The liberal elite, when faced with resistance to its agenda, invariably contemptuously labels its opponents as people afraid of change. Peggy Noonan, in one of her better columns, (alas! for subscribers only) in the Wall Street Journal, explains that the popular revolt which is going to bury the democrat party in the next cycle of elections is fueled by perfectly legitimate fear of, and opposition to, change: change in the nature of the country’s character and culture.
There is a real fear that government, with all its layers, its growth, its size, its imperviousness, is changing, or has changed, who we are. And that if we lose who we are, as Americans, we lose everything.
This is part of what’s driving the sense of political urgency this year, especially within precincts of the tea party.
The most vivid illustration of the fear comes, actually, from another country, Greece, and is brilliantly limned by Michael Lewis in October’s Vanity Fair. In “Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds,” he outlines Greece’s economic catastrophe. It is a bankrupt nation, its debt, or rather the amount of debt that has so far been unearthed and revealed, coming to “more than a quarter-million dollars for every working Greek.” Over decades the Greeks turned their government “into a piñata stuffed with fantastic sums” and gave “as many citizens as possible a whack at it.” The average government job pays almost three times as much as the average private-sector job. The retirement age for “arduous” jobs, including hairdressers, radio announcers and musicians, is 55 for men and 50 for women. After that, a generous pension. The tax system has disintegrated. It is a welfare state with a cash economy.
Much of this is well known, though it is beautifully stated. But all of it, Mr. Lewis asserts, has badly damaged the Greek character. “It is simply assumed . . . that anyone who is working for the government is meant to be bribed. . . . Government officials are assumed to steal.” Tax fraud is rampant. Everyone cheats. “It’s become a cultural trait,” a tax collector tells him.
Mr. Lewis: “The Greek state was not just corrupt but also corrupting. Once you saw how it worked you could understand a phenomenon which otherwise made no sense at all: the difficulty Greek people have saying a kind word about one another. . . . Everyone is pretty sure everyone is cheating on his taxes, or bribing politicians, or taking bribes, or lying about the value of his real estate. And this total absence of faith in one another is self-reinforcing. The epidemic of lying and cheating and stealing makes any sort of civic life impossible.”
Thus can great nations, great cultures, disintegrate, break into little pieces that no longer cohere into a whole. …
Government not only can change the national character, it can bizarrely channel national energy. And this is another theme in my mailbox, the rebellion against what government increasingly forces us to become: a nation of accountants.
No matter what level of life in which you operate, you are likely overwhelmed by forms, by a blizzard of regulations, rules, new laws. This is not new, it’s just always getting worse. Priests are forced to be accountants now, and army officers, and dentists. The single most onerous part of ObamaCare is the tax change whereby spending $600 on goods or services will require a 1099 form. Economists will tell you of the financial cost of this, but I would argue that Paperwork Nation is utterly at odds with the American character.
Because Americans weren’t born to be accountants. It’s not in our DNA! We’re supposed to be building the Empire State Building. We were meant—to be romantic about it, and why not—to be a pioneer people, to push on, invent electricity, shoot the bear, bootleg the beer, write the novel, create, reform and modernize great industries. We weren’t meant to be neat and tidy record keepers. We weren’t meant to wear green eyeshades. We looked better in a coonskin cap!
There is I think a powerful rebellion against all this. It isn’t a new rebellion—it was part of Goldwaterism, and Reaganism—but it’s rising again.
For those who wonder why so many people have come to hate, or let me change it to profoundly dislike, “the elites,” especially the political elite, here is one reason: It is because they have armies of accountants to do this work for them. Those in power institute the regulations and rules, and then hire people to protect them from the burdens and demands of their legislation. There is no congressman passing tax law who doesn’t have staffers in his office taking care of his own financial life and who will not, when he moves down the street into the lobbying firm, have an army of accountants to protect him there.
Washington is now to some degree the focus of the same sort of profound resentment that Hollywood liberals inspired when they really mattered, or seemed really powerful. For decades they made films that were not helpful to our culture or society, that were full of violence and sick imagery. But they often brought their own children up more or less protected from the effects of the culture they created. Private schools, nannies, therapists, tutors. They bought their way out of the cultural mayhem to which they’d contributed. Their children were fine. Yours were on their own.
This is part of why people dislike “the elites” and why “the elites,” especially in Washington, must in turn be responsive, come awake, start to notice. People don’t like it when they fear you are subtly, day by day, year by year, changing the personality and character of their nation. They think, “You are ruining our country and insulating yourselves from the ruin. We hate you.”
With Velvet Underground background. I can’t really watch it myself right now using dial up, but Walter Olson recommended it and I know the song, so I believe it must be amusing.
One pays a price for living in the country: satellite modem, no cable, no DSL. One can be temporarily put out of business by an errant cloud, and every once in a blue moon something goes seriously wrong.
Naturally, my satellite hook-up expired totally around noon on Friday. I need a service call and won’t get one until Tuesday at the soonest.
I am posting this via an emergency dial-up account (which I managed to resurrect), but dial-up is almost impossible to use for postings.
Blogging will be extremely limited until my satellite receiver is fixed.
Why should we object to having the country run and our personal decisions made for us by the intellectual elite who vote for democrats and manage and operate our colleges and universities? Because they have reduced academic culture to this sort of thing.
On today’s BBC radio’s Women’s Hour, in an 11:09 episode, correspondent Anna Kostalas encounters 9 female hunters taking the Quebec Hunting and Fishing Federation training course for hunting black bear.
The background commentary by Georges Dupras of the Animal Alliance of Canada is notable for its errors, intolerance, and authoritarianism. Dupras grudgingly concedes that hunting for material economic motives, for subsistence, is acceptable (big of him to give native hunters and back country survivalists his permission), but opposes passionately hunting for spiritual sustenance and aesthetic experience, hunting for sport. To a self-appointed “expert” like Dupras, sport hunting is simply taking pleasure in killing.
Michigan federal district Judge George Caram Steeh III upheld the Obamacare individual health insurance purchase mandate in a case challenging the law brought by the conservative Christian Thomas More Law Center.
Steeh’s decision referred to a number of intellectually questionable precedents expanding the Commerce Clause outrageously through the use of casuistical reasoning.
As Judge Steeh not inaccurately observes, a body of precedent law exists sustaining congressional edicts based on the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce effectively reaching all sorts of persons and activities not in fact engaged in Interstate Commerce.
Post New Deal jurisprudential understanding of the Commerce Clause limitation amounted to the Constitution forbidding congressional interference only in cases of individual persons or activities that could not be in any way, shape or form theoretically causally connected (even negatively) to the national economy or to rational goals of liberal policy by clever and well-educated attorneys.
Such a standard is, of course, completely nugatory and impotent to stop anything at all, and Judge Steeh abashedly alludes to the relatively recent, and distinctly innovative for their era, cases of Morrison and Lopez to establish the contrary. I smiled ironically upon reading that.
The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market. As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check. How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce. Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.
The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Raich, 545 U.S. at 30 (rejecting the argument that plaintiffs’ homegrown marijuana was “entirely separated from the marketâ€); Wickard, 317 U.S. at 127, 128 (home-grown wheat “competes with wheat in commerce†and “may forestall resort to the marketâ€); Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate decisions not to engage in transactions with persons with whom plaintiff did not wish to deal). Similarly, plaintiffs in this case are participants in the health care services market. They are not outside the market. While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.
Judge Steeh’s decision is a competent and professionally produced example of carefully reasoned liberal statism, and very much represents the Keep-the-Constitution-in-Exile reasoning that will be used to defend Obamacare when the various state lawsuits eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The New Federalism and Rational Basis casuistry will meet again in the nation’s highest court before terribly long.
Ilya Somin, at Volokh, pessimistically believes the mandate is more likely to be upheld than not.
I think we have the better reasoning and a narrow conservative majority on the Court, backed by a national negative consensus on Obamacare. I’m not so sure we are going to lose.
Full-length theatrical trailer for the Coen Brothers remake of True Grit, to be released Xmas, 2010.
Shorter Mattie’s-eye-view version with music by the Peasall Sisters, labeled a teaser trailer:
The Dude standing in for the Duke will be interesting to see. The trailers suggest that the Coen Brothers’ version will be darker and scarier than the 1969 Henry Hathaway original.
Though Albert claimed to have strong feelings about climbing safety, one famous photograph showed him, clad in lederhosen, dangling from a precipice by one hand, while brandishing a stein of beer in the other.
German climbing legend Kurt Albert succumbed to head injuries suffered in a 60′ fall from a climb equipped with permanent technical aids.
Kurt Albert, who died on September 27 aged 56, invented the “redpoint†or free style of climbing – in which the ascent is performed without technical aids.
He developed the idea in the early 1970s on expeditions to the Franconian Jura mountains, when he would paint a red “x†on each piton he could avoid using for a foot- or handhold. Once he was able to complete a route avoiding all of them, he would paint a red dot at the base of the climb so that others could have a go. Albert’s “redpoints†sparked the development of the sport climbing movement and the term “redpoint†is used as a measure of performance.
Albert marked new redpoint routes from Patagonia to the Karakoram and from Greenland to Venezuela. In Alpinismus (1977, with Reiner Pickle) he recalled that “we managed to apply the red dot even to some climbs where pitons had previously been considered essential. Handles and steps appeared that had never been noticed before.â€
His more audacious feats include the first ascent of “Eternal Flame†on Trango Tower (6239m) in Pakistan’s Karakoram Range – one of the finest big-wall rock routes in the world. He completed the climb in 1989 with Wolfgang Güllich, managing most of the route free, but using aids for a small section; it was a feat which marked the beginning of the craze for free climbing on high-altitude peaks. It was left to Albert’s compatriots, Alexander and Thomas Huber, to redpoint the climb last year.
Albert’s other pioneering climbs included the first ascent of the aptly-named “El Purgatorio†up the North Pillar of the Acopan Tepui in Venezuela (2006), and the “Royal Flush†on Mount Fitz Roy in Patagonia (with Bernd Arnold, 1995). The newly-opened route was named “Royal Flush†for a reason: statistically a climber in Patagonia will have only two to three continuous days of good weather before violent storms make the ascent impossible. The route up the 1,400m North Wall is one of the most difficult in the world — and Albert always considered the climb to be his most important.
Kurt Albert was born on January 18 1954 in Nuremberg and started climbing, at the age of 14, with a Catholic youth group in his local Frankenjura mountains. He soon progressed to more challenging climbs, such as the Walker Spur on the Grandes Jorasses and the North Face of the Eiger, which he climbed aged 18.
A turning point in his life came in 1973 during a trip to the Elbsandstein in Saxony, where he met climbers who were more interested in pushing the physical limits of rock climbing than in conquering peaks. From then on the ascent became the main challenge, and the more craggy and vertiginous the route the better. As he explained to an interviewer, he liked his climbs to be 80 per cent rock face. Trudging through snow held little appeal.
Albert was not a typical fitness fanatic. He liked strong coffee and cigarettes, and confessed to being “lazy†at home. His commitment to redpointing, however, extended to his mode of travel to and from base camp. He considered it a point of honour to get to the rock face which he intended to climb using “naturalâ€, non-mechanical means of transport and using no advance supplies or porters. …
He died from injuries sustained after falling 18 metres from the Höhenglücksteig via ferrata in Bavaria.
The scene of the accident is featured in this unrelated YouTube video of the Höhenglücksteig:
Gunnery Sergeant Brian Wallgren’s speech to the men of 1st Battalion, 6th Marines one hour before stepping off to take the city of Marjeh, Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Warning: Strong language. Use earphones if playing in the office.
Katsushika Hokusai, The Great Wave off Kanagawa, c.1829-1832
John Fund discusses the startling results of the latest Gallup Poll.
Yesterday, Gallup delivered its first 2010 “likely voter” poll and the results floored the political community. In the generic ballot question, which asks which party a voter would favor in a generic House contest, Gallup gave the GOP a 46% to 42% edge. But then Gallup applied two versions of its “likely voter” turnout model. In its “high turnout model,” Republicans led Democrats by 53% to 40%. In its “low turnout model,” the GOP edge was a stunning 56% to 38%. That kind of margin in favor of Republicans has never been seen in Gallup surveys.
What should worry Democrats most is that the “low turnout model” is typical of recent midterm elections. If the Gallup numbers hold up (and the firm cautions that “the race often tightens in the final month of the campaign”), some word more cataclysmic than “tsunami” would be needed for the Democratic losses.
Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of American Politics, says either of the Gallup turnout models would produce “a Republican House majority the likes of which we have not seen since the election cycles of 1946 or even 1928.” Mr. Barone says the historical parallel might no longer be 1994, when the GOP gained 54 House seats, but instead 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 House seats in the middle of the economic downturn that engulfed Democratic President Grover Cleveland.
The presidential seal fell off the podium during Obama’s speech at the 2010 Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit Tuesday at Carnegie Mellon Auditorium in Washington.
