in others'. We are taught to "hate the sin but to love the sinner." Readers know that I do not believe that Christianity is mainly about morality, but about faith. However, I believe that a deliberate living in Christ requires a discipline. Like when your Dad gives you a car for your birthday, the joy is contingent. Getting to that "life in abundance" isn't meant to be easy, but it is probably the definition of success that I value most highly for myself.
I judge others constantly, not from a high place but mainly for self-protection. I judge myself at least as judiciously, and likely far more harshly. Usually at 4:30 AM. The conscience I am stuck with tolerates little or no compromise with normal exigencies. At the same time, I know my conscience isn't necessarily God's voice. Sometimes it's my own, and some of it is my moral vanity.
In my mens' Bible study last week we wandered into a discussion of sexual temptation, and how we each deal with it. It's safe to say that each one of us has a deep appreciation for appealing females, and are fun-loving fellows who enjoy the pleasures of life. We aren't a "holy" bunch. We also agree that our word is our bond. It's discipline and self-command. Of course, anyone can make whatever choices one decides to, and live with that. That's fine, as long as you do not ask me to be responsible for guiding your choices.
I am meandering towards the subject of external discipline. If we are to enjoy the blessings of a life in Christ, most of us need that. I need my brethren to help keep me on track. Otherwise, I'll be off on my own track, and there is nothing too wonderful about that. "My track," I am ashamed to say, is probably all about me and all about gratification - and as instant as possible. OK, call me an obsessive if you want to: it's probably correct. I need and want to be judged. I do not want to be an animal.
Editor's note: I stumbled onto a sermon by Rev. Norman Koop, Pastor of the First Congregational Church of Woodstock, VT, yesterday. I thought it relevant to my "House Church" meeting on Sunday afternoon where the topic was confronting evil and sin (in self and others). Intolerance. Pastor Koop makes the case, via Paul, that it is our unpleasant duty to confront and address the sin of our church brethren because, as Congregational Church members, we have made a solemn committment to the well-being of eachothers' souls. Paul's letter was a tough message for the Corinthians - and we are the Corinthians. The sermon is here (try "Listen now using the flash player").
Sunday, February 22. 2009
Massachusetts' Berkshire County (and northwestern CT Berkshires) has been a popular summering area for 150 years. The nightime is cool, even in August. It is filled with second homes and country places for those from NYC and Boston. The area is artsy and full of pretty-good, small-scale skiing. There isn't much work up there outside of once-industrial Pittsfield - and there never has been. As we have commented, 2009 is a good time to have cash to buy things, because these second home prices are falling. Take a look:
This 3-BR 1942 Cape on 0.3 acres overlooks the town of Great Barrington. $620,000:
This 1793 eyebrow colonial in New Marlborough has 1/2 acre, 3 bedrooms. $185,000;
This 1770 center hall colonial is on 1/2 acre near downtown Sheffield. 6 BR. $725,000.
The village of Alford has a Congregational Church, an 1830 schoolhouse, and a town green. Not a single store, shop, or restaurant. This is a 4 BR 1810 farmhouse (with additions) on 4 acres. $700,000:
Here's an 1825 village colonial in Becket. 5 BR, one acre. $430,000:
In Lenox. Not an antique, but just a walk to Tanglewood and to the pleasant antique village. 4 BR, 0.5 acres, $1,000,000.
In Stockbridge, this 1795 renovated farmhouse. 8 BR, 4 acres. $1,000,000. I like it, but 150 acres would be better.
Saturday, February 21. 2009
- An annual re-post for sugarin' season.
Our Vermont friends have been busy getting ready for sugarin.' We tend to think of Vermont maple syrup, but Canada is the major producer. We consume it abundantly in New England and do not approve of the cheap substitute goop in the supermarkets. We buy Maple syrup by the gallon.
Grading - lots of us like the intensity and gnarliness of Grade B and C, but you won't find it in supermarkets: Maple Syrup Grades. Photo below:
$ - We pay retail in the $20s/gallon, but the farmers get between $2-$3/gallon, usually. More in a "bad" year.
Other uses besides pancakes and waffles:
Put it on oatmeal like the Pilgrims did.
Pour some into winter squash halves and bake, like my Indian ancestors probably did.
Drizzle some over fresh-fallen snow. Instant Maple popsicles with the power to pull out your fillings.
Photo on top: The Sugar Maple, in its autumn splendor. Below: Currier and Ives' "Maple Sugaring":
Friday, February 20. 2009
Next Monday there is to be an Obama administration sponsored Fiscal Responsibility summit in Washington. Obama’s new Director of the Office of Management and Budget, formerly Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, will chair the summit.
Orszag is not an extremist, and his prior work at the CBO demonstrates care and understanding of varying views and political forces in shaping government economic and tax policies.
Still, when it comes down to it, he along with his boss -- President Obama -- and other Democrats favors more government command-and-control over Americans and their economic sectors, compared to Republicans favoring more competitive forces to steer our courses. (See P.S. below the fold)
Credited by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as “"a hero in all of this” structuring the $1-trillion+ “stimulus”/porkulus legislation rushed through Congress, Orszag told Politico: “What has already been accomplished is a huge start toward a more efficient [health care] system, and I think you’re going to see more in the budget next week.” Orszag is primarily referring to the new federal comparitive effectiveness board to determine which treatments are better. There’s already much such research, much of which is useful and much of which is inconclusive, and its application to specific patients may differ widely. Applied to all, even if statistically conclusive, will cause some to be denied treatment. In the hands of government, it will be used as a tool to ration care to save costs. As this December 2008 report from the then Orszag- run CBO points out: “In considering such changes, policymakers face difficult trade-offs between the objectives of expanding insurance coverage and controlling both federal and total costs for health care.” (The whole CBO report is invaluable reading, especially if you want to get involved in the coming debates over your health care instead of just being on the receiving end.)
Orszag makes his course clearer when he says the next health care measures will be “changes to Medicare and Medicaid to make them more efficient, and to start using those programs more intelligently to lead the whole health care system.” Currently, Medicare is prohibited from considering the cost of a treatment in determining whether it is approved for payment. That will change. Currently, private insurance plans are similarly prohibited. That will change.
Peter Orszag is a 40-year old academic, and an avid runner. His views might be more tempered if he were in lesser health or older, not to mention having more practical experience in medicine.
Continue reading "Fiscal Responsibility Summit Targets Your Health Care"
When the Dylanologist took his Geology 101 back in college he was taught, just as everyone else has been since the mid-1960s, that the process of plate tectonics (or "continental drift") explains the arrangement of the continents and the obvious matching coasts of Africa and South America. The continents were at one point all stuck together as Pangaea, and then, for some reason, they split right down the middle and were pulled/pushed apart from each other, riding right over ocean crust.
Yet, what we were never shown was this map, which shows that nowhere on earth are there seafloors older than 180 million years (blue is oldest, red youngest; by contrast continental rocks date back nearly 4.3 billion years). Not only that, but the fastest rate of spreading is in the Pacific, which is presumed to be shrinking from both sides.
Geologists explain this conundrum by saying that all of the older seafloor has been "subducted" under to continents, and has vanished without a trace. Yet what is driving this activity? Are the ridges pushing the continents apart, or are the subducting seafloors pulling the ridges apart? If the push force is the driver, why is there so much spreading in the Pacific? If the pull force is stronger, how did spreading start in the first place between two connected continents? Geologists themselves don't have a good answer, admitting that they have no clear explanation, and physics suggests that neither force is anywhere near strong enough to cause entire continents to slide across the planet, or to build up huge mountain chains.
What if the answer is much simpler? What if there is no seafloor older than 180 million years because, 180 million years ago, there was no seafloor? We know that sea levels were far higher than today 100 million years ago, covering much of North America (hundreds of feet higher than they would be even if all today's ice caps were to melt). There are fossils of extinct sea creatures which lived 200 million years ago high up in the Himalayas. In the Cambrian, it is widely accepted that virtually all of North America was submerged. Before 450 million years ago, we have no evidence for any life on land, despite the fact that life had existed for over 3 billion years at that time. Did life take 3 billion years to move to land?
All of this implies that the earth may have grown in size, and that the linked lines of seafloor expansion on the map above, rather than being pressure points pushing out, are simply the places where a growing earth has cracked the outer crust and is filling it in with new material.
Ed note: In science, the truth is always a moving target. Science is all about theory du jour, not Truth. Religion is about Truth, but science is about theory-making, theory-testing, and theory-changing. Every theory is supplanted, eventually. Scientists know that. Theory-imagining is what makes science creative and fun - an art, in many ways. There never will be any such thing as "settled science."
 David Brooks tries to make the case for showering money on "frauds and greedy idiots" (his words). He does a lot of "we should...for the good of all" talk.
But what he never says is "I, David Brooks, want to shower my own money on frauds and greedy idiots." Of course, he could do that today if he wanted to. All he'd have to do would be to phone a Merced, CA bank and offer to cover somebody's defaulted mortgage. One phone call. He can afford to do that, and so can multi-millionaires Obama, Hillary, Rahm Emanuel, John Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, etc. - and zillionaire Dems like Bill Gates, Bob Rubin, George Soros, etc.
Hence our proposal: If every caring Liberal in the USA would do that to the extent of their ability, problem solved. Plus they would get to feel good about themselves, and to prove that they care.
We just want to see some proof. Readers may have seen Jammie Wearing, who noted in our link this morning how MA taxpayers refuse to "help the children" with voluntary tax dollars when given an easy opportunity to do so: "the left wants to have at it with your money, not their own." (All you need to do is to look at all of the Dem tax cheats unearthed this winter. Now we have Al Sharpton too to add to the lengthening list of prominent Dem tax dodgers.)
But to get back to mortgages, it seems clear to me that government mortgage deals, while buying votes, will accomplish little to (artificially) support the prices of housing. After all, the government already does tons of things to distort and to artificially support and inflate housing prices: mortgage interest deductions*, the passing forward of cap gains from a sold house to a new one, the one-time 1/2 million free throw when you sell, etc.
And speaking of enabling dysfunctional behavior, here's a good use of stimulus $: Free housing for drunken bums. Save me a room, just in case.
* The mortage interest deduction raises the price of housing just as the availablility of student loans and scholarships raise the price of college tuition. These things are not favors to us: they are favors for the greedy housing and greedy academic industries, disguised as favors for us.
Photo via Tiger's amusing series of photos from the Denver protest. Me? Unlike The NJ, I don't want a pony. Already have enough equines. I just want a free one-week trip to Siena. Make that 10 days, so I can cover a little more ground.
Wednesday, February 18. 2009
3800 acres, with 6 miles of the Teton River, 50 miles west of Great Falls. $12 million, but probably negotiable. Nice views? Can any reader name that mountain?
Downtown Choteau, 3 BR, $69,000:
Tuesday, February 17. 2009
From Bruce Kesler:
International Relations professors “are often the last people a president turns to for advice on running the world. At least, that’s what the professors say,” in a 2008 survey of 1743 IR faculty at every 4-year college and university in the US. “Most revealing? Nearly 40 percent of respondents reported that these scholars have “no impact” on foreign policy or even the public discourse about it.” Foreign Policy reports the results.
If they, or you, are wondering why they are so irrelevant, just look at their top priority: “It’s a largely liberal internationalist agenda, one that names the most important foreign-policy priorities facing the United States as global climate change (37 percent).”
What issue could possibly trump a major recession and not one but two foreign wars? Our warming planet. According to the scholars in this year’s survey, a U.S. commitment to take the lead on international climate treaties is long overdue. Although the election of President Obama—who has described the global climate change threat as “a matter of urgency”—promises movement on U.S. environmental policy, it might not be nearly high enough on Obama’s to-do list for these experts. Not only do academics consider the environment to be the greatest threat we face today, they predict it will be an even more important foreign-policy challenge for the United States in 10 years.
If there’s still wonder, I looked into the 93-page survey report the article is based upon. Guess what? “Seventy-five percent describe themselves as liberal,” and that percentage has increased from 69% in 2004.
Still wondering? Read on:
In 2008, for instance, we see fewer than half as many scholars (23 percent of respondents in 2008 compared to to 48 percent in 2006) describing terrorism as one of the three most significant current foreign policy challenges facing the United States. Most surprisingly, while 50 percent of U.S. scholars in 2006 said that terrorism was one of the most important foreign policy issues the United states would face over the subsequent decade, in 2008 only 1 percent of respondents agreed….Concern over several other foreign policy issues is also declining markedly: when asked about the most important problems facing the country over the next ten years 18 percent fewer respondents chose WMD proliferation, 12 percent fewer said armed conflict in the Middle east, and 13 percent fewer indicated failed states. At the same time, 17 percent more respondents in 2008 than in 2006 believed that climate change will pose a serious challenge…
Want more reasons to not look forward to paying those huge tuition bills for your children?
As the angle of Mr. Sun begins to increase in the New England skies, we generally post a few boats that catch our eyes. Usually classic old boats, but this 2003 Beneteau 36 for sale seemed appealing.
They term this Farr design a racer-cruiser, but she looks like a racer to me. In this sort of economy, nice boats become more affordable. Asking 124,000.
Sunday, February 15. 2009
Geoffrey Malaterra, who compares Robert Guiscard and his brother to "Joseph and Benjamin of old," says of Roger: "He was a youth of the greatest beauty, of lofty stature, of graceful shape, most eloquent in speech and cool in counsel. He was far-seeing in arranging all his actions, pleasant and merry all with men; strong and brave, and furious in battle."
Thus says Wiki. In 1061, he defeated 35,000 Saracens in the Battle of Cerami in Sicily:
His name came up today not only because Roger is a contributor to Maggie's Farm, but because in researching summer travel we got looking into the history of Malta. It's always interesting to be reminded of the Norman conquest of Southern Italy and of Sicily (which was Moslem at the time) - and of Malta, also Moslem at the time.
Those descendents of Vikings really did get around. Besides conquering England and southern Italy, they even invaded Greece and sailed up the Danube.
You cannot mention the history of Malta without mentioning the knights hospitalers of The Order of St. John, properly known as The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. Maybe Gwynnie will sing their praises here some time.
Powerline has Global Warming Propaganda Worse Than Expected.
Readers know that, as a general rule, we post climate links and essays in our "Political" category rather than in our "Natural History and Conservation" category.
Information every month, accumulating year after year, confirms our impression that the "Global Warming Crisis" is politically-driven, regardless of the merits of the science.
The Left loves Global Warming, because it has the potential to scare people into giving further power and control to state apparatuses. If it doesn't pan out, they will need to find another strategy. But they have invested a lot of time and energy into this one, and will be naturally reluctant to let it go.
Regular readers also know that it's my opinion that some warming would be to the benefit of humanity, as it has been in history. England thrived with its vineyards during the medieval warming, and Greenland was green and agricultural. I am skeptical about whether that is happening now, though. More likely, the opposite. I trust tropospheric measures more than land measures, which are corrupted by all sorts of local variables.
In the event of the worst case which the fearmongers promote (and even they admit exaggerating for effect), not a darn thing can or will be done to make a difference. Humans have adjusted to, and survived, far worse in their brief time on this earth.
I also happen to believe that there are too many people. I am open to being wrong about that, but I do feel that it would be a shame for the entire planet to be paved. From what I know about the world, prosperity and opportunity seem to be the best routes to population rationality and land conservation.
From Bruce Kesler:
That isn’t my headline. It’s the headline on a report in the Huffington Post from Iraq by a reporter opposed to the war in Iraq writing about another who is opposed, Dahr Jamail.
Shane Liddick is a freelancer out of San Diego, with newspaper and magazine reporting experience, currently in Anbar Province, Iraq. Dahr Jamail is also a freelancer, who has been the darling of the left.
Dahr Jamail’s shoddy anti-Iraq propaganda, indeed invention of false horror stories, has been exposed before. I wrote about him in March 2008, as “an accomplished propagandist and fabulist on Iraq,” with links to Jules Crittenden, Instapundit, and most tellingly to a series of exposes by Denis Keohane. The Keohane exposes can be seen here.
Liddick’s words are direct:
… I saw many of the same things you did. But I've come to very different conclusions. That, I believe, is because you had a pre-existing agenda you were determined to conform evidence to (i.e., war is bad, the U.S. is waging a war, so whatever it's doing in Anbar is bad); and because you're a coward….
He goes on to say -
I still don't think we should be here. But that debate became passé six years ago. Now it's a question of how soon the U.S. gets out and what happens before and after it does. I've met too many good and decent people here to write this place off, smart and hard working Iraqis that want and deserve a first-world existence….
As a journalist, criticizing military policy without talking to the military is completely incompetent. But with you, it goes deeper. You hide behind political artifice to lob your mines of pre-conclusion, like a craven wretch. And really, I think that goes to the solid core of the dregs of the problem. You're not a coward merely because you're afraid to seek the truth when it might not conform to your views ... rather your chickenshit views are shaped by the fact you're a coward….
Nearly every American soldier on the ground--no matter how misguided vis-à-vis the underlying motivations that brought the U.S. to Iraq--is here because of a sincere and genuine desire to help; none of them, I wager, have come to further an empire. Whether it be to fight against terrorism so people back home feel a little safer in skyscrapers, or to relieve a weary Iraqi population of a dictator, they're here for honorable reasons; just as is the case with the majority of those Iraqi soldiers (who still have targets on their foreheads). Which makes your fink agenda a slap in the face to about a million people who have fought and died and lost legs, brothers, and lots of blood in the hope of making something as simple as a secure place to live.
The military has been surprisingly forthcoming with me and all I had to do was ask. Marine Corps Colonel Patrick Malay sat with me on three different occasions, for long discussions about security in his area of operation in Anbar. One thing I learned quickly is that the military's officer corps is filled with the best of America's minds--kids that aced their college entrance exams, were the captains of their ball teams, and had to be nominated by senators to go to the schools they did. These are the guys (along with their much more experienced superiors) that are deciding strategy--and they're fucking smart. I was allowed to sit in on a couple of their high level briefings--again, all I had to do was show some kind of aptitude for objectivity--and I can tell you their comprehension of the situation on the ground is apt, their thinking clever, and their intentions centrally wrapped up with the Iraqi people….
The military's policy is designed from the bottom-up on security. The plan is simple--so simple (in theory), it can't fail. Security will bring outside investment, which will thereby enhance existing security, which will bring more investment, further enhancing security, and so on. It's uncomplicated and it's already working. The lynchpin is security. The people of Anbar want it desperately (I lived with these people for most of the past month, and I can't tell you how desperately they want it) and they need it to be able to rebuild….
The heart of the problem in all of this isn't only with the people of Iraq, it's also with Americans in this age of rapid and uncensored hydra-headed media--and the fact anybody can print anything. The threat there lies in the fact that 80-percent of people in society are grazers (and you can check Chomsky on this, Colonel Malay, or anybody who's served time); non-thinkers that only want to be herded and told what to do. It's those people who read your half-truths online and don't realize you're "independent" for a reason.
I'm phobically allergic to the conservative Republican types the military is rife with, but I've only been in country four months and already I hate liberals. There's plenty of ugliness to report in Iraq (as there are thousands of stories of hope and headway)--and the U.S. military certainly isn't beyond reproach. Nobody's telling you to report on one side or the other. But manipulating the truth because of your own personal biases is wretched and works in the face of progress. The other end of the political spectrum disregards you, Dahr, and now I know why. I thought it was because you're a liar--but you aren't. You don't have enough backbone to be a liar. You're a craven obfuscationist, intent on promoting your agenda at the cost of a menagerie of much braver men and women. ... s.d. liddick
Friday, February 13. 2009
 Let's say you get your hands on a fascinating 100+ year-old Caucasian rug (like the 3x5 Kuba/Shirvan in the photo), and do not want to destroy it and its history by having it walked on, cat-scratched or dog-chewed or dog-peed. (They were made for bare feet, and all Caucasian rugs were rather small.)
Well, you can hang it like a tapestry - like the work of art which it is, and focus on the details and patterns that you would cease to notice if you put it on the floor.
Rug Rat likes these wall hangers.
I have heard employers and managers commonly remark that "so and so doesn't have the DNA for this job." It's well-known by now that many, if not most, temperaments, talents, personality traits and tendencies have a genetic foundation. With overdetermined things like political attitudes, one might expect those foundations to be obscured by life experience, education, and personal growth.
But they aren't, entirely. Wilson discusses in City Journal. A side point he makes, which I feel is well-taken, in reference to Adorno's famous study of the authoritarian personality and Bouchard's further work on the topic. He says:
In his study of identical twins reared apart, Bouchard concludes that right-wing authoritarianism is, to a large degree, inherited—but he says nothing about the Left. This omission is puzzling, since as Bouchard was studying twins at the University of Minnesota, he was regularly attacked by left-wing students outraged by the idea that any traits might be inherited. A few students even threatened to kill him. When I pointed this out to him, he suggested, in good humor, that I was a troublemaker.
Yet if you ask who in this country has prevented people from speaking on college campuses, it is overwhelmingly leftists. If you ask who storms the streets and shatters the windows of Starbucks coffee shops to protest the World Trade Organization, it is overwhelmingly leftists. If you ask who produces campus codes that infringe on free speech, it is overwhelmingly leftists. If you ask who invaded the classroom of my late colleague Richard Herrnstein and tried to prevent him from teaching, it was overwhelmingly leftists.
He gets it. I never understood the equation of "Right" with Libertarian/Conservatism either. His essay, The DNA of Politics, here.
It is curious how Darwin, evolution, and inheritance is ignored by the rabid Lefties. Unless God is involved. The wacko Left is ever on the march.
 I recently noticed somebody at Samizdata refer to the "client class," but I cannot find the link right now. It is a useful phrase. It refers to those directly or indirectly employed or supported by government (ie their neighbor).
From my perspective, we will watch this client class grow, while those who feed that class diminishes. I am not convinced that this is a good long-term plan, because most of us gave up on Santa a while ago. Last Christmas, for example. I am still waiting and hoping for my pretty pony.
Who will be productive and produce the wealth to pay these bills? The Tooth Fairy?
Our sense of entitlement to an easy life - decadence - will be death to us and to the American can-do spirit. We currently seem to have a "You Can't Do" government and a growing "Can't Do" population. Not good. Weak. Can I say "flaccid"? Not the American "Yankee Doodle, keep it up".
Who the heck do people expect to take care of them? Me? My shoulders are not broad enough to carry that load, but I do carry my own. Plus I pay my taxes (unlike many Dems, apparently. And I give generously to my charities).
Wednesday, February 11. 2009
By Bruce Kesler -
 A friend whose relatives valiantly served in US forces in World War II, and lost relatives in combat and concentration camps, credits me with similar heroism for volunteering to serve in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. She said to me recently that she thought of me when she saw the movie Defiance, which I had not yet seen, that I would have been one of those partisans fighting back against the Nazis and locals exterminating the Jews in the Byelorussia where my family came from and the film takes place.
I replied that she gives me too much credit. There is a big difference between my experience and theirs. I was trained by and part of an elite armed service of the most powerful nation on earth. They found themselves running into the forest alone or in a small group, most untrained and devoid of experience in the harsh decisions of survival or war, and fought back against the overwhelmingly powerful occupying Nazis and their local collaborators.
I told my friend that I have asked myself often over the years whether I would or could have had the sense and guts to do what they did, still with no firm answer.
I’ve now seen Defiance, and still am little closer to that personal answer, but a few other questions are answered.
None of us really know what we’ll do under stress or threat until we do, despite whatever our self-image or the guesses we may make. However, experience tells us that being prepared in attitude and training is essential to rising to any challenge, and qualified, decisive, courageous leadership acting with integrity is essential to cohering in an effective organization. Otherwise, we are subject to the whims and follies of others, sometimes fortunately well but often not. When our very lives are at stake, or even our or our children’s financial security, standing around awaiting someone else’s choice of our fate is less likely to be practical.
Relatively few American Jews of my generation chose to serve in our armed forces, and most have adopted near-pacifist attitudes. Many are even conflicted about our brethren in Israel taking the measures necessary in the jaws of survival threats.
Hopefully, as if hope were enough, American Jews will not have to make those decisions for themselves, as did those in Defiance. But, to believe in or counsel being ill-prepared or weak-kneed or effete for those Jews who do have to make those life-saving decisions is dangerously suicidal. To engage in wishful thinking or to evade training or service here in the US is just as dangerous in being unschooled and unprepared for those training to or attacking us as Americans or Jews.
For a discussion of the existential decisions and consequences in the film Defiance, I recommend this review. Then don’t miss seeing the movie.
I will stick to my decision to avoid pathological labelling of those with whom I disagree. BUT I can never stop wondering that it is that causes people to become passive in the face of a threat to one's way of life - assuming it is meaningful. This is surely abnormal, because our species could never have survived with a "roll over and give up" instinct.
In recent history, we have seen those who were reluctant to stand up to the Japanese, the Germans, the Russian Soviet empire, the North Vietnamese/Chinese - and now the Moslem assault, in its various forms, on the West. I did a post about Better Red Than Dead in the past, but I cannot find it in our archives.
Is it a psychological issue (eg masochism, which implies a sexual excitement in being dominated - or an enacted suicidal impulse), is it plain cowardice, is it a kind of hatred for one's own culture or nation? Or is it really just a unicorn and rainbow dreaminess about life (which I tend to view as a psychological defence based in denial of the hard and often cruel reality that people pursue their interests)? I have seem much of the latter, especially in women and in young men who haven't really worked yet. Cases in point:
Brits to Pakistanis: Please don't hurt us
David Thompson: Assume the position
 I keep one of these little log cabins around the place, with pine incense. It's a cheery winter olfactory treat, but not just for winter.
The air goes in the door, and the smoke goes up the chimney. Few things for $12. can give so much enduring pleasure.
Does pine incense count as second-hand smoke? Naw.
Tuesday, February 10. 2009
Be very, very afraid. That's the selling-point of the sh-t sandwich of a ten-year backlog of Lefty projects and political payoffs which constitute the "Stimulus." (See $300 million for golf carts).
It's a recession. We have them regularly. But, given the timing, it's been a golden opportunity to advance every Dem Congressman's pet notion. The tactic wouldn't work, though, unless you scare people into a state of brain paralysis. In Ace's words:
President Barack H. Obama: 'Do what I want, or the economy will melt, and you'll all die poor and alone.'
Irresponsible fear-mongering is not all that presidential. Now that I think about it, weren't we promised a calm, cool, post-partisan president?
We have often observed how Leftist plans are advanced by manufacturing a sense of crisis and urgency, with a government "solution" ready in their back pocket.
How hopey-changey became "We'll scare you into buying this": Dust My Broom, Dino.
In the end, though, the Dems hold a winning hand. The economy will improve: it always does. They will take credit for it. As Paul at Powerline says:
I would add, the Democrats probably have the better political hand because they are betting that the economy, one way or another, will recover. The American economy is usually a good bet, as much as the Democrats are doing (and will do) to impair it.
This from Jonah Goldberg:
Stephen posted the quote from Barro earlier, but I think Will Wilkinson deserves to be quoted at greater length:
The deeper problem, I think, is that the textbook theory doesn’t have any politics in it. In macroeconomics textbooks, government is a benevolent central planner beyond politics. It is assumed, for simplicity’s sake, that governments can act in perfect compliance with theory. It is also assumed that theory is settled before coming to a policy problem, that motivated disagreement over theory is not an essential element of democratic policymaking. But of course, there is politics, which trashes hope of either consensus on or compliance with theory. And that’s how we ended up with the legislative monstrosity actually under consideration in Congress. As Harvard’s Robert Barro puts it:
This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don’t know what to say. I mean it’s wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don’t think will work, so I don’t think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don’t think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn’t really geared toward incentives. It’s not really geared to lowering tax rates; it’s more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it’s garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn’t really matter that much.
The economists can duke it out over the possibility of successful fiscal stimulus. But is there any reason based in up-to-date economic theory to believe that this trillion dollar deficit-spending bill is not, as Barro says, garbage?
Krugman is plumping for it anyway. Hard. So what can one say about Krugman? That he is a creature of extraordinary double consciousness. Perhaps more than any economist of his caliber, Krugman understands that policy is largely determined by the outcome of the public opinion shoutfest. Yet this recognition seems to have no effect on Krugman’s ideas. Rather than bring inside his models disagreement over economic theory and the lack of political incentive to faithfully apply them, which would lead him to radically revise his prescriptions, Krugman leaves his textbook theory untouched and simply tries to win the shoutfest. Krugman’s often unbearable stridency seems to reflect an attempt to overcome the problems of democratic disagreement and incentive compatibility through sheer force of will–as if the deep reality of politics is no match for the rhetorical gifts and gold-plated reputation of Paul Freaking Krugman. It is as if his own imagined ability to singehandedly overwhelm the opposition is part of Krugman’s implicit model of how a politics-free macoeconomic theory can be made politically relevant in a time of perceived crisis, which is to say, a time of rank political opportunism.
Monday, February 9. 2009
Yesterday was our neighborhood First Annual Deep-Fry Your Turkey Day. We did 9 smallish turkeys, 2 ducks, three chickens. We cranked it up right after church. It was cold enough that we had trouble getting the peanut oil above 320, so it took longer than we planned. All the neighbors got well-fed last night, and all dogs enjoyed the venison butchering scraps. It was reminiscent of a barn-raising.
Why go to the trouble of setting up a fryer just for oneself? We served tons of beer, and venison-black bean soup and cornbread. And cupcakes. And ceegars. Red-neck Yankees know how to have fun. Next time, we'll do two pots of oil, not one, to halve the time - but we did not expect such a response for a last-minute plan. All dogs were invited, too, of course.
One bucket of birds in brine:
Our fryer set-up. The basket insert works best for the turkeys, but chickens and ducks don't need it and can just go on the stick.
Our Louisiana-style rub and bird-injection table. The green stuff is sauteed, pureed, then strained garlic, shallot, onion, carrot, and celery for injecting.
We cranked up one of these in the driveway to keep warm. Worked well, as long as it didn't set you afire.
We set it all up like this. Readers have seen that old fire engine before. 
We also had the last doe of the season to butcher as the birds were frying. She'd been hanging for a couple of weeks, but probably frozen through most of the time. Note Golden chewing on the hide. That always happens. A pal is just beginning the skinning. I brought home a foreleg with the hair for my pup to play with. Yes, that is an old fireplace in the 1890 garage, so the gentry would not have to get into a cold car. For the comfort of the chauffeur no doubt, too.
That's how one of my LI ducks came out of the fryer:
How is the turkey after all of this effort - overnight brining, injecting, Cajun rubs, etc.? Tastes like turkey, but pretty good turkey. The skin is especially good. In future, I think I'll do ducks and chickens, but not turkey - things with a higher skin/meat ratio.
I brought a venison shoulder home, too, from that doe in the garage. I think I'll braise it with root vegetables when the turkey is eaten.
What a fine country we Americans live in. We are not convinced that the Obamanites know how to appreciate it. A good life is a simple matter.
Sunday, February 8. 2009
Norman Mattoon Thomas (Nov. 20, 1884-Dec. 19, 1968) - some of us are old enough to remember him running for President - was a leading American socialist, pacifist and six time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.
Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "Liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
 Suffolk Rabbit Pie. Yum. A tasty Medieval dinner. My supermarket has frozen rabbit. (But I thought Rabbit Joints aka rabbet joints were a cabinetmaking deal.) I guess they mean thigh and leg. I assume you remove the bones before putting it in the pie, but they aren't clear on that.
Rabbit with Garlic. Wow.
Saturday, February 7. 2009
Nothing like a full-sized carpet to pull a room together. I found this antique 14X22' Kerman on eBay. It's just the thing for my double-wide. They want $120,000 for it, which seems quite reasonable for the size, the condition, and the age. The link and details here.
I did buy this very appealing semi-antique 9X12 Tabriz this week on eBay. Geometric and more shroomy-hallucinatory than the usual Tabriz. $230. How's that for a cost-effective way to bring beauty into one's house? I've seen old rugs like this go for $2-4000+ at auctions, and I really enjoy the look of this one. I don't mind if rugs are a bit worn. New rugs look terrible to me.
And here's one I really like. It is an antique 5X8 Caucasian Kuba. The seller claims it's 1890 but I am always a skeptic with the ages of rugs. The yellow looks unnaturally bright to me, but what do I know?
From Bruce Kesler -
Easier than figuring out what women really want is what Americans really want from their government: a free ride. Whenever lofty goals are polled, majorities speak in favor. Whenever asked whether they are willing to pay for the goals themselves or personally participate in furthering those goals, majorities say no.
A recent poll of attitudes toward charities shows 70% expressing deep caring for the environment, relieving poverty and improving schools. But, less than 20% have personally done anything to aid these causes in the past year, and on most such causes the personal effort drops to 10%.
An analysis in 2008 of several surveys of contributions to charities led liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff to chastise “Bleeding Heart Tightwads,” for liberals contributing far less than conservatives, financially and of their time.
The latest polls, for example from Rasmussen and CBs of the so-called stimulus package in Congress shows majorities skeptical that it will deliver stimulus, and favoring tax cuts over spending. Americans believe they are better qualified to decide what to do with their earnings than Washington’s legislators and bureaucrats, especially when so much of the stimulus bill is deemed wasteful, unnecessary, and unproductive of economic growth.
In every popular vote for government-provided healthcare, the majority has said no as the extra and excess costs become evident and the loss of quality, choice and access become clear. Nonetheless, the stimulus bill contains many provisions that will move the US toward government-run healthcare.
President Obama and his party may have won a winning margin of about 5% of the popular vote, which is hardly a mandate for such dramatic changes and charges to our population and future generations mired in $1-trillion more impoverishing debts.
Thursday, February 5. 2009
Spent today in NYC, around New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, (now known as New York Hospital and Weill Medical College, thanks to the Citigroup genius Sandy Weill Or is it properly New York Presbyterian Hospital - now that Presbyterian and NYH merged?). It was cold as hell.
That's Sotheby's building in front with the flags, and New York Hospital beginning just to the right of it.
A couple more below the fold -
Continue reading "NYC today: Photos"
|
