Sunday, March 2. 2008
 An annual re-post
Miller Nurseries. Our source for hardy fruit trees, grapes, and more. Musser Forests. Our favorite source for seedlings for your farm, game preserve, conservation land, or country place, including Christmas tree plantings. Lots of native plants. Seedland. Great source for large-volume lawn, pasture, game preserve, farm, etc. seeds. I buy meadow clovers from them. For garden seeds, including heirloom vegetables (h/t, readers):  Renee's
Johnny's The Cook's Garden Gary Ibsen's Tomato Fest (These sound wonderful, but tomatoes from seeds is too much hassle for me)
Saturday, March 1. 2008
 Free advice for the NYT and the Boston Globe, if they wish to survive, from Jeff Jarvis. Darn interesting ideas. One quote:
As for the New York Times itself, I’d cut bait and turn it into a national newspaper — international in their dreams. The Times is not now and has not been for sometime a New York paper. So I’d either spin off or kill metro coverage. It could become a new local online collaborative journalistic network in the mold of the new Globe. Or it could die and I firmly believe a new and more nimble local network can emerge and take up the slack left. With that spinoff goes the Times production and distribution arms, in the Morgan model.
If these large newspapers can think outside the proverbial box, as Jeff suggests, they might have a fine future despite their Leftist views. Gee whiz, they're just newspapers - not God's gift to mankind. There is no shortage of interesting stuff to read - like Maggie's Farm, for one modest example. At the NYT, some integrity and some balance wouldn't hurt, but is not their solution. Just don't dumb it down: the world does not need another USA Today targeted towards curious 3rd grade drop-outs. They need prosperous middlebrow readers like me, who look forward to the Book Review. (NYC, by the way, has tons of newspapers, from countless neighborhood papers like Chelsea Now, The Staten Island Advance, and The Village Voice, to city-wide papers like The Daily News, The NY Post, The NY Sun, The New York Observer, and Newsday - and more. It's the ultimate newspaper town, and every suburb has at least one local rag. The complication is that the whole country is interested in what goes on in NYC and, nowadays, in our imperial state, Washington too. Alas, because I wish that what those bozos did in DC had no importance to me.) I love newspapers, and worked on one during summers as a lad (The Hartford Courant, in the typewriter and linotype era), but now I only read online stuff (not including magazines and the local rag, which covers purely local matters and which is required for fire-starting, and for gun- and game-cleaning - and to find out which of your bonehead neighbors has been arrested for burglarizing a hardware store in Torrington). Confession: I enjoy most of the Sunday NYT, and, between the wife and I, we pretty much give at least a glance at every page of the darn thing. It's their political spin and bias that give us migraines: "Can you believe they said this, honey?" (We cancelled the daily years ago, in a fit of disgust.)
Reposted from May, 2005 because it seems to fit somewhat with our post on Messiah Complexes this week. Mark Lilla of the University of Chicago discusses, in the NYT, the collapse of liberal theology and his fear of the consequences in our culture, if not in our politics: Over the past 30 years we have seen the steady decline of mainline faiths and the upsurge of evangelical, Pentecostal, charismatic and ''neo-orthodox'' movements -- not only among Protestants but among Catholics and Jews as well.
I agree that there has been a decline of the mainline practices, but true believers never disappeared. The RC Church, Conservative Jews, Protestants both black and white in the south and west and in uban areas have all kept the flames of faith burning. As far as I can tell, the meaningful change has been that intelligent folks have begun speaking out about their faith without regard to fashion; there are unembarassed true believers in the halls of power; and true belief has come to add vitality to the white-bread middle-class suburbia that the elite have always scorned. Lilla terms this the "dumbing down of American religion": The leading thinkers of the British and American Enlightenments hoped that life in a modern democratic order would shift the focus of Christianity from a faith-based reality to a reality-based faith. American religion is moving in the opposite direction today, back toward the ecstatic, literalist and credulous spirit of the Great Awakenings.
I do not know what Lilla means by "reality-based faith," but I suspect he refers not to faith but to the vague, tradition-based, civics and morality-focused Main Line Protestant church-going habits of the 1950s and 60s. That kind of thing could never survive long, if it ever really existed, because while it provides community and a nice coffee hour, it provides little spiritual food. As he points out occurred in Germany with the disenchantment with their diluted Protestantism: They sought an authentic experience with the divine, genuine spiritual solace and a clear understanding of the one path to salvation. And what did liberal Protestantism teach? In the words of H. Richard Niebuhr, that ''a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.'' And if that was the case, why be a Christian at all?
Excellent point. He seems to see the natural human desire for transcendent experience, for an experience of reality containing higher truths than those of pleasure-seeking, comfort, self-worship, humanitarian ethics, and civic-mindedness - in other words, the desire for a "faith-based reality." That doesn't frighten me at all, but it seems to frighten Lilla, who views liberal (in the Locke sense) government and liberal theology as partners, and he makes the historical case for that view. As I see it, "ya gotta serve somebody," and I find nothing in the Gospels or in Paul's letters to fear. I see everything in them to welcome as a still-revolutionary message of hope of redemption for a sinful world. But I suspect there is something else going on between the lines. If the recent "Great Awakening" were about liberation theology, or other leftist political causes, I doubt there would be all of this "concern" from Lilla and others - not that Lilla is a leftist. Martin Luther King Jr., a humanly flawed and Godly man, was never criticized for his deep faith which drove his political activism from civil rights to attempting to unionize the South to anti-war activity. Is there a racist condescension in the idea that passionate Christianity is OK for blacks, but not for middle-class white folks? Or is it all mere politics? However, spiritual awakening is not about politics and it's not about economics - it's about an individual's relationship with the divine.
Wednesday, February 27. 2008
 William F. Buckley Jr, who we have quoted often at Maggies (including, by strange coincidence, multiple times yesterday), died today at his home in Connecticut.
Over many years, the man has been an inspiration through his fiction-writing, his non-fiction, his sailing, his piano-playing, his passion for Bach, his passion for God, his love of life and of freedom and and of his fellow man. And his love for his remarkable wife Pat, who died last year. Yes, also for his cheerful political energy and pioneering efforts on behalf of Conservative views (he, seemingly single-handedly, made these views respectable), but these efforts were always lower on his list than devotion to God and living - and enjoying - life to the max. A superb human and a superb life. I am most grateful for the things this brainy, witty, refined and joyful Scotch-loving Connecticut Yankee added to my life, but what I will remember most vividly is his description, in one of his sailing books, of his successful effort to install a piano in the parlor of his sailboat. Many comments at Memeorandum.
Tuesday, February 26. 2008
We hate to kick a man when he's down, but this summary of Hillary Clinton's record came in over the transom today. We suspect this has something to do with why she is not finding the support she desires: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a little reminder of what that record includes: As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House Security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, has since been disavowed.
“There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.” - William F. Buckley Jr.
I have read a number of comments and reviews of Dr. Lyle Rossiter's book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. I suppose I should read it, but I wish I had taken the time to write it myself, because the themes of the book seem close to much of what I have posted here about liberty. A quote from a WorldNetDaily review: "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do." Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: - creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
- satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
- augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
- rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
I know exactly what is meant here, but I have reservations about terming it "neurotic," which implies internal unconscious conflict. I think Dr. R. means "irrational." When we talk about the beliefs of others, everybody tends to views those who disagree as irrational or uninformed. The fact is that peoples' convictions and attitudes can be based on any mix of emotion, experience, emotional tendencies, fantasy, personality type, logic, self-interest, intelligence and amount of information they have, emotional maturity, and so forth. There are many recipes that end up with a bowl of Chili. For example, I know some Liberal types who are as benevolent, independent, intelligent, and high-functioning as can be, and who want nothing from the government. And I have met (and often read) Conservatives (and Liberals too) who seem driven, in part, by a paranoid undercurrent and sense of grievance. Thus I think that the psychology of beliefs is complicated. As readers know, I prefer to use individual liberty as my starting point in political discussion, rather than psychology. Individual liberty is what my ancestors fought, died, and lived for and the realization of it, and the reverence for the idea, is what differentiates the US from the rest of the civilized world. I believe that life in a world of individual liberty is risky, often difficult, often daunting, filled with failure, but offers endless opportunity to pursue the realization of dreams. Still, liberty is obviously not for everybody, as voting patterns indicate. Not even a majority of Americans supported the Revolution. The failure of modern "Liberalism" to maintain the ideals of personal liberty associated with classical liberalism is discouraging for me. Modern Liberals seem to celebrate leftist dictators, and, as I have posted, How Come Liberals never talk about Liberty? Clearly it is because they do not revere the founding ideas of America. I do revere them as the highest and most noble expression of the human spirit. 
Image: Trumbull's painting of Cornwallis' surrender. For at least 100 years, there has been a slow, steady flow of power from the individual to the state in the US. Despite American history, American ideals, and some parts of the Constitution which have grown weak with disuse, these flows of power have been approved by voters. Both liberals and Republicans have played roles in this trend, and even Reagan was (unwillingly) in the grip of this populist, quasi-socialistic trend which, in my view, amounts in the end in little more than a series of power grabs from people to government, with little to show for what was bought with that bowl of lentils other than more financial security for the poor and the removal of government-supported racial discrimination. “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling "Stop!"” - William F. Buckley Jr.
This trend has been driven by Leftist populism, and opposed, especially in the past 30 years, by Conservative populism. (Both populisms are interestingly discussed here in the WSJ.) Populisms sell dreams, usually with an "us vs. them" theme as an emotional hook. Paul at Powerline takes a gander at Obama's populist dream-marketing (my highlighting). It goes without saying that Barack Obama will end the hardship and "struggle" in our daily lives. Under the Yes We Can Man, folks (other than conservative bloggers) will be able to quit their second jobs, the price of gasoline will plummet, and Ivy League grads will never again have to work for hedge funds to pay off their college loans. Nor does Obama's magic end at our borders. Last night, he said he would solve our immigration problem in part by improving the economy of Mexico to the point that illegal immigrants will have no need or desire to enter the paradise Obama will create here. Most magically of all, Obama will fix Mexico's economy even while refusing to trade with Mexico unless it complies with U.S. labor and environmental standards. I know the competition is fierce, but Obama may turn out to be the most intellectually dishonest Democratic presidential nominee of my lifetime.
As the nurse-anesthetist said to me before they put me out for my last colonoscopy, "Pick a dream." My dream for America is to reclaim the best of our pre-60s, pre-1930s historical character and ideals. But, OK, I am rambling, and posting truisms. I'll stop for now, and close with this: “I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.” - William F. Buckley Jr.
Monday, February 25. 2008
 It turns out that Aristotle, not Jean Buridan, first came up with the logical paradox of the hungry, thirsty ass who dies, paralyzed by indecision between a bucket of water and a pile of hay.
Viking mentions the Dem version, with its apparent solution: It's the political equivalent of Buridan's ass: with no defining issue to differentiate the candidates, Americans gravitated towards the one you'd like to have a beer with and watch a little football.
Our editor mentions another one: A MA Yankee torn between his attachment to the Berkshire Hills and Cape Cod. (God forbid that leaves you stuck inside of Worcester, MA with the Memphis blues.)
Sunday, February 24. 2008
 If he really cares about me, he should shut up about no taxes for the greedy geezers (Why just them? Why not me, too?), and free health care, and all that nonsense. He should just do something truly useful: pay our dang Costco food bills.
Food prices are shockingly unprogressive for this enlightened, progressive era. America can do better, and there is no justice in the filthy rich paying the same price that I pay for a nice butterflied New Zealand leg o' lamb. I paid $477.89 this afternoon to fill one lousy cart (admittedly the giant-sized Costco cart, full of lots of meat like lamb, salmon, pork loin, burger, and filets - and cheeses and fruit to supply us for a couple of weeks, plus ten years' worth of those skinny French string beans, plus the usual cleaning supplies and the random impulse buys that Costco thrives on), not to mention the gas to get there (20 miles). Food is more important and essential than anything else. Come on, Barry! "Universal Food Care" : promise me Costco food will be free in the beautiful future we all dream of. Consider the same for Home Depot stuff, too, Barry. We cannot live without tools and lumber and cement and windows and screws and toilet parts and stuff like that. Simple justice requires that these things should be free, same as food.
Saturday, February 23. 2008
 A recent email from a nephew:Dear Uncle J: You probably won't post this on your centrist PC blog, but let me make a case for affirmative action in so-called "selective" institutions of so-called "higher education." As an undergraduate at an Ivy university, I have given up on any hopes of diversity of political opinion. The politics here are fashionably Maoist and this place is packed with tenured radicals left over from the 60s who still think their thinking is "advanced." It's a joke, really, and most of us see it for what it is. However, I would like to see some "affimative action" in the admission policy for female undergrads. Specifically, they need to make a serious effort to recruit and admit more cute females who are comfortable with their femininity. There are not enough of them to go around for us wholesome, regular heterosexual fellows, so we are forced to go elsewhere to find them; forced to forage widely and inconveniently to the environs of BC and, if desperate and half in the bag, BU. Never to MIT, believe me. What makes it worse is that some of the gal students here, who could look great, do not. As a socio-political fashion statement, they do not try to look good. They try to look dowdy, or 60s, or scholarly, or to create the illusion of indifference to their appearance, or to look like dikes. It's just not appealing to a guy for a female to look unfeminine. I know that you will tell me that they will fix this appearance thing when they go for their job interviews at Goldman Sachs and McKinsey, but what about now? Would gals be drawn to me if I wore a skirt instead of khakis and a Brooks Brothers shirt? If it would work, I'd give it a try... I think my idea is reasonable, since affirmative action is all about appearances anyway. So, as a consequence of my experience, I have decided to support the idea of affirmative action solutions to the statistically disproportionate lack of cute, charming, appealingly-dressed females on Ivy campuses - regardless of skin color, religion or lack thereof, ethnicity, dietary preference, or political orientation. Your devoted nephew, T. PS: I dare you to post this on Maggie's.
PPS: I have attached a photo of the sort of person I mean: cheerful, chipper, outdoorsy cuties who like sports is all I ask for. Smart, but they do not need to be rocket scientists. I almost went to Theo's place for a bethonged example, but thought it might detract - or distract - from the sincerity of my earnest plea for fairness.
This is a reposting from 2006, prompted by a post by Surber about the dramatic resurgence of the wolf populations in the northern Rockies. Also related to the Crichton video posted today.  The ways that ecological interactions take place is always fascinating to me, and unpredictable. The return of wolves to Yellowstone Park is a case study.
Wolves kill more elk, balancing the elk population and driving the elk to safe zones, thus permitting the return of normal willow growth along river edges, thus cooling and stabilizing rivers resulting in bigger trout, and happy songbirds, and generally more biodiversity. And the wolves kill coyotes, thus there are more fox and mice and little critters, and more and happier hawks. Sadly, a parvovirus from domestic dogs threatens the 170 Yellowstone wolves. I guess no-one brought them in for their shots. "Apex predators" are a key piece of any ecological puzzle. I'd like to see our native Timber Wolf returned to New England, along with the Elk who used to live in the Northeast. It would solve the deer infestation and the coyote infestation, and might reduce the number of cats and dopey little ankle-biter dogs in suburbia, too. Politically, it might be tough - can you imagine running for state office with a campaign promise to return wolves to Pittsfield, MA? But maybe they will come under their own steam, the way the coyotes did - which were never native to the Northeast and which cannot take on a whitetail deer. Story in the Science Times. A Wolf website here.
Friday, February 22. 2008
Beautiful snowy day. I have only seen the usual suspects: Blue Jay, Mourning Dove, Song Sparrow, White Throated Sparrow, SC Junco, Cardinal, BC Chickadee, WB Nuthatch, Tufted Titmouse, Downy Woodpecker, Red-bellied Woodpecker. Somebody around must be offering Niger seed (which is not really thistle seed) because I haven't seen any Goldfinches. Hoping for something exciting to come by, like maybe a California Condor or a Dodo. 
Thursday, February 21. 2008
The New Yoik Times, that bastion of originality, says Barack Obama is a plagiarist, because he used the same motif for a lame speech as another politician. They're very picky over there at the Times. I've heard that they discipline their own employees for making stuff up and copying things without attribution. I know it's true because it happens so often that it's always fresh in your mind. You're a bad man, Obama: The controversy arose after Mr. Obama, of Illinois, delivered a speech at a Democratic Party dinner in Wisconsin. He responded to criticism from Mrs. Clinton, of New York, who argued that Mr. Obama might deliver smooth speeches, but that she was better prepared to solve problems.
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he said in his remarks. “ ‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?”
The passage was similar to one used by Mr. Patrick in response to similar criticism.
Hey, I'm content to live in a world of unoriginal politicians, but far be it from me to doubt the Times when they hold everybody to a higher standard. Well, almost everybody. 
That's from Noam Cohen at the New York Times, appended to the sterling and no doubt highly original article: Is Obama a Mac and Clinton a PC? Hmm. February 19th, 2008. Hey look! Maggies' Farm, January 3rd, 2008: 
Hey, what's the lead time on developing stories over there at the Times? I bet I can guess. Of course, it's not my standard of plagiarism we're talking about here, it's the Times' we must adhere to: "...was similar to one used by..." Not only would such a blatant ripoff without attribution be dishonorable, it would be sorta lame too, because the item was a re-run on Jan.3rd 2008. We ran it first on January 26th, 2007. All the unoriginal and stale news that's fit to print, I guess. Remember, it's the New York Times' world, I'm just trying to live in it. If you Google "new york times plagiarist," it returns 1,660,000 entries. That's a lot, and they all seem to be NYTimes employees, not Barack Obama. I guess it will return 1,660,001 after I hit "save." Sorry. Let's get all Woodward and Bernstein, shall we? Wrong paper, but who cares? They don't seem to. Here goes: Hey Noam; what did you know and when did you know it?
Wednesday, February 20. 2008
 It was politically brilliant of FDR's speech writers to use the language of "rights" (which until that time in American liberty-oriented, revolutionary language had referred to rights granted by God to individual humans in opposition to government power) to the "right," or even the duty, of government to take the fruits of our efforts and that of our parents, without any apparent limit.
With a devilishly clever twisting of "freedom" language, leveraged with the timely intervention of the Great Depression, FDR decided to turn a charitable US with Christian values into a welfare state with a strong dose of secular socialist values. He had plenty of other choices. I recently ran into an essay by Cass Sunstein in The American Prospect on FDR's "Second Bill of Rights." A quote: Roosevelt said that the nation "cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people--whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth--is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure." Roosevelt looked back, and not entirely approvingly, to the framing of the Constitution. At its inception, the nation had grown "under the protection of certain inalienable political rights--among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures."
But, he added, over time, "we have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence." As Roosevelt saw it, "necessitous men are not free men," not least because those who are hungry and jobless "are the stuff out of which dictatorships are made." He echoed the words of the Declaration of Independence, urging a kind of Declaration of Interdependence: "In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all--regardless of station, race, or creed."
Sunstein approves of FDR's revolution. Read the whole thing. Comment from The Barrister: We cannot rest until one insecure family is made secure? What does that mean? My life would be instantly insecure if I decided to quit work today, grab a six-pack and go fishin.' Comment from Bird Dog: To imagine that FDR and his pals were indifferent to the laws of incentive and of unintended consequences would be to underestimate them. Since I do not believe that it is possilble to be charitable with other people's money, I assume that they were simply very crafty politicians. The Dems have never wavered from that same strategy: the more people you put on the dole and the fewer folks you have paying all of the taxes, the more votes you get. It's not complicated. Hence the moves for socialized medicine...and then what next, after that? Comment from Dr. Bliss: As an aristocrat in a family with a strong sense of noblesse oblige, FDR never had to worry about freedom. Freedom never entered into his administration's equations, and the Progressives back then had as little interest in struggling with the conflicts between individual freedom and autonomy vs. material social well-being, as they do today.
 I am told that the Surf Hotel on Block Island is for sale. Stayed there once or twice, many moons ago. A funky old Block Islandy sort of place. Fawlty Towers, anyone? Sadly, somebody will probably buy the old place and turn it into condos or time shares, with credible water pressure and walls you cannot hear through.
 Also, I see this modest Manhattan townhouse on E. 68th St. is for sale.
It's the Henry T. Sloane house, built in 1905. If I had the $64 million asking price in my checking account, I might go for it. Everybody deserves a Manhattan pied a terre, so my hope is that Obama will get me one. Three stories would suffice.
 Roger wonders what the Aussies are apologizing for. I think all of this phony apologizing for history is just a passing sanctimonious fad, but it does feed into an unwholesome and unconstructive victim mentality and does nothing to inspire people to get on board.
Nonetheless, it raises once again the interesting anthropological subject of what happens when native cultures, whether rural farmers in Asia, Indians in Saskatchewan, Bedouins in the Middle East, or Aborigines in Australia, are confronted with a powerful modernity they didn't ask for and do not really comprehend. Same thing happens among subcultures right here in the US. The new culture is rarely embraced, even if new technologies are. Sometimes it works out well, sometimes it doesn't. I wonder what I would do if confronted with a new powerful culture from outer space. My guess is that I would resist it, because my culture is pretty good, and I am an old-fashioned, sentimental sort of guy. Photo: My favorite Maori: Kiri Te Kanawa
Monday, February 18. 2008
Schools don't teach Hyper History, but they should cover it before they teach any specific historical period. During most of my formal history education, I struggled to orient myself in historical time. Hyper History means what happened over the broad sweep of time, say 30,000 BC to 1900 - those old-fashioned time lines, to help you put whatever you learn in some kind of context. Since it isn't taught, you have to make one yourself with big rolls of paper, which will make you learn it better, or, next best for the lazies, buy one from HyperHistory Online. and hang it on a long wall. It's not just for kids. I also found a very cool Roman timeline.
Dr. X. offers a brief intro to "mirror neurons" in response to a NYT piece on Mimicry, Persuasion, and Building Rapport. "Mirroring" is about our mental reflection, or replication, of the behavior of others, usually of our own species or tribe. Whenever neuroscience finds something which might connect the brain with the mind, folks in my line of work get excited and tend to over-react, as if needy of validation. As Dr X says: ...recently, there has been a backlash against the overselling of mirror neurons, it is clear that researchers who are studying the role of interactional synchronization (and desynchronization) are onto something very powerful. Gallese wrote an interesting paper connecting this research with a number of psychoanalytic and clinical constructs including "unconscious communication, projective identification, attunement, empathy, autism, therapeutic action, and transference-countertransference interactions."
As a Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, I have always been fascinated with the neurosciences even though I hated Neuroanatomy in med school. (I think I have some LD when it comes to 3-D mental imaging.) The good Doctor links to a Gallese scientific essay on mirroring and interpersonal attunement, which may or may not be an over-interpretation of the neuroscience. In the end, though, the neurosciences offer me nothing in understanding the human mind and human behavior, and probably never will because when we talk about brain and mind we are talking about different levels of organization. The neural operations are assumed, so, when I talk with a person, I am going to be more interested in where they decide to drive their car than in how the carburetor of their car works and, if I see a play, more interested in expression than I am in the physiology of the actors' vocal cords. Early in his explorations of the human mind and soul, Freud had great hopes of correlating his discoveries with neuroscience. He was, after all, a Neurologist, not a Psychiatrist. I think that, were he alive today, he would still find such correlations difficult. Editor: The Alan Parsons Project with I Am A Mirror (lyrics here). Echoes of I Am A Camera:
 A reader mentioned that she liked this rather unique .45/410 revolver for home defence. Makes sense to me. A splash of #6 birdshot to the face will indeed leave a scumbag "learning Braille in jail" - if he is lucky.
Here's a review of the revolver, whence the photo. I tend to like this basic handgun. I prefer revolvers for the same reason that I prefer breaking shotguns: fewer moving parts, and easier to keep track of your ammo. Related, quoted in full from Insty: JAY TEA HAS THOUGHTS ON GUN-FREE ZONES; Nearly all of the mass shootings of late have been in "gun-free zones." And the ones that weren't -- at the New Life Church in Colorado and the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia -- were stopped by private citizens (and members of the community being attacked) with their own weapons. Now for my second thought. If these places aren't going to get rid of their "gun-free zone" status, despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that they simply get more people killed, then how can they improve their security where it actually make the people inside safer? I have a few ideas. And for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to apply them to a college.
Meanwhile, Nathan Moore is offering to represent anyone who wants to challenge Tennessee's rules against carry on campus. UPDATE: "Lawyer up, kids!"
Also, No Looking Back on gun-free zones (which should be called "Defence-free Zones," or maybe "Helpless Victim Zones.") Here's the argument against The Judge. thanks, reader.
Sunday, February 17. 2008
A family member recently handed this over to me, which had been sleeping in his attic for 40 years. It's a 20 ga. single-shot breaking gun from Ithaca Gun. It's in perfect condition, but has little value or practical utility. It might be good for teaching a kid: having one shot concentrates the mind. The point is that you cannot have too many guns around. Each is interesting in its own way. There are so many cool ways to assemble a piece of pipe with a hammer mechanism at one end. This one was thirsty for a little oil, which inspired me to deliver a bit of TLC to many which have not been used lately. He also gave me an equally old, but essentially unused, .22 long with a nice scope and a light oak stock. That is a fun, handy toy tool. He is keeping his .45 police handgun to enforce mannerly behavior around his house. I have too many shotguns, need handguns around the farm. 
Some points that Larry Kudlow made on the radio yesterday (paraphrased): Corporate taxes should be zero in the US, as should the capital gains tax, dividend taxes and estate taxes (they are all forms of double-taxation). The rest of the fast-growing world (except for dying Euroland) is coming to understand that, but our Dems are still stuck in the 1930s with their anti-business, anti-free market populism. After all, who ends up paying those taxes on corporate income? Consumers in the US and around the world (30% of American business does exports), and investors (which now includes most Americans). Without the investors, there would be no business growth and no job growth. Kudlow reminds us that 138 million Americans work for corporations, and it is very much in their interest that those businesses do well in the world economy. The Dem government-greed-based attacks on, and plans to control, our wonderful, high-wage industries (oil, pharmaceuticals, finance, insurance, etc.) are from another era, and promise nothing but damage to employees and shareholders.
Saturday, February 16. 2008
An annual re-post, for our readers with game in their freezers: A few more Maggie's Farm favorites, but first, remember: always salt and pepper your meat before cooking, never over-cook game, and keep a good supply of gibier sauce in your freezer.  For venison, elk and moose
The filets - tie them up tight, and cook as you do a beef filet mignon The steaks - marinated overnight in olive oil, garlic, thyme, a little wine, and grilled rare The stew meat (which is most of it) - Our favorite is to make a Bourguignon, but a Navarin is also excellent. I call these two recipes "savory meats."
Pheasant, duck and goose legs Our habit, with duck, goose and pheasant, is to cook the breasts and to confit the legs and thighs. When you confit them, the tendons melt and they are a great accompaniment for a salad. A container of confit in the fridge will last for months. Just take 'em out and warm them in the oven and let the duck fat from the confit drip off, and either pick the meat off and toss it with the greens, or just put the warmed leg with thigh on top of the salad. Good idea to mix some warm gibier sauce in with the oil and vinegar dressing.  Pheasant
We like pheasant breast sauteed to pink in the middle, in butter and olive oil, on a bed of red cabbage (braised with bacon, a little vinegar, port), with wild mushrooms and braised and sauteed root vegetables - or mashed potato, on the side. You splash some reduced gibier sauce on top. Woodcock We treat the delectable but tiny woodcock with special care. We don't do it like the French (a sauce from all of its guts, and served with a toothpick to eat the brain with). Sautee the tiny breasts for a number of seconds on each side in hot butter and some truffle oil, and place on toast. Squish the livers into the butter and oil to make a sauce with a splash of brandy or something, and pour on top. Amazing first course. Or, even better: woodcock ravioli. Chop very finely, then sautee shallot, carrot, and a little garlic. Very quickly sautee the woodcock breasts, then cut into small pieces. Mix above together with some truffle oil and spoon into your ravioli pasta or wontons. Serve splashed with gibier sauce with a couple of sauteed porcinis. A nice touch: shave some black truffle over the raviolis on the plate.  Ruffed Grouse
Grouse hunters are a special breed of human - bull-headed and foolish - and the Ruffed Grouse is a special kind of food. Every grouse hunter has his favorite way of preparing this subtle but delicious breast meat, like a dry chicken, but a chicken that has been raised on juniper berries and raspberries and mushrooms and aspen buds and fern fronds. One way we like is to brown the breasts quickly, then wrap in bacon and bake until the middle is pink. Serve on a bed of lentils with chopped shallots and carrots in them, with a splash of gibier sauce on top, root vegetables maybe on the side.
Canada Goose Pests? Not on your life. They are great food. Marinate those dark meat, steak-like breasts overnight. Some love 'em on the grill, like steak. That's fine, but also good is to sautee them in oil and butter to your degree of done-ness, then serve thinly sliced with a gibier sauce.
 Wild Duck
We have more favorite ways of cooking wild duck than I can list here. It's a subject for another day, but I will say three things: in Yankeeland, duck doesn't mean Mallard - it means all sorts of ducks, including the delicious and livery Bluebill. Second: we gave up on cooking the whole bird, stuffed or otherwise. It does not do justice to the bird. We just do happy things with the breasts, and confit the legs and thighs. Third, a piece of orange should never get near a wild duck. Domestic duck, ok, if that's what you like, but not the wild ones - it's criminal.
Put the youngest Bird Dog pup on the plane to Charlotte very early this morning for the Junior Olympics Tournament. (She does Foil - elegant, but millions of rules. It's like physical Chess.) Gave myself a little treat by taking the Queens-Midtown Tunnel from LaGuardia airport into Manhattan, and grabbed a bag of fresh hot bagels and some good coffee before heading back north to the serenity of Yankeeland. I do love NYC. Who doesn't? It is vitality, even at 6 AM. On a Saturday morning at 6 AM you can drive up Manhattan to the 96th St. entrance to the FDR quite enjoyably, despite having to dodge wacko, reckless, seemingly insane or drunk guys in wheelchairs in the middle of 3rd Ave, disregarding the street signals. Had camera, but too dark. 
Fencing demands a lot from your legs, your brain, and your spirit. The young 'uns all come back with some good purple bruises, so it's a wonder that the goo-goos haven't banned this "violent" game yet. In pitiful Euroland, at least. Bruises = Life. Well, this pup of mine is good at finding her way around new places - a handy life skill - having done Europe a couple of times more or less independently. When she goes to a Fencing tournament, I say "Return with your shield, or on it," or sometimes "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." I want to see blood on her foil.
Friday, February 15. 2008
Large birds of prey lay their eggs early. A nest at Blackwater Refuge in Maryland already has two eggs. The Live Eagle Cam is here. A friend of a friend took this photo of eaglets in the Adirondacks two springs ago: 
Wednesday, February 13. 2008
 I'm weary of everybody finding fascism in the unlikeliest of places. I'm tired of finding little cookie duster moustaches photoshopped onto politicians that remind me of church wardens, not mail-fisted strongmen. I'm worn out from the endless denouement of every discussion on every topic, no matter how mundane, being a reference to that weird Austrian corporal. It's a looming Weimar you're all not recognizing, not the next Fuhrer. Everybody's oblivious to the cobbling together of a miserable tottering spineless Byzantium, because they want to spot Mehmed in every passerby,when they should be fixing the chinks in the walls and looking to the horizon. I said I was weary of it, and just look at the picture I offered. I apologize. It's not the Hitlerjugend I read about yesterday. It seemed to me Weimar being remade, not the Third Reich. Lord knows what will come after this Weimar falls. Or perhaps, Lord, peace be upon him is more to the point.
Continue reading "Re Fascism: Can You Pull The Dirt In After You? Thanks."
A propos of Theo’s clip on gun confiscation vs. gun crime, I looked at the Australian Bureau of Statistics site (www.abs.gov.au/ausstats) to see what changes there have been in reported firearms crimes since the 1996 ban on firearms ownership. The data is relatively buried, with different data sets on different pages in different years, but I was able to find the following data (percentage of crimes using firearms): Percent of Australian Crimes using a Firearm 1995 2006 Kidnapping/abduction 2.8% 5.0% Murder 17.8% 16.5% Attempted murder 26.7% 25.3% The gun confiscation certainly cannot be said to have materially changed the incidence of gun-related crime, although the use of a gun as a threat seems to have doubled the small kidnapping/abduction rate. The Right shouts that gun crime is up, and it is some years, but it is down other years. At best, the gun ban can be said to be irrelevant. Left shouts that they “feel safer”, although they clearly are not; however, they do not do well with statistics. Inasmuch as Australia is entirely surrounded by ocean, the perpetual complaint that Mr. Bloomberg makes – that New York’s ban doesn’t work only because criminals can buy easy guns in the South – is clearly shown by the Australian experience to be false. Furthermore, in New York City all firearms must be registered, but there is an exception: because it is illegal for a convicted felon to own a gun, it has been (correctly) held to be unconstitutional to require a convicted felon to registered his guns, as it would be self-incrimination!
|
