Synthesis
The common themes this December have been Christmas under assault and the press as agent provocateur. Whether its wanting to cast Rumsfeld as the bad guy or the AP wanting to cast terrorists in a sympathetic light, the media is agenda driven. On the one hand, you can pick your media based on its agenda, but Neal Gabler is right to make the point that all media likes a soap opera. Consider his concluding idea: "The media love conflict, which is one of the staples of a good story, so much that they will do almost anything to get it, even or especially if it means jettisoning those messy and complicated elements that might spoil the tale." All of which leads me to wonder, how much of the "Christmas under assault" story is just that, a story told to create a drama. Consider the "crime wave" of the 90's. Real crimes occured, but the news reported them more, and while crime statistics fell, perceptions of crime rose. Suppose in a country of three hundred million, the media made every case of grinchery or humbug a story brought home to your TV. Under such conditions people might well belive that Christmas is being rolled back, even while its on the advance. The very story of Scrooge suggests there has always been some small number who humbug Christmas, so my suspicion is that it is as it ever was. The media just puts a camera in Scrooges face when he spits out another Bah! Humbug! In Dickens' tale, everyone regards the old man as an eccentric, not as a genuine threat to Christmas. Neither the struggling Cratchits nor the middling Fred seem to feel the miser's humbugs threaten their Christmas, rather they seem to regard Scrooge as the one who is the one harmed. I say we take up the part of nephew Fred and Bob Cratchit. Fred invites the old man to dinner every Christmas and Bob asks a blessing for his employer. Whether you want to extend that charitable spirit to the media is another question.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
AP serves interests of Terror
I think it was Micheal Barone who said that the media was generally unaware that its publicizing the terrorists agenda, but now the AP comes out and advocates such a position. Little Green Footballs linked early to the story, and Belmont Club has some good related stories (here and here). Powerline observes, "The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. " See also Roger Simon on the subject.
I think it was Micheal Barone who said that the media was generally unaware that its publicizing the terrorists agenda, but now the AP comes out and advocates such a position. Little Green Footballs linked early to the story, and Belmont Club has some good related stories (here and here). Powerline observes, "The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. " See also Roger Simon on the subject.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Theodore Dalrymple
Followed a link at Milt Rosenberg's blog, Milt's File to this interview with Dalrymple. As someone interested in education, I found it very interesting. In addition to being a columnist for the Spectator, he is also a psychiatric doctor working in an inner city area in Britain with both a hospital and a prison practice.
Refering to drug users, "in those night clubs are not the underclass. It’s widespread. It’s people in their 20s, their late 20s, and I don’t know if they’re ever going to grow out of it. I do meet intelligent people and they come to me and they know that there’s something missing in their lives, but they don’t know what it is. I tell them that what’s lacking is any kind of educational or cultural interest, but they don’t seem to be able to acquire one, even though there are of course ways of doing so. I suppose it’s possible for someone at 28 to get educated, but it’s difficult. I’ve often wondered whether, just as if a child doesn’t acquire a language by shall we say the age of six, so too if a child hasn’t learned to concentrate by the age of 12 or something, if they don’t acquire the habit of concentration, then I don’t know that it’s something they ever learn."
Followed a link at Milt Rosenberg's blog, Milt's File to this interview with Dalrymple. As someone interested in education, I found it very interesting. In addition to being a columnist for the Spectator, he is also a psychiatric doctor working in an inner city area in Britain with both a hospital and a prison practice.
Refering to drug users, "in those night clubs are not the underclass. It’s widespread. It’s people in their 20s, their late 20s, and I don’t know if they’re ever going to grow out of it. I do meet intelligent people and they come to me and they know that there’s something missing in their lives, but they don’t know what it is. I tell them that what’s lacking is any kind of educational or cultural interest, but they don’t seem to be able to acquire one, even though there are of course ways of doing so. I suppose it’s possible for someone at 28 to get educated, but it’s difficult. I’ve often wondered whether, just as if a child doesn’t acquire a language by shall we say the age of six, so too if a child hasn’t learned to concentrate by the age of 12 or something, if they don’t acquire the habit of concentration, then I don’t know that it’s something they ever learn."
The Real Che
Anthony Daniels, author of Utopias Elsewhere has a peice in New Criterion called The Real Che on perennial t-shirt figure Che Guevara.
Anthony Daniels, author of Utopias Elsewhere has a peice in New Criterion called The Real Che on perennial t-shirt figure Che Guevara.
The Secret Life of Don Rumsfeld
Two links from Instapundit on the secret life of Donald Rumsfeld. First, Powerline reminds us of the whole question and answer back in Kuwait about the armored up vehicles. And the reminder seems neccesary because the press only reports, interprets, or invents bad news about the SecDef. The Banty Rooster publishes the story of his brother, a wounded soldier, and Rumsfeld that I found very moving. See also VDH's column where he says, "Let Rumsfeld Be."
Two links from Instapundit on the secret life of Donald Rumsfeld. First, Powerline reminds us of the whole question and answer back in Kuwait about the armored up vehicles. And the reminder seems neccesary because the press only reports, interprets, or invents bad news about the SecDef. The Banty Rooster publishes the story of his brother, a wounded soldier, and Rumsfeld that I found very moving. See also VDH's column where he says, "Let Rumsfeld Be."
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Close the Borders!!!
Some advocate closing the borders because they are not happy with the state of immigration. Some are concerned about terrorism. I have always suspected that terrorism is something of a red herring. Marc Sageman, a CIA case officer in Afghanistan between 1987–89, has an excellent piece over at Foreign Policy Research Institute called Understanding Terror Networks. It comports with other things I have read about terrorism (especially Anatomy of Terrorism) and I put considerable stock in it. This teaser peice at FPRI should lead you to the book. I did, and when I added "Two of a Kind", Bobby Darin and Johnny Mercer Duets, shipping was free. ;-)
Many who oppose the current state of immigration are jumping on the terrorism bandwagon in hopes of putting divisions on the border, or some similar plan. Sageman's close study suggests that we have made it harder for terrorists to enter the country and that because of the social requirements of terrorism, for them to enter the country they need to make themselves obvious to law enforcement. The border can always be improved, but I contend that the border service is moving in then right direction (under the guidance of Homeland Security) and no special crackdown of the border is needed. Indeed the domestic crackdown of "sleeper cells" turned out to have proven there weren't any. (Which, given the urgency of terror, was probabably better than hoping the converse would not have been proved.) We know that half of the 9-11 terrorists were already on watch lists, but that in the 9-10 world, the urgency just wasn't there to actually follow through. Begining on 9-12, that urgency was there, and so future terrorists were already up against a considerable hurdle. Innovations made since then have only made the hurddle higher. Those who oppose our more or less open borders should make their case based on their hostility to immigration, not on the red herring of terrorism.
Some advocate closing the borders because they are not happy with the state of immigration. Some are concerned about terrorism. I have always suspected that terrorism is something of a red herring. Marc Sageman, a CIA case officer in Afghanistan between 1987–89, has an excellent piece over at Foreign Policy Research Institute called Understanding Terror Networks. It comports with other things I have read about terrorism (especially Anatomy of Terrorism) and I put considerable stock in it. This teaser peice at FPRI should lead you to the book. I did, and when I added "Two of a Kind", Bobby Darin and Johnny Mercer Duets, shipping was free. ;-)
Many who oppose the current state of immigration are jumping on the terrorism bandwagon in hopes of putting divisions on the border, or some similar plan. Sageman's close study suggests that we have made it harder for terrorists to enter the country and that because of the social requirements of terrorism, for them to enter the country they need to make themselves obvious to law enforcement. The border can always be improved, but I contend that the border service is moving in then right direction (under the guidance of Homeland Security) and no special crackdown of the border is needed. Indeed the domestic crackdown of "sleeper cells" turned out to have proven there weren't any. (Which, given the urgency of terror, was probabably better than hoping the converse would not have been proved.) We know that half of the 9-11 terrorists were already on watch lists, but that in the 9-10 world, the urgency just wasn't there to actually follow through. Begining on 9-12, that urgency was there, and so future terrorists were already up against a considerable hurdle. Innovations made since then have only made the hurddle higher. Those who oppose our more or less open borders should make their case based on their hostility to immigration, not on the red herring of terrorism.
Happy Holidays not good enough?
Virginia Postrel is swimming upstream arguing that not only is Happy Holidays a fine holiday greeting, but in some contexts (public, commcercial) better than Merry Christmas. I agree with Postrel that Happy Holidays remains a fine greeting, and is not a Christmas substitute. For one thing, its a pretty old, traditional greeting itself. To people who don't like Happy Holidays, I say, If this Holiday Greeting effects you, like a sqeaky violin, kick your cares, down the stairs, and watch the Holiday Inn movie with Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. I do agree with the agrieved that Christmas is being pushed out of the public sphere. Lileks writes at the Backfence:
"Check out the U.S. Postal Service Web site: two different stamps for Kwanzaa. One for Eid, two for Hanukkah. Two for non-sectarian "Holiday," with pictures of Santa, reindeer, ornaments, that sort of thing. One for the Chinese New Year. One for those religiously inclined -- it features a Madonna and Child. But the Web site calls it "Holiday Traditional." The word "Christmas" doesn't appear on the site's description of the stamps. Eid, yes. Hanukkah, yes. Kwanzaa, yes. Christmas? No. It's Holiday Traditional."
This is not even-handed, its in fact neutral by no sensible standard. [The other sensible standard of neutrality is just to abandon the whole business, in this case, no holiday stamps.] The neutrality here is one of helping out the smaller players and penalizing the bigger player. Eugene Volokh repeats a joke about this kind of neutrality. This is third cauldron thinking.
Virginia Postrel is swimming upstream arguing that not only is Happy Holidays a fine holiday greeting, but in some contexts (public, commcercial) better than Merry Christmas. I agree with Postrel that Happy Holidays remains a fine greeting, and is not a Christmas substitute. For one thing, its a pretty old, traditional greeting itself. To people who don't like Happy Holidays, I say, If this Holiday Greeting effects you, like a sqeaky violin, kick your cares, down the stairs, and watch the Holiday Inn movie with Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. I do agree with the agrieved that Christmas is being pushed out of the public sphere. Lileks writes at the Backfence:
"Check out the U.S. Postal Service Web site: two different stamps for Kwanzaa. One for Eid, two for Hanukkah. Two for non-sectarian "Holiday," with pictures of Santa, reindeer, ornaments, that sort of thing. One for the Chinese New Year. One for those religiously inclined -- it features a Madonna and Child. But the Web site calls it "Holiday Traditional." The word "Christmas" doesn't appear on the site's description of the stamps. Eid, yes. Hanukkah, yes. Kwanzaa, yes. Christmas? No. It's Holiday Traditional."
This is not even-handed, its in fact neutral by no sensible standard. [The other sensible standard of neutrality is just to abandon the whole business, in this case, no holiday stamps.] The neutrality here is one of helping out the smaller players and penalizing the bigger player. Eugene Volokh repeats a joke about this kind of neutrality. This is third cauldron thinking.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Appologists for Tyranny
Its amazing what some people appologize for. Tom Palmer has posted on a group calling itself the British Helsiniki Human Rights Group, that argues that its Viktor Yushchenko who cheated in the Ukrainian elections, and approves of those remaining dictatorships in Eastern Europe. They favored Slobodan Miloševi?. Palmer includes some bloggers who ally themselves with the BHHRG and its claims in his criticism. Palmer makes the astute observation, "I’ve discovered that that hatred of Yushchenko is not unique, but of a piece with a vigorous whitewashing of old-style Soviet tyrants generally." He concludes by saying, "To be so angry at your own government that you will ally yourself with tyrants abroad is … well, words fail me. But when I become very calm, one comes to mind with perfect clarity: evil."
In my own study of Positivism, I've come across the surprising numbers of American Positivists (called Pragmatists in philosophy and Progressives in education) who fell head over heels for Soviet Communism during the 30's at the exact moment that Stalin was conducting his purges and forced collectivization. Positivism holds that its own "scientific" approach to social problems is correct, or as Virginia Postrel says, "the one right way". (See also Technocrats) Auguste Comte is not only the founder of Positivism, but of Sociology, the "scientific" study of society. Moral and political choices should be made by experts, imbued with the positive philiosophy, on a purely "scientific" basis. [Science in a Positive context will be presented in quotes because I hold that society cannot be examined scientifically, since repreated experimentation under controlled conditions are impossible.] I can understand how someone in 1936 might have lost confidence in capitalism, but to ignore the horrors of Stalinism something else entirely. Yet the Left then and now is all about ignoring the horrors of the enemies of capitalism and democracy, free markets and free societies. Embracing Ukraine's government-backed, Soviet-style candidate is only a demonstration of how this continues today.
Peter Beinart has written in a New Republic cover story about this problem, as it afflicts the Democrats, harkening back to the rejection of Henry Wallace and the embrace of Truman style anti-communism, and arguing that now the Democrats need to do it again. He writes, "In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world." While I think he's totally off the reservation when it comes to the real progress in Iraq, I do think he's right that the center-left and as much of the left as can stomach it, has to come to an awareness that the Democrats would be far better off being Hawkish in foriegn affairs than they would ever be as Doves. My own view is that the Democrats have been hemoraging Jacksonians since Vietnam, and in 2004, even turned their back on Wilsonians, retreating into pure Jeffersonianism. In foriegn policy terms, the Republicans had the Jacksonians, Hamiltonians, and those Wilsonians who put the spread of democracy above a devotion to multilateral institutons. (Wilson wanted international institutions to serve the cause of democracy, not the dictators, so the spirit of Wilson is with Bush.)
A rejection of Micheal Moore, MoveOn, and the anti-war crowd who so recently have prefered the Soviet style government candidate in Ukraine to Yushchenko would allow the Dems to win back some of the Wilsonians and those Jacksonians (mostly union labor) who will support victory in the war on terror. I am irritated much more by Joe Biden's and Peter Beinart's rejection (whether through ignorance or partisan purpose) of Rumsfeld and Iraqi success than I am worried that center-left hawks would fail in the war, but they need that purge, or as Beinart puts it, "American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late."
Its amazing what some people appologize for. Tom Palmer has posted on a group calling itself the British Helsiniki Human Rights Group, that argues that its Viktor Yushchenko who cheated in the Ukrainian elections, and approves of those remaining dictatorships in Eastern Europe. They favored Slobodan Miloševi?. Palmer includes some bloggers who ally themselves with the BHHRG and its claims in his criticism. Palmer makes the astute observation, "I’ve discovered that that hatred of Yushchenko is not unique, but of a piece with a vigorous whitewashing of old-style Soviet tyrants generally." He concludes by saying, "To be so angry at your own government that you will ally yourself with tyrants abroad is … well, words fail me. But when I become very calm, one comes to mind with perfect clarity: evil."
In my own study of Positivism, I've come across the surprising numbers of American Positivists (called Pragmatists in philosophy and Progressives in education) who fell head over heels for Soviet Communism during the 30's at the exact moment that Stalin was conducting his purges and forced collectivization. Positivism holds that its own "scientific" approach to social problems is correct, or as Virginia Postrel says, "the one right way". (See also Technocrats) Auguste Comte is not only the founder of Positivism, but of Sociology, the "scientific" study of society. Moral and political choices should be made by experts, imbued with the positive philiosophy, on a purely "scientific" basis. [Science in a Positive context will be presented in quotes because I hold that society cannot be examined scientifically, since repreated experimentation under controlled conditions are impossible.] I can understand how someone in 1936 might have lost confidence in capitalism, but to ignore the horrors of Stalinism something else entirely. Yet the Left then and now is all about ignoring the horrors of the enemies of capitalism and democracy, free markets and free societies. Embracing Ukraine's government-backed, Soviet-style candidate is only a demonstration of how this continues today.
Peter Beinart has written in a New Republic cover story about this problem, as it afflicts the Democrats, harkening back to the rejection of Henry Wallace and the embrace of Truman style anti-communism, and arguing that now the Democrats need to do it again. He writes, "In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world." While I think he's totally off the reservation when it comes to the real progress in Iraq, I do think he's right that the center-left and as much of the left as can stomach it, has to come to an awareness that the Democrats would be far better off being Hawkish in foriegn affairs than they would ever be as Doves. My own view is that the Democrats have been hemoraging Jacksonians since Vietnam, and in 2004, even turned their back on Wilsonians, retreating into pure Jeffersonianism. In foriegn policy terms, the Republicans had the Jacksonians, Hamiltonians, and those Wilsonians who put the spread of democracy above a devotion to multilateral institutons. (Wilson wanted international institutions to serve the cause of democracy, not the dictators, so the spirit of Wilson is with Bush.)
A rejection of Micheal Moore, MoveOn, and the anti-war crowd who so recently have prefered the Soviet style government candidate in Ukraine to Yushchenko would allow the Dems to win back some of the Wilsonians and those Jacksonians (mostly union labor) who will support victory in the war on terror. I am irritated much more by Joe Biden's and Peter Beinart's rejection (whether through ignorance or partisan purpose) of Rumsfeld and Iraqi success than I am worried that center-left hawks would fail in the war, but they need that purge, or as Beinart puts it, "American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late."
Friday, December 17, 2004
Krauthammer on Christmas
Charles Krauthammer's column today is entitled, Just Leave Christmas Alone.
Charles Krauthammer's column today is entitled, Just Leave Christmas Alone.
Two, Two, Two Holidays in One
One of the underlying themes of my Church-State studies has been my identification of two traditions of American history, remembered differently by evangelical and the more secular leaning people in American society. Both point to accurate facts (and some misremembered things too) but they both have virtually no knowledge of the other tradition.
Enter Christmas. It two has two traditions, though most Americans straddle both, there is some conflict, again, between the most religious and the least religious Americans regarding Christmas. The problem of the two traditions comes from the fact that no one remembers what Christmas was like prior to the Reformation. Picture a winter Mardi Gras, a Christmas Carnival. It was a holiday celebrated in the community, it was raucous and sometimes bawdy. Early Portestants tried to reform Christmas, purging it of its Carnival flavor and pushing it back into a celebration of the birth of Jesus. The net effect of this was to ban what many people regarded as Christmas, the goose, the food and drink, the 12 days of Christmas feating and festival, the decorations, the communal holiday, and so forth. As a consequence two Christmas traditions took root, one the birth of Christ, the second the party. Skip to early 19th century America, where most Churches had no particular Christmas celebration. The Carnival Christmas was present, but rejected by many Americans. Part of the Carnival Christmas, as evidenced by some carols (bring us some figgy pudding, we won't go until we get some) was the tradition of the well off in the community providing gifts of food and drink to a merry crowd that went on a progress through the community. As a community tradition, it was bounded by the relationships that existed the rest of the year. If someone got out of hand, there would be consequences, because everyone knew who was who. Now imagine New York in the 1820's, a much more anonymous society than the English village, and the demands for the well off to give gifts to the poor took on the class consciouness of a newly industrializing society. The old progress tradition held that a well off person who refused any gifts was owed some mischief, but as I said, too much mischief would be a problem, because in the English village, you had to live with your neighbors. Halloween, another progress holiday, retains the "trick or treat" tradition, though the days of its progress are numbered, again because people don't know their neighbors. In the context of class hostility, poor workers had additional grievances against wealthy capitalists and in the anonymous city, where the religious and social leaders were put off by the Carnival Christmas, such displays were taken to be mobbish violence. I suspect there is some truth to it, but how much is hard to say. Either way, Christmas was re-invented on moral grounds, whereby one's gifts were not owed because you were poor, but because you were deserving. In The Night Before Christmas, the new popular Christmas was laid out, focused on neither the Christ child, nor on the raucous community party, but on Santa Claus. In keeping with the Cult of Domesticity, the locus of Christmas was not the community, but the family. So this new Christmas was one that took place within the family and emphasized right behavior for which rewards would follow. Its also no accident that these virtuous Protestants would attach the new Christmas to commerce, which was the source of their prosperity. And, New York being full of Dutch Calvinists, drew on the Dutch St Nicholas for this new American Christmas.
The new American Christmas was not opposed to a religious Christmas, but drew on broad cultural principles, rather than religious ones, because the Christmas that was being replaced, the Carnival Christmas was detached from religion, yet still thrived. And so, you find Santa Claus no where near a Church, but in places of commerce. Seperatly, the Christ is central to the Church Christmas, which is hardly surprising. Two Christmases. One cultural, and one religious. Most Americans celebrate them both and have some trouble telling where one ends and the other begins, or even that there are two of them. Some very religious people prefer only the religious Christmas and reject the cultural Christmas with its many pagan elements (tree, holly, mistletoe, wreath, yule log, elves, &c, &c) and its embrace of commerce. Some very secular people reject both Christmases, because any Christmas is too religious for them. One clearly could celebrate either, or both Christmases, and most Americans celebrate and happily enjoy both. But knowing the history of the two traditions of Christmas may explain some of the contraversy that arises this time of year about the so-called real meaning of Christmas, which often is an attempt to exclude the cultural Christmas, or the inclusiveness of Christmas, which strikes me as odd, since the cultural Christmas has only incidental religous overtones, and is pretty well secular (which is what provokes the highly religious).
One of the underlying themes of my Church-State studies has been my identification of two traditions of American history, remembered differently by evangelical and the more secular leaning people in American society. Both point to accurate facts (and some misremembered things too) but they both have virtually no knowledge of the other tradition.
Enter Christmas. It two has two traditions, though most Americans straddle both, there is some conflict, again, between the most religious and the least religious Americans regarding Christmas. The problem of the two traditions comes from the fact that no one remembers what Christmas was like prior to the Reformation. Picture a winter Mardi Gras, a Christmas Carnival. It was a holiday celebrated in the community, it was raucous and sometimes bawdy. Early Portestants tried to reform Christmas, purging it of its Carnival flavor and pushing it back into a celebration of the birth of Jesus. The net effect of this was to ban what many people regarded as Christmas, the goose, the food and drink, the 12 days of Christmas feating and festival, the decorations, the communal holiday, and so forth. As a consequence two Christmas traditions took root, one the birth of Christ, the second the party. Skip to early 19th century America, where most Churches had no particular Christmas celebration. The Carnival Christmas was present, but rejected by many Americans. Part of the Carnival Christmas, as evidenced by some carols (bring us some figgy pudding, we won't go until we get some) was the tradition of the well off in the community providing gifts of food and drink to a merry crowd that went on a progress through the community. As a community tradition, it was bounded by the relationships that existed the rest of the year. If someone got out of hand, there would be consequences, because everyone knew who was who. Now imagine New York in the 1820's, a much more anonymous society than the English village, and the demands for the well off to give gifts to the poor took on the class consciouness of a newly industrializing society. The old progress tradition held that a well off person who refused any gifts was owed some mischief, but as I said, too much mischief would be a problem, because in the English village, you had to live with your neighbors. Halloween, another progress holiday, retains the "trick or treat" tradition, though the days of its progress are numbered, again because people don't know their neighbors. In the context of class hostility, poor workers had additional grievances against wealthy capitalists and in the anonymous city, where the religious and social leaders were put off by the Carnival Christmas, such displays were taken to be mobbish violence. I suspect there is some truth to it, but how much is hard to say. Either way, Christmas was re-invented on moral grounds, whereby one's gifts were not owed because you were poor, but because you were deserving. In The Night Before Christmas, the new popular Christmas was laid out, focused on neither the Christ child, nor on the raucous community party, but on Santa Claus. In keeping with the Cult of Domesticity, the locus of Christmas was not the community, but the family. So this new Christmas was one that took place within the family and emphasized right behavior for which rewards would follow. Its also no accident that these virtuous Protestants would attach the new Christmas to commerce, which was the source of their prosperity. And, New York being full of Dutch Calvinists, drew on the Dutch St Nicholas for this new American Christmas.
The new American Christmas was not opposed to a religious Christmas, but drew on broad cultural principles, rather than religious ones, because the Christmas that was being replaced, the Carnival Christmas was detached from religion, yet still thrived. And so, you find Santa Claus no where near a Church, but in places of commerce. Seperatly, the Christ is central to the Church Christmas, which is hardly surprising. Two Christmases. One cultural, and one religious. Most Americans celebrate them both and have some trouble telling where one ends and the other begins, or even that there are two of them. Some very religious people prefer only the religious Christmas and reject the cultural Christmas with its many pagan elements (tree, holly, mistletoe, wreath, yule log, elves, &c, &c) and its embrace of commerce. Some very secular people reject both Christmases, because any Christmas is too religious for them. One clearly could celebrate either, or both Christmases, and most Americans celebrate and happily enjoy both. But knowing the history of the two traditions of Christmas may explain some of the contraversy that arises this time of year about the so-called real meaning of Christmas, which often is an attempt to exclude the cultural Christmas, or the inclusiveness of Christmas, which strikes me as odd, since the cultural Christmas has only incidental religous overtones, and is pretty well secular (which is what provokes the highly religious).
Holiday Commercials again a source of irritation
There was a time back in the mid-nineties when Santa was portrayed as being full of vice. There was a commercial for some kind of chicken nuggets and Santa ate them while an elf looked on hungrily. Selfish Santa? The reverse of gift-giving Santa. Santa ogled, he lied, he engaged in all kinds of bad, anti-Santa behavior contrary to the Christmas spirit. I think this whole business culminated in the Bad Santa movie. For several years, either my lack of TV watching or the absence of a sustained message in commercials using Holiday themes, nothing struck me as quite so offensive. This year I have detected a growing theme that is both pervasive and hostile to the spirit of Christmas: "don't forget to get yourself some gifts!" There are two problems here, one ideological, one practical. Christmas is the season for giving, not looking out for yourself. Do that in the after-Christmas sales. Which leads to my second complaint, helpfully offered by my sister, who reminds me that its hard enough to buy gifts for people without people buying for themselves. Buying after Christmas for thyself solves two problems, one, you can devote yourself to giving for Christmas, and second, you can fill in any gaps from your wish list once you have received your gifts. Plus its on sale. The advertisers who put out the message that its OK to grab a little for yourself undermine the purpose of the holidays. Its not as bad as foul depictions of Santa, since that harms kids, but its no good.
There was a time back in the mid-nineties when Santa was portrayed as being full of vice. There was a commercial for some kind of chicken nuggets and Santa ate them while an elf looked on hungrily. Selfish Santa? The reverse of gift-giving Santa. Santa ogled, he lied, he engaged in all kinds of bad, anti-Santa behavior contrary to the Christmas spirit. I think this whole business culminated in the Bad Santa movie. For several years, either my lack of TV watching or the absence of a sustained message in commercials using Holiday themes, nothing struck me as quite so offensive. This year I have detected a growing theme that is both pervasive and hostile to the spirit of Christmas: "don't forget to get yourself some gifts!" There are two problems here, one ideological, one practical. Christmas is the season for giving, not looking out for yourself. Do that in the after-Christmas sales. Which leads to my second complaint, helpfully offered by my sister, who reminds me that its hard enough to buy gifts for people without people buying for themselves. Buying after Christmas for thyself solves two problems, one, you can devote yourself to giving for Christmas, and second, you can fill in any gaps from your wish list once you have received your gifts. Plus its on sale. The advertisers who put out the message that its OK to grab a little for yourself undermine the purpose of the holidays. Its not as bad as foul depictions of Santa, since that harms kids, but its no good.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Blog Awards 2004 experiences voting "irregularities"
While Hugh Hewitt asks his readers and listeners to vote for other bloggers who he thinks were more important than his blog, over at the Daily Kos, code is posted to automatically stuff the ballot box.
While Hugh Hewitt asks his readers and listeners to vote for other bloggers who he thinks were more important than his blog, over at the Daily Kos, code is posted to automatically stuff the ballot box.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Very Nice Social Security Reform Plan
John Kasich was on Neil Cavuto advocating his plan for Social Security reform. You can see a summary of a Kasich type plan here. (The best summary I found actually describes a plan by others, but other summaries were too brief.) Kasich's plan is a partial privatization of 2% (slightly less than a third of the employee contribution) for all workers under 55 years, in exchange for slowing the growth of SSI benefits by using only prices to adjust the COLA rather than prices and wages. This plan basically shifts the burden of the lost benfits from lower payments from the pay as you go system to the higher yielding private retirement accounts. Its a very responsible reform fiscally, reducing the burden on the trust fund as compared to other plans.
The benefit of Kasich's plan is its fiscal conservatism (unsurprising), but its major drawback its directly tied to its major strength: its basically designed to preserve the existing system rather than replace it with something better.
For anyone not familiar with Social Security reform, there are two problems, both demographic. One the one hand the baby boomers constitute a bubble of consumers who, like a snake's meal of a mouse, must pass through the system. On the other hand is the gradual decline in the ratio of workers to retirees, due to slowing birth rates and greater longevity. Like Bill Clinton's plan, the Kasich plan addresses the first problem, the boomer bubble, really well, but ignores the second problem, the declining ratio of workers to retirees.
My own analysis of plans rejected the Clinton plan, and I'd be inclined to reject the Kasich plan without some modification to accomodate the declining ratio. My own plan is to combine the Clinton plan (investing the Trust Fund in the market), a removal of the payroll tax cap, and full privatization of the employee contribution, leaving the employer contribution to fund transition costs and maintain the disability and survivorship programs. The first two elements are ultimatly there to assist with transition costs, the second part provides a better benefit and makes the ratio of workers to retirees irrelevant, since workers fund their own retirement directly. It would be harder to modify the Kasich plan, at least in the direction of greater privatization without increasing the transition costs which Kasich seeks to minimize.
John Kasich was on Neil Cavuto advocating his plan for Social Security reform. You can see a summary of a Kasich type plan here. (The best summary I found actually describes a plan by others, but other summaries were too brief.) Kasich's plan is a partial privatization of 2% (slightly less than a third of the employee contribution) for all workers under 55 years, in exchange for slowing the growth of SSI benefits by using only prices to adjust the COLA rather than prices and wages. This plan basically shifts the burden of the lost benfits from lower payments from the pay as you go system to the higher yielding private retirement accounts. Its a very responsible reform fiscally, reducing the burden on the trust fund as compared to other plans.
The benefit of Kasich's plan is its fiscal conservatism (unsurprising), but its major drawback its directly tied to its major strength: its basically designed to preserve the existing system rather than replace it with something better.
For anyone not familiar with Social Security reform, there are two problems, both demographic. One the one hand the baby boomers constitute a bubble of consumers who, like a snake's meal of a mouse, must pass through the system. On the other hand is the gradual decline in the ratio of workers to retirees, due to slowing birth rates and greater longevity. Like Bill Clinton's plan, the Kasich plan addresses the first problem, the boomer bubble, really well, but ignores the second problem, the declining ratio of workers to retirees.
My own analysis of plans rejected the Clinton plan, and I'd be inclined to reject the Kasich plan without some modification to accomodate the declining ratio. My own plan is to combine the Clinton plan (investing the Trust Fund in the market), a removal of the payroll tax cap, and full privatization of the employee contribution, leaving the employer contribution to fund transition costs and maintain the disability and survivorship programs. The first two elements are ultimatly there to assist with transition costs, the second part provides a better benefit and makes the ratio of workers to retirees irrelevant, since workers fund their own retirement directly. It would be harder to modify the Kasich plan, at least in the direction of greater privatization without increasing the transition costs which Kasich seeks to minimize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)