« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

November 29, 2006

On Race Relations

Conservative black writer Star Parker has an insightful op-ed this week about the infamous Michael Richards comedy club outburst and how it illustrates the state of race relations in the United States today. She points out that decades of affirmative action and other efforts to increase racial diversity and sensitivity have left our society just as race-conscious as it ever was:

We have institutionalized race consciousness to the very core of our society, so it should be evident why it persists. It's the law.

These laws, by transforming human beings into racial categories, dehumanize blacks and whites. Blacks feel less personally responsible for their own lives and whites are forced to relate to blacks as beans to count rather than human beings. One result is animosity of blacks toward whites and whites toward blacks.

Which leads to the second, and related, point. Racism is no longer understood as a moral problem. It is a political problem.

An excellent point. The whole article is worth reading.

In another racially-charged incident, Johns Hopkins University placed a fraternity on probation last week for hosting a hip-hop themed Halloween party called "Halloween in the Hood." Partygoers reported seeing costumes that "were stereotypical, depicting African Americans wearing a lot of jewelry and sagging their pants low." (There was also reportedly a costume resembling a slave, but some individuals mistook a pirate hanging in a noose--complete with a hook on one arm--as representing a lynching, so one should probably take that with a grain of salt.)

Was this party offensive? Possibly. But then surely most hip-hop music videos must be offensive as well. Otherwise there is a double standard--blacks are allowed to dress in stereotypical "gangsta" outfits, but whites are not. (But then, what of Weird Al Yankovic?)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:45 PM | Comments (12)

Hey Ya, Charlie Brown!

This time of year brings many traditions to life. For many people, watching A Charlie Brown Christmas is one holiday tradition they can't live without. It seems this year, however, ABC has created a special edition of the program to drum up more viewership. A clip is below:

Posted by David Darlington at 08:56 AM | Comments (2)

November 28, 2006

One Word Commentary

Classy:

At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

"I didn't ask you that, I asked how he's doing," Bush retorted, according to the source.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:58 PM | Comments (3)

Christmas on Any Other Day

Il Papa in Turchia and Advent quickly approaching... What are Western Christians to do? I am reminded of a discussion concerning the (questionable?) date of Christmas that occurred in a patristics class at the Divinity School.

The impetus for Christmas falling on 25 December has been widely disputed over the years. The most widely circulating reason in academic circles these days is that the Church chose 25 December because this was the celebration of the Eastern god Sol Invictus, the unconquered god. This was an Aurelian addition to the Roman pantheon, occurring quite late in 275. Under this theory, which is very, very popular among revisionists, the Church simply adopted a popular pagan feast to "win" over the people sometime later, possibly at the beginning of Constantine's reign. Once Constantine "authorized" the Faith, the celebration of the Feast was set and the rest is history. Thus, Christmas becomes simply another victim of Constantine's sword.

But this theory is not bullet-proof. It fails to consider that Christ is called the "Sun of Justice" in Malachi 4:2, and that many of the Church fathers thought that perhaps Christ's birth coincided with the beginning of a new solar cycle - the winter solstice. Looking to Scripture for support, the Fathers reckoned six months from the annunciation of St. John the Baptist (which was assumed to be 24 September) and came to 25 March, (the Feast of the Annunciation) as the date of the Incarnation. Nine months later, 25 December, would be Christ's birth. Scripture and biology are satisfied!

The more glaring problems with the academy's accepted theory are purely historical. (1) The oldest surviving calendar of the Roman Church, dating from 354, organizes the whole church year around Christmas, which seems very odd if the date of the Feast had been chosen only forty to fifty years before. (2) Further, Augustine tells us of how the Donatists refused to celebrate Epiphany along with the other churches in northern Africa. Yet they did not refuse to celebrate Christmas. Now, is it not odd that a heretical group who refused to attend Mass with other Christians because the others had gone soft during the Decian persecutions would celebrate a Feast introduced under pagan auspices? It is a non sequitur, and thus it is most clearly the case that Christmas was being celebrated on 25 December for some time before the schism of 303. (To get an idea of the length of time it takes for feasts to "settle," consider that it took nearly 40 years for the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Jesus (before Vatican II sacked the Roman Kalender and removed the Feast; JPII slightly restored it on 3 Jan. as an "optional feast") to spread in use throughout northern Europe during the early 16th century - with the aid of a printing press no less.)

But the most convincing argument against the Sol Invictus theory is that the early Church celebrated the Annunciation and the Passion on the same date, 25 March. Nine months later, we have 25 December.

There is an odd emphasis among liberal Christians in the seminary on historiography. This, I think, is a direct result of the growth, and now dominance in the institution, of higher criticism. And this is not to say that every result of higher criticism reaps negative results for the Faith. Perhaps the conception of historical inquiry as handmaiden of skepticism may be revisited.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 08:47 PM | Comments (2)

November 26, 2006

The EPA versus global warming

On Wednesday, Nov. 29th, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. It's a fascinating case (at least for lawyers) in that state governments are arguing the federal government is ignoring its charge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press both have good roundups.

To describe the situation in its most general terms, the federal government has, over the years, assigned rulemaking, adjudication and the enforcement of those rules/decisions to government agencies. This is commonly referred to as adminstrative law, and it has long been a target of libertarian criticism. Congress will pass a very general law directing a federal agency - in this case the Environmental Protection Agency - to regulate a broad area of commerce or the environment. The agency then draws up regulations to carry out Congress' orders.

Although the practice may have started out innocently enough, it has left us with hundreds of thousands (and possibly millions) of pages of regulations that govern virtually every aspect of life. For lawyers, this is job security. For the economy, it is a massive unwieldy drain.

Among all of the rules was one passed by Congress directing the EPA to regulate pollutants with "adverse effects on public health, welfare or the environment." The EPA claims that this doesn't give it the authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and that, even if it did, the EPA could choose not to regulate it at this time. Massachusettes and 11 other states disagree, saying that because CO2 contributes to global warming, they are permitted to regulate it and in fact they are required to do so.

For environmentalists this is an interesting case, but I think it has an even larger impact on the future of administrative law and the balance of federalism. For now, at least, that future is in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:04 PM | Comments (0)

November 24, 2006

Chipping Away at the Deadweight Loss of Christmas

I took the occasion of last Black Friday to give some thoughts on the Deadweight Loss of Christmas, which I still think is an interesting phenomenon (hint: go read the post again before you go out shopping).

I also spent a couple of paragraphs on gift cards, which are good substitutes for unwanted gifts (though not perfect substitutes for either cash or thoughtful, wanted gifts). So I'm not surprised by some recent news of how popular a purchase gift cards have become. Consider the following facts:

• Gift cards will be the number one gift purchase this year, beating out apparel and electronics.
• Nearly 80% of consumers are planning to buy at least one.
• The average consumer will purchase 4.6 cards, an 18% increase from last year.
• The average consumer will put $116.51 on those cards, a 32% increase from last year.
• Analysts forecast $24.8 Billion in gift card purchases

Gift cards have obviously become more popular and less stigmatized. The interesting question is why. First, I could easily surmise that it is due to a greater awareness of the deadweight loss of gift-giving. As the marketplace proliferates (through the Long Tail), we're more keenly aware of how disappointing a gift is compared to alternatives. Second, perhaps the more we 'bowl alone,' our loved ones are also becoming worse estimators of our preferences, leading to less desirable gifts. Third, retail shopping may be becoming less pleasant compared to alternatives, so consumers seek to minimize their effort (and the efforts of receivers who would otherwise be burdened with having to wait in a return queue). Fourth, retailers may be pushing gift cards, for a variety of reasons.

But things aren't so clear-cut. According to the Deloitte & Touche survey cited above:

Despite their popularity, more people want to receive a gift card than want to give one: of those surveyed, 35 percent would rather get a gift card than merchandise; however, 22 percent say they don't like to give gift cards because they're too impersonal . . .

Less than a majority of receivers are willing to switch, meaning they have adequate givers or a strong preference for good intentions. And the great majority of givers think they can estimate the wishes of their loved ones well or disdain making a present out of a little sliver of plastic. If the trend continues, though, what will be the long-term impact of gift-giving? Will we all sit around trading gift certificates on Christmas morning?

Things are also complicated for retailers:

"Our survey showed that, as a result of buying gift cards last year, 50 percent of consumers spent less time shopping during the holidays and 41 percent bought fewer spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment items," continued Conroy.

Yet, retailers can also charge recipients higher prices when they return to make purchases after the holiday sales. What's more, those spenders will often make purchases that exceed the face value of the card:

The additional sales generated by the cards can be significant. At Target Corp., the country's second-largest discounter, customers redeeming cards spend an average of $43 per transaction, $27 with the card and $16 out of their own pockets, Virginia Genereux . . . wrote in a Nov. 20 report. "We see the incremental sales volume from gift cards likely driving sales upside in the January quarter,'' she said . . .

For the past 10 years, January has recorded the biggest sales growth, an average of 5.7 percent, during the three-month period from November to January, because of increased gift-card use, according to Deloitte & Touche.

But there is one other outstanding feature of gift cards that almost totally negates the dent they might make in the Deadweight Loss of Christmas: the fact that so many of them go unredeemed.

Companies including Home Depot, Limited Brands and Best Buy Co. increased profits in the past year and a half with revenue from unredeemed cards.

About $8 billion of gift cards may not get used this year, said Brian Riley, an analyst at Needham, Massachusetts-based research-firm TowerGroup Inc.

That's nearly a third of the total projected gift card value. A great reminder to check your drawers, purses, wallets, and -- especially -- that Christmas morning refuse for any stray gift cards.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:51 PM | Comments (3)

November 23, 2006

Thankful in Small Ways

There is, of course, quite a lot to be thankful for, but I'd like to take a small opportunity to express my gratitude for pockets. They've always struck me as extraordinarily useful things, and I'm awfully glad we have them.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:51 PM | Comments (0)

In Defense of Traditional Thanksgiving History

Last Thanksgiving the New York Times ran an op-ed by Professor James E. McWilliams on the first Thanksgiving. According to McWilliams, the Pilgrims found the Native American food "exceedingly filthy and most execrable" and the holiday's strong association with food was an invention arising out of the mid-19th century. McWilliams' attack on our traditional view of history is a fashionable sport in academia. When such historical revisions are accurate, it's important for us to amend our understanding of certain events. On the other hand, undermining long-held beliefs of history is such a guaranteed attention-grabber that some will stretch the truth in order to make waves. Or, worse, they'll do it to conform with a differing worldview.

But Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conpiracy fisks the piece and McWilliams' evidence to argue that the Pilgrims actually liked the food they shared with the Native Americans and that from the beginning the holiday has been associated with food and thanksgiving. Indeed, Lindgren implies that nearly all of the stereotypical views we have of that first thanksgiving holiday are well founded.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:54 PM | Comments (3)

Thanksgiving Fun

Click below for more.

Arrow Key = move; Spacebar = fire

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2006

Endangered Yankee Republicans

The New York Times on how to save the New Jersey GOP.

That story could have been written about any of the states north of New Jersey as well. After this month's elections, New England was left with precisely one GOP member among its 22 House seats -- Connecticut's Chris Shays. How did the Northeast turn almost entirely blue? It's obviously not an overnight phenomenon. Indeed, the genesis probably lies GOP's Southern strategy of 40 years ago. As the party became more intent on capturing Southern votes, some retreat in the old Northeast was probably inevitable. But a virtual shutout? The Democrats at least still hold some seats in the interior South and predominantly African American districts.

The Times article shows the way for the GOP to regain some footing in the North: run strong on fiscal responsibility and low taxes, and speak softly on social issues. Most importantly, be positive and cast a vision for the future. Former governor Tom Kean, for example, married "pro-growth" supply-side economics with social progressivism to win two terms in the NJ statehouse in the 1980s. In his autobiography, Kean wrote that the best way to campaign when working with a deficit (such as in NJ where registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans 2-1), was to run upbeat and steal votes from your opponent's base wherever you could, because one vote from his base is worth two from your own. This is the very antithesis of Karl Rove campaigning. Roveian thought says run negative and hard on social issues to fire up your base and get them to the polls, and screw the middle, because they either don't exist in large numbers or don't vote. All that matters is get to 50 plus one. This works fine when your positions on social issues are in the majority, and when the people want government intervention on such matters, but it seems obvious now that the Rove strategy only guarantees victory in the South. The Northeast and West Coast are solid blue, while the Midwest and Mountain states are purple and trending blue. Might the negativity and government intervention in social issues have something to do with it? You think the social liberals in the Northeast and West Coast, the plainspoken Midwesterners, and the libertarian Mountain staters might be turned off by government intervention in social affairs, even if they are amenable to your low-tax and fiscal discipline message? (The Times rightly excoriates Kean's son, Tom Kean Jr., for running a Roveian negative campaign in this year's NJ Senate battle rather than following in the footsteps of his mild-mannered patrician father).

So how do we save the endangered Yankee Republican? I had some ideas in the conclusion of my two-part review of Tom Kean's autobiography, The Politics of Inclusion:

Conservatism needs to recapture the ideas of growth, openness, charitability, and optimism if it wants to continue to thrive in the 21st century. Crisis politics and wedge issue manipulation have short shelf lives. Show me Republican candidates with a pro-growth agenda, who support tax cuts and spending limits. Show me Republican candidates who are committed to broadening the base by spreading the message to not traditionally Republican groups, and who will not scapegoat minorities, immigrants, or those whose acts some consider sinful for this nation's problems. Show me Republicans who are happy warriors and not filled with venom. Show me Republicans who will patriotically defend America and its traditional institutions and values, but will not demonize those who disagree. Show me Republicans who are bullish on America's future, who think the nation's best days are ahead rather than behind it. Then can I say with pride: "Republicanism and You: Still Perfect Together."

Posted by David Darlington at 08:12 PM | Comments (3)

November 21, 2006

No joke?

Tony Blair brings the "nanny state" to a whole new level:

A team of "supernannies" is to be sent to some of Britain's most deprived areas to help parents control antisocial children, Tony Blair revealed today.

The parenting experts will be sent to 77 areas with high levels of unruly behaviour, teenage pregnancies and truancy from school.

The 4 million pound scheme will also force the parents of disruptive children to attend parenting courses.

(Read the whole article here.)

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)

Balko Genius

ITA neighbor Radley Balko has his latest Fox News column up. Using the National Mall as an allegory for our government over the last fifty years, Balko decries the monstrosity of our government and its symbols. My recommended reading for the day.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:52 PM | Comments (2)

Internet law developments

The law surrounding blogging and the comments thereon has long been in upheaval. For some time now website operators could, in a minority of jurisdictions, be held liable for libelous remarks of third party posters under certain circumstances. Comparing blogs and websites to newspapers, some courts reasoned that if an operator filtered or moderated comments, it was implicitly approving the ones that remained. In other words, if a blogger deleted some comments, he or she could be liable for any tortious ones that he or she did not delete. The case law led to a number of bloggers adopting a strict "hands off" policy where no comments were moderated, yet it has also led to a number of bloggers, fearful of taking any chances, simply doing away with comments altogether. Poorly written laws have even led to the possibility of committing federal offenses when comments are left anonymously.

But in Barrett v. Rosenthal the California Supreme Court ruled that Internet users who post (to Web sites or discussion groups) material created by others are immune from liability. The court seemed to rest its holding on 47 U.S.C. 230, which provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The California Supreme Court held that this protects not only service providers whose sites are used to post material without the provider's intervention, but also users who personally select which material (written by others) to post.

In spite of the minority position, it seemed relatively clear that when a user posts material on a site, the operator of the site can't be held liable. California seems to have cemented that view and even gone a step further in granting immunity even when the operator is notified of the potentially tortious nature of the activity. For instance, we here at ITA could not be liable for the tortious comments of others, nor, under California law, would we be liable for re-posting the tortious comments of others, so long as we are not conspiring with them or "active[ly] involve[d] in the creation of [the] posting."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:05 PM | Comments (2)

Another Reason to Hate Bush

President Bush has appointed Eric Keroack, a Massachusetts obstetrician and gynecologist, to head the Office of Population Affairs. The problem? Keroack is president of A Woman's Concern, a Christian nonprofit that specializes in counseling pregnant teens to bring their children to term. The bigger problem? Keroack is a Catholic convert from a non-denom background who is opposed to abortion and, oh my, contraception. To the consternation of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Bush may still make executive appointments.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 11:09 AM | Comments (17)

November 20, 2006

Life of the Party

This past week the Federalist Society held its annual Lawyers Convention in Washington, celebrating the twentieth year of Justice Scalia's term on the bench and brainstorming how the conservative and libertarian segments of the judiciary will move forward in wake of the election. Representing the school's Federalist Society chapter, I had the opportunity to see first-hand what the Post and other elements of Washington have found troublingly enigmatic during years past.

Before nearly 1,500 at the Society's Annual Dinner last Thursday (not on Friday, as the Post reports), up and coming minority leader Sen. McConnell lamented the election while at the same time invoking strong words for upcoming judicial nominations: We still have 49 seats in a House that requires 60 to get anything done. Give judicial nominees an "up or down" vote. Later in the evening, Justice Alito took the podium, exhibiting a keen sense of humor and reservation about the increasing independence of the federal judiciary in its ability to affect public policy without the constraints of a constituency. Life-tenured unelected justices should give greater deference to the legislature and practice greater judicial modesty. Substantive due process should not trump the state house every time.

In a thinly veiled salvo aimed at Justice Kennedy, Sec. Chertoff stated he is dismayed at the invocation of international law in judicial opinions and believes that the invocation of international law is often times applied as a last best effort strategy for members of the federal judiciary and legislature to effect a change impossible under U.S. law.

Sen. McCain's remarks were, much like Vice President Cheney's, a pep talk for the next two years. For all intents and purposes, McCain's presence was his first attempt to reach out to the Society and inaugurate what may develop into beneficial relationship as the election draws near. The overwhelming neocon base (remember that current Society President Gene Meyer's father was Frank Meyer) of the Society makes McCain a palatable figure, but I'm hesitant to see him convincing the paleo constituency that (hopefully) show up at the pols in November 2008. Mormonism aside, Romney may have a better chance courting values voters; his stance on embryonic stem cell research may ostensibly be attributed to a Mormon cosmology and not an attempt to sway a vote. But then we see flip-flopping on same-sex unions and abortion and are left in a quandary, much like the Republican part will be should it not take its recent defeat seriously.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 11:04 AM | Comments (6)

November 19, 2006

L 7

Please join me in welcoming In The Agora's newest contributor, Square Dealer. Like Leon Redbone, not much is known about him -- and he likes it that way. What you will discover, though, is that he's very sharp (of course). We're happy to have him aboard.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:29 PM | Comments (2)

How To Spend It (And How Not To Enjoy It)

The propinquity of Eric's recent discussion of Daniel Gilbert's research and Brad DeLong's questioning of the Financial Times' categorization of his demographic caused a number of my neurons to fire along connections that otherwise would have remained undisturbed.

There were, of course, the obvious neural connections. Daniel Gilbert's book Stumbling on Happiness is one of the better books that I have read in the past year and has directly influenced several major decisions I've made recently; all I can say is that his advice to generally disregard whichever course of action you think will satisfy you at the time, and to instead try to predict what sort of action will satisfy the you of the future, makes as much of a difference to my weighing of options as the concept of net present value affects the decisions of a financier. And DeLong's musings on the FT's supplement How To Spend It reminded me that the mag-within-a-paper is one of my favorite publications ever; how else would I know what the word "bespoke" meant, or that I should consider hiring a Coppola to make my 50th birthday biographical documentary?

But it was Brad's commenters who triggered the critical neuron, for their whining about the FT and its advertising sections (e.g.) reminded me of one of the more startling online discussions I've ever encountered--the one that forced me to the realization that I am, apparently, a greedy selfish pig because I have spent more than a hundred dollars of my own money on a meal. (Albeit not often. Once, actually. And it was for two people.)

The discussion took place on the comment boards of Teresa Nielsen Hayden's occasionally interesting (to me, at least; the blog is continually absorbing, to people who care about the inside baseball of sf publishing, or to people whose politics are left of mine) Web site. The prompt for the discussion on Nielsen Hayden's site was her republishing a truly distinguished whine from a woman who wondered whether half a million (or so) in passive income was enough to retire on for her, her trust-fund-baby husband, and their child.

The woman's question, asked on a bulletin board for wealthy Manhattanites (and maybe a few Park Slopers, too), drew two waves of replies. The first wave, on the original bulletin board, said, essentially, "Hell no"--that the minimum income level for stopping work and enjoying oneself was north of half a mil a year. The second wave, on Nielsen Hayden's site, said that everyone on the Manhattan bulletin board was crazy--and possibly too greedy to live.

My reaction was far different from that of Nielsen Haydens's posters. At the time of the discussion, I was working in Manhattan, and knew from first-hand experience that even $500k could be eaten up very quickly (by taxes, including New York City and New York state's take; co-op fees and/or mortgage payments, for what would be a tiny apartment anywhere else; schooling for the child; a parking space or two; and auto insurance; all of that could easily eat up 70 percent or 80 percent of that figure, and we haven't even talked about babysitters, dining out, clothing, or a vacation). Such a lifestyle would not be excessive. It might, in fact, be considered barely upper-middle-class for Manhattan, and would certainly be far less than what the couple's likely social peers would be enjoying (i.e., my list above had no houses in the Hamptons, art-buying budget--and someone has to support all those artists--, or au pairs).

Granted, money in Manhattan is apt to cause neuroses in Manhattanites. But that is nothing compared with the bile that the hapless not-quite-rich woman's question aroused in the commenters:

If she spends 15k per month that's still only 180k per year so what does she need 350k for? Who spends $1,000 per month on clothes anyway?
...
That's just incomprehensible. You sure they're not joking?
...
Personally, I can't imagine where I'd put $1,000 per month of random stuff.

And many other such remars in that vein. There were a few people who pointed out the obvious--about taxes, about rates of return, and most of all about Manhattan rents ("Manhattan" here meaning "below 110th Street")--and one person who wrote what I had been thinking:

You pepole are all nauseatingly well-adjusted and sensible. Is there no one else who, if they came into a huge amount of money, would buy a Maserati and a villa in Lombardy and spend the rest of their days giving a) scholarships to promising writers and historians, and/or b)Wodehousian parties, but actually probably c)both?

What was stunning was that, in fact, nobody else admitted that they would do that. Everyone claimed that they would support family, (weirdly) grad students and scholars, and poor African orphans--but nobody came to the sorts of conclusions that I come to when I play the mental experiment "What to do with a $50m windfall", which starts with learning Italian the fun way and ends with funding the University of Hawaii women's beach volleyball team. Given the way actual rich people behave, I'm pretty sure that my musings are more honest, albeit also moreunflattering, than the Nielsen Hayden commenters'.

What really irked me was this poster:

A 5 mil trust fund would mean I would be giving away tons of money. I couldn't read all the books that would buy, and I shouldn't eat that much chocolate, and what other true luxuries are there?

Above all else, this is either a display of fanatical ascetiscism or a confession of a fantastic lack of imagination. There are many other true luxuries: a private viewing of the Sistine Chapel, charter flights between my flat in Chelsea and my pied a terre in Kyoto, time to study any subject I want to exhaustion, and the convenience of never doing another load of laundry ever again. Yes, the Buddha disapproved of desire, but so what?

The attitude behind such comments speaks of a fundamental envy of wealth masquerading as a lack of desire. Why express satisfaction with one's own frugal lifestyle--and then condemn someone else in such martial tones unless, secretly, one actually wants what they have? (Or, as one of the contestants put it in the "Player Haters Ball" on Chapelle's Show, "I want to thank God Almighty for giving you so much and me so little.")

It is true, as Gilbert writes, that materialism runs the risk of putting the materialist on a "hedonic treadmill"--once you've bought a big-screen plasma TV, you can't go back to CRT or even a medium-size LCD screen. But Gilbert also allows that wealth can increase your happiness (or, at least, banish sources of acute and chronic unhappiness), for instance by allowing you to live nearer your work (long commutes are major factors of dissatisfaction) and relieving sources of stress (such as being without health insurance).

There is neither anything inherently virtuous in poverty nor sinful in wealth. (Your religious mileage may vary.) Of course, there is always something wrong with being purely superficial and materialistic--and as wealth allows one to indulge in everything, so too are rich people who would be naturally superficial no matter what estate they occupied made even shallower by their money. But it is not their money, but their greed, that makes them so.

Posted by Square Dealer at 06:31 PM | Comments (0)

November 18, 2006

Quick Links

Here are some pieces so interesting I'm at a loss for further commentary:

• A study at Indiana University found that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has as much news content as network news.
• An inmate rehabilitation program in Texas is harnessing the entrepreneurial skills of street criminals by providing venture capital and training for legitimate start-ups.
• Greg Mankiw finds a graph that shows the "poor in the United States have about the same real income as the poor in western Europe. The rich in the United States, however, are much richer."
• Iran might not want us to immediately pull out of Iraq.
• The extraordinary story of how Scott Adams permanently lost and then regained his voice.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:50 PM | Comments (2)

November 17, 2006

Losing a Legend

Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

The passing of Milton Friedman yesterday was lamentable, though at 94 years, not surprising. As his final years wound down, every admirer must have wondered what the world would be like had he not contributed to our body of knowledge -- and what the world will be like now that he's gone.

There were really two Milton Friedmans: the rigorous empiricist and the normative public intellectual. His work on monetarism revolutionized economics, enough so to convert central bankers to his views (even if the politicians behind them keep their reservations) and thus tame inflation. He also was essential to the re-invigoration of classical liberalism, or libertarianism, at a time when few scholars gave any credence to the ideas of free markets and limited government. He can be credited with ending conscription in the United States, proposing school vouchers, spawning generations of like-minded intellectuals, and laying the groundwork for the governance of politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

He was also a forceful, sharp spokesman for his views. Google video, until recently, archived his 10-part PBS series "Free to Choose," which was both charming and thought-provoking. In responding to questions and criticisms from public figures, he was uncompromising and tough without being shrill or unpleasant. One could find this resolution throughout his public life, and there's no doubt that was what was required to upend the predominant views on the role of the state.

And yet those views persist, albeit attenuated and altered: we still suffer from recessions, school vouchers aren't universal, public spending continues to skyrocket, and we are still encumbered in numerous ways by central planning. Does this mean that Friedman failed? No, rather, I think it proves that the push for freedom is a constant battle, one that requires vigorous and sophisticated argument. In this battle, we have lost a tremendous advocate.

Who can replace him? A few months ago, he was interviewed for a podcast by Russ Roberts, a professor of economics at the free market haven, George Mason University. Even this late in life, he was still challenging and correcting his younger devotee. His memory was dimming, but his wits were still sharp. There was still more to learn from this man. His passing is a great blow.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:28 AM | Comments (2)

November 16, 2006

The Pursuit of Happiness

An article at CNN.com about Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert's research into happiness contains some interesting tidbits. The first being that money really doesn't buy happiness. According to the article, once your basic needs are met (which Gilbert places at an income level of $50,000--but this would surely vary depending on where you live), additional income doesn't result in additional happiness.

Secondly, according to a Pew Research Center survey, religious people are happier than the non-religious, and Republicans are happier than Democrats. The article doesn't indicate whether the survey was taken before or after this month's election. Nor can it tell us whether being a Republican makes one happy, or if happy people tend to become Republicans. It's worth noting, though, that a 2004 ABC News survey found that more Republicans than Democrats were satisfied with their sex lives.

Finally, as to that classic conundrum--vacation or new car?--Gilbert has this to say:

"Part of us believes the new car is better because it lasts longer. But, in fact, that's the worst thing about the new car," he said. "It will stay around to disappoint you, whereas a trip to Europe is over. It evaporates. It has the good sense to go away, and you are left with nothing but a wonderful memory."

So true.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:38 PM | Comments (6)

A Call to Civility

I commend House Democrats today for disregarding Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of John Murtha and choosing Steny Hoyer to be House majority leader come January. I know little about Hoyer, so I cannot offer specific praise or criticism of him. Also, the decision surely was as much about internal party dynamics as it was about setting a tone for the leadership of the 110th Congress. Nevertheless, Murtha would certainly have been a controversial choice, given his less-than-commendable ethical record and (more presently) his advocacy for unconditional withdrawal from Iraq.

I urge my fellow conservatives and Republicans not to follow the example of the Democrats for the past 6 years as the minority party in Congress. As I wrote in my first post at ITA two years ago, we must not fall into the trap of scandal-mongering and "gotcha" political games, but rather seek to convince the public that our proposals are better. I still believe that real conservative principles, when properly explained, understood, and applied, will be embraced by the American people over what the left has to offer. If we succeed at this task, we will re-take the political momentum in 2008. If we lapse into angry, cynical, minority party thinking, we may remain in that position for a long time.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:53 PM | Comments (7)

The End of an Era

Paul Musgrave is undoubtedly an intellectual. One could easily picture him in a French cafe, sipping coffee as a reverent circle forms around him. In America, of course, intellectuals are often mocked as "pointy-heads" and "nattering nabobs", confined to the small apartments of New York and the high walls of collegiate ivory towers. While Musgrave has no doubt embraced this cultural subset of society, he hasn't forgotten his small town, Hoosier roots. It's part of what makes his perspective special.

Musgrave has the rare combination of quirky and mainstream sensibilities, with an uncanny ability to express it in artful prose. It isn't hard to understand, then, why blogging was a perfect fit. Musgrave - one of the nation's first bloggers, the first Hoosier to ever pen a blog, and a co-founder of this website - has effectively "retired" from blogging. The withdraw is so complete that his former website and personal blog was removed before I finished penning this pseudo-obituary. Although we have not heard the last of him, his departure from internet journalism warrants a reflective look at his career thus far.

Rich experiences are the lifeblood of a writer, and Musgrave has never lacked them. He's served as an editor of the internationally renowned Foreign Affairs while living in Brooklyn, studied politics in Ireland as a George Mitchell scholar, and graduated with two degrees from Indiana University on a full ride through the prestigious Wells Scholarship. Musgrave now spends his time helping run the Richard Nixon Presidential Library. But the impressive resume can overshadow his humble roots. In his words:

"[Evansville, Indiana] is, really, only an idealized version of the Midwest, but the Midwest is . . . the country's heartland theme park, its normative baseline, and a place familiar (even if often misunderstood) to all Americans but to few foreigners. And so Evansville merges with the national illusion of the Midwest, a putative normalcy that contrasts with the reality of every place I visit, shocking me anew every time."

There, in the land of "putative normalcy," Musgrave stood out. I first met him as a young teen in a high school debate competition. His reputation as a polished speaker preceeded him. Musgrave would go on to win numerous state and national speech and debate awards, as well as a number of other honors reserved for young prodigies. Yet, even perched high above the ladder of accomplishments, he never lost perspective. He wrote on his personal weblog:

"Official honors mainly go to those who succeed in narrowly defined areas that happen to coincide with the fads; thus, entrepreneurship is less valued than community service, good citizenship is less valued than oratorical skills, and everything is less valued than SAT scores. . . . The structure of our educational institutions fosters an idea of success which is narrowly defined and poorly constructed. The Culture of Achievement, with its National Honors Societies and Good Citizenship Awards, views students as inputs into a quasi-industrial process, whose qualities can be precisely measured and ranked. It thus provides a disservice to those who win awards and those who don't alike by giving them a false idea of human worth. It is an irony that the Culture of Achievement creates exactly the opposite."

Musgrave's musings on life and culture are captivating, but it was politics that often garnered the most attention. As the son of a prominent politician and attorney, Musgrave couldn't avoid it. But unlike so many other writers and pundits of our generation, he spurned the traditional ideologies of left and right. He's evolved from a conservative, to a progressive, and finally to something not quite definable. As one writer profiling him put it, "He asks too many questions and considers too many angles to espouse any one party line." Or as a former professor of his put it, "he's trying to figure out a way to be the sort of public intellectual you don't often find in this country."

I've now known Musgrave for over a decade. In that time we've battled in forensic competitions, formed an alternative newspaper together at Indiana University, embarked on our own personal blogs, and created this website. Through it all we both have changed and evolved, but one thing has remained constant - Musgrave excels. But have we heard the last of him?

"History is full of remarkable individuals who reached high and burned out young," he said in a 2004 interview, but he still saw himself cutting out his place in Indiana politics and public life. Spend much time with him and you can still sense some desire to become the strong political figure that's too often absent in today's politics. A former professor adds, "While he aspires to hold political office himself one day, or perhaps to become an adviser to an elected official, he enjoys using his mind too much to stick at that profession for long, I predict. I fully expect him to end up writing the kinds of books he so enjoys reading - ample, subtle, witty, and smart."

Blogging may no longer be part of Musgrave's future, but you haven't heard the last of him yet. You can bank on that.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:08 AM | Comments (8)

November 15, 2006

Do the Dems Need the South?

That's what some are wondering after the party's recent electoral success. Thomas Schaller, writing in Slate, encourages the party to write off Southern states and work on developing their inroads into the Midwest and Mountain states. The South is as solid Red as New England is solid Blue, he says (Christopher Shays is New England 's only GOP congressman after last Tuesday), so Democrats should follow Barry Goldwater's old advice and not go "hunting where the ducks aren't." With the GOP a shambles in Illinois and Ohio, and Democratic strength growing at the state level in Colorado, for example, it seems like sage advise to connect the party's bicoastal dominance by moving straight across the country and isolating the GOP in the South. As Georgia professor James Cobb writes, however, isolating the South means cutting off the party's most natural constituents -- Southern African Americans.

Posted by David Darlington at 11:14 PM | Comments (3)

Wal-Mart, the Great Satan

A federal district court judge has granted a temporary injunction in favor of a Shreveport, Louisiana, seminarian. What do seminarians do in Shreveport that requires adjudication? Picket Wal-Mart in nearby Natchitoches of course, and alert fellow Christians to the mega-store's attack on the institution of marriage. Perhaps I'm just a little skeptical, but waging the war for marriage outside the Natchitoches Wal-Mart may not be the brightest strategic move. Maybe go down the street to Target and ask where the Salvation Army went.

The case is Crayton v. City of Natchitoches, Civ. Action No. 06-1946-A (WD LA, Nov. 13, 2006).

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 05:19 PM | Comments (0)

November 14, 2006

The Exceptional As Traditional

Conservative leaders, especially Christian ones, frequently speak out in defense of the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family. One example is Baptist seminary head Al Mohler, who not only writes eloquently on behalf on the marriage union, but takes it a step further and argues for people to get married younger than they do at present (this has landed him in some hot water from time to time). In two recent blog posts, Mohler cites something called the National Marriage Project in relaying the new demographics of marriage:

The National Marriage Project says the median age at first marriage went from 20 for females and 23 for males in 1960 to about 26 and 27, respectively, in 2005, the Marriage Project says.

Other reasons the National Marriage Project cites for declining marriage rates: the growing acceptance of unmarried cohabitation; a small decrease in the tendency of divorced people to remarry; and "some increase" in lifelong singlehood, although the actual amount of the latter won't be known until the lives of young and middle-age adults run their course.

Unmarried cohabitation is particularly popular among people who've come from divorced-parent homes, says David Popenoe, a professor of sociology at Rutgers and co-director of the National Marriage Project.

Typical explanations for people marrying later, whether you're a conservative critic of the practice or not, are fear of divorce, greater acceptance of sexual freedom and cohabitation, and a desire to get one's career in order before settling down. And for critics like Mohler, later marriage and sexual libertinism are evidence that adolescence has taken over American adulthood and the traditional union is in danger.

But what if that which some of us Christians defend as traditional early marriage is in fact the exception in American history? In its celebration of the nation passing the 300 million population mark, Time magazine produced several demographic charts of who we now are. Chart #5 is of particular interest. This chart shows that the current trend towards "late marriage" is in fact a rediscovery of turn of the 20th-century marriage practices. For example, men typically married at 26 in 1900, a number they would not reach again until roughly 1990. The trend in marriage age for the first 40 years of the 20th century was a gradual downward slope, from 26 to 24 in men and from 22 to 21 in women, followed by a steep drop in the 40s, general flatness in the 50s and 60s, and then rising again thereafter. What some defend as traditional early marriage, therefore, is really the exceptional trough in marriage age that characterized the World War II generation. It's a matter of starting one's historical clock further back into history than 1960.

What I'm writing here is not really a new argument. Historian Elaine Tyler May recognized this trend in her book Homeward Bound almost 20 years ago. Traumatized by World War II and the Communist threat, Americans in the 1940s and 50s closed ranks around their immediate families as a bulwark against trying times and social upheaval. That which 60s liberals rebelled against--and today's Christian conservatives are nostalgic for--was in fact a rather unique era of American history. This does not in any way denigrate the institution of marriage--I happen to agree with those who argue that strong marital unions critical for having a strong societal backbone--but we should be more careful of what we call "traditional" marital practices.

Posted by David Darlington at 11:11 PM | Comments (4)

Finding that loophole

What do you do if you're governor of a state that prohibits gifts to you and your spouse unless it's wedding gifts? Set up a wedding registry, even if you've been married since 1974.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:21 PM | Comments (0)

November 13, 2006

K Fed-eral

Of course, the first question people ask when they learn that Britney Spears has filed for divorce is, "What's to become of Kevin Federline?" I think we, as a society, have been too quick to relegate him to the bargain bin of b-list celebrities. I predict that he will, within the next three cycles, be elected to Congress.

Think about it.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:18 AM | Comments (3)

November 12, 2006

Getting it Right

Today's required reading comes from Radley Balko's new article at Reason Magazine on how Bush has misinterpreted his party's midterm loss.

Followup, optional reading: "Incoming Democrats Put Populism Before Ideology." I think that was also largely true for the Republican majority they replaced. The question is, do voters prefer economic populism to social populism, or did scandals and foreign policy merely poison Republican populism?

Update: Radley finds more fodder here and here. But Julian Sanchez disagrees. And Jacob Weisberg says they're economic nationalists, not populists.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:53 PM | Comments (5)

November 10, 2006

Quick Hits

Two underreported stories from Tuesday's election results:

1. Private property rights were a big winner. As Jason Kuznicki noted, restrictions on eminent domain had a very good night. Voters overwhelmingly rebuked the Supreme Court's Kelo decision by passing prohibitions or severe restrictions on using eminent domain to take land for private development in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Oregon. Where restrictions on eminent domain were coupled with "regulatory takings" reform, they favored less well -- winning in Arizona but losing in California and Idaho. Nevertheless, it was a great night for private property rights.

2. Evangelical Christians Went (Slightly) Democratic. John Kerry won 21 percent of the evangelical Christian vote in 2004. This past Tuesday, Democrats garnered nearly a third of the evangelical vote, which was certainly more than enough to have tipped the balance in a couple of close races. James Carville, sitting at the desk on CNN, specifically mentioned exit polling from the Webb-Allen race showing Webb with support from evangelicals in the mid-30s. One can point to several factors as to why the evangelical vote was down and slightly more blue this year, including dissatisfaction with what the administration has been able to deliver, Congressional corruption, and perhaps even the Ted Haggard revelation a week before the election. Gay marriage restrictions still won, except in libertarian Arizona where an amendment lost 51-49, but evangelicals split their tickets. Gay marriage amendments polled far ahead of the GOP senate candidates in Virginia and Tennessee, to cite two examples.

UPDATE: Go Rutgers!

Posted by David Darlington at 10:22 AM | Comments (10)

Art, Clipped

A little over one minute of dazzling online animation that must have taken hours to put together. You could almost justify it as being appropriate for work.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:36 AM | Comments (0)

November 09, 2006

Election Reflections

First, I think a Nelson Muntz-style "Ha ha" is in order for the netroots, who've ultimately failed in their attempt to replace Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. This further erodes the credence given to online political agitators, as the most prominent thing they did manage to accomplish was to help divert a large amount of resources to a wasteful intra-party battle.

Second, all three of Indiana's tight races came through for the Democrats, albeit conservative Democrats. The only surprise was that John Hostettler lost by such a large margin. Maybe his campaign (i.e., mobilizing his vast grassroots network) really did give up weeks ago, as had been rumored.

Third, Michigan's anti-affirmative action ballot measure passed handedly, despite vitriolic opposition. It has long been obvious that politicians can't undo AA for fear of being called racist or sexist (and the Supreme Court has twice refused to call it unconstitutional), so it seems that the only way to defeat it is by secret ballot. Interesting.

Fourth, I've soured on Rumsfeld the more I find out about his influence on foreign policy. It's not just that he's been consistently wrong but also that he's a bully who's muscled over voices of moderation in the Administration and DoD. I'm glad to see him go. How would the election have changed if he had announced this before Election Day? Or two years ago? I think my father was onto something when he called me yesterday about the resignation: Republicans should be pretty sore at Rummy for his contribution to their losses on Tuesday. Then again, they've had plenty of time to investigate him.

Fifth, the best line of the night was caught by Radley Balko at Hit & Run:

Chris Matthews: ...and in North Carolina, challenger Heath Schuler completes his upset of incumbent Charles Taylor.

Keith Olberman: At least he completed something.

I've spent several weeks in North Carolina's 11th District in the months leading up the election, and I saw plenty of evidence even in the rural mountain towns that Schuler was going to win (it wasn't just hippy-dippy Asheville that put him over the top). I think this can be attributed to two things: first, a general anti-Republican sentiment, and second, a palatable alternative (Schuler is known more for being a Vol than a Redskin).

Sixth, many of the Democratic victories were won by conservative Democrats, and as Josh has noted, more than a few Republicans lost because of Libertarian spoilers. Does this represent a positive shift in the electorate?

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:18 AM | Comments (13)

November 08, 2006

It's all but official now...

Although neither CNN nor Fox News has called the race, the Associated Press has declared Jim Webb the winner in the Virginia Senate Race. This outcome, like the Democratic control of the Senate which it precipitates, was unthinkable two months ago. Even in the immediate aftermath of the "macaca" incident, most expected Allen to win the race even if his Presidential hopes were dashed. I think it's safe to say now that Allen's career as a public office holder is over. And Harry Reid should take S.R. Siddarth (the cameraman who was the target of Allen's fateful jab) out to a very nice dinner.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 11:20 PM | Comments (3)

The libertarian spoiler, part 2

ITA neighbor and friend Jason Kuznicki follows up my analysis below with even more evidence that the GOP's drift from limited government principles helped fuel their losses this November.

The spoiler effect may be even more significant when we consider the number of small-l libertarians who voted outright for Democrats. Influential libertarian blogger Radley Balko repeatedly wrote in favor of Webb in the Virginia Senate race, for instance, and it's no secret that many libertarians are thrilled at the prospect of divided government. As a further bit of evidence, consider the thrilling success of eminent domain referenda last night; not since California's famous tax rebellion have the voters expressed such a clearly libertarian sentiment.

Rush Limbaugh also noted on his website today that by an 11% margin, voters who voted yesterday believe that Republicans are "the big government party now."

Although there were probably a sizable number of conservatives who voted libertarian out of protest, the "libertarian spoiler" likely manifested itself in a much more subtle way. Republican activists who would otherwise be energized for the party and volunteer in any number of ways - knocking on doors, making phone calls, putting out yard signs - were much more likely to simply vote, and nothing more. The war in Iraq was undoubtedly this November's driving force, but big government policies helped deflate the GOP from within.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:36 PM | Comments (1)

Waiting for the other shoe to fall

So, the Democrats took control of the House, but what of the Senate? The Virginia State Board of Elections won't certify the results until November 27. After that, the losing candidate has 10 days to request a recount, and who knows how long that will take to complete?

Is it too much to ask that we could know who is in control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives by the morning after the election?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:03 PM | Comments (9)

The libertarian spoiler?

With the Democrats' unsurprising - yet convincing - victory over Republicans yesterday, the national GOP will need to take a long look in the mirror. Former Congressman Tip O'Neil used to famously say, "All politics is local," but one lesson from Tuesday evening is that sometimes Congressional elections can indeed be nationalized. Across the country, from the Senate down to county commissioners, voters took their distaste of President Bush out on local Republicans.

Pundits, analysts, and elected officials will rightfully see displeasure over the Iraq War as a major motivating factor and, hopefully, reassess that faltering policy. But a more subtle nuance to this election which deserves far more attention than it will receive is the Republican departure from traditional conservative principles.

In particular, the GOP leadership in the White House and Congress have strayed from a principled and intellectual adherence to limited, responsible government. Many Republicans are in denial that the departure from these principles hurt them on Tuesday, but the evidence isn't hard to find. In Indiana's 9th congressional district - one of the most hotly contested in the nation - the Republican incumbent Mike Sodrel lost by roughly 2,000 votes. His problem? The libertarian candidate got 7,000, most of them siphoned off of Sodrel.

Clearly something more than the Iraq war is at play here, and it involves a disenchantment among true conservatives. The list of un-conservative policies from the current GOP establishment is endless:

• A massive $400 billion increase in Medicare spending over 10 years.
  
• Education reform, the cornerstone of which was more spending tied to more federal regulation. Bush got Sen. Ted Kennedy to co-author the bill just for good sport.
  
• Supporting a campaign finance law that protects the interests of incumbents by limiting free speech rights during elections.
  
• A willingness and desire to entangle the U.S. military with virtually any nation.
  
• The unbridled expansion of executive branch and government police powers.
  
• A promise to cut farm subsidies (twice), followed by two separate bills which significantly increased farm subsidies, at which point Bush signed and praised it.
  
• The decision to impose strict steel quotas in opposition to conservative free market principles as a means to pander to union workers (a tactic which certainly failed).
  
• Increased funding on a wide range of bloated government projects and departments, including, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts.
  
• General increases across the board on domestic infrastructure projects to a level not seen since President Johnson occupied the White House.
  
• Close attention to diversity and affirmative action concerns in executive appointment (see, for instance, Harriet Miers).
  
• Shunning the attractive, intelligent Republicans in favor of liberal incumbents, just because they're incumbents (see, for instance, Rep. Pat Toomey in the 2004 Pennsylvania primary with Arlen Specter).
  
• A willingness to abandon any coherent or sensible immigration policy.

These aren't just minor missteps either. These policies - like the entitlement programs, Iraq War, and education regulations - were cornerstones of their tenure. These weren't mistakes that were later regretted. Instead, they were trumpeted and waved around like a child who is proudly showing off crayon graffiti he's added to his parent's living room walls.

What, exactly, makes this party conservative? The best answer partisans will give you is that they're willing to cut taxes. But that alone, especially when coupled with increased spending and regulation, counts for little. (In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance.")

Republicans can rebound from the 2006 election wounds, but it will take a realistic assessment of what caused it. If his history of handling the Iraqi conflict is any indication, I won't hold my breath for Bush to lead the way. But my hope is that new leadership holding fast to true limited government principles will reemerge to salvage the conservative movement.

Update: Indiana's Mike Pence appears to be positioning himself as one possible leader.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:13 AM | Comments (7)

November 07, 2006

Election Coverage

N.Z. Bear has the best graphical layout of results as they come in. Meanwhile John Fund offers an hour by hour guide.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:38 PM | Comments (3)

"Domine, non sum Dignus," or, Lord, Reflect My Human Dignity

"It's not that we think we're equal to God, but we recognize that we are made in the image and likeness of God."

David's post of yesterday illustrates how liturgical aberrations are not limited to our Episcopal friends. Now, it may be said that most, if not all, evangelical churches lack the "liturgical" atmosphere of Canterbury or Rome, but GodMen certainly appears to be a departure from what anyone would recognize as a worship service. So too does this Halloween Mass which took place last week, complete with an extraordinary Eucharistic ministeress dressed as a devil. (For YouTube of the "Mass" - please note, however, that the video does not include footage of priest turning into Barney, as he suggested in the bulletin.)

Unfortunately, for the faithful of the Orange Diocese, such an event is not unthinkable. Bishop Tod Brown (not to confused with author Dan Brown, similar christology aside) of Orange, California, has been at the fulcrum of a continuing ruckus over kneeling during the Mass. Bishop Brown has taken advantage of the Congregation for Divine Worship's instruction that the local ordinary may dispense with kneeling. At St. Mary's by the Sea, Fr. Tran enforces the bishop's decision with religious zeal: Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin." I'm sure he feels the same way about his flock approaching the Eucharist under the stain of other moral sins.

Since at least the seventh century, it has been the practice in the Roman Rite to kneel after the Agnus Dei; in some parts of France and Italy it was the practice to kneel during the entirety of the Canon. (For more historical information, I would suggest Fr. Fortescue's classic The Mass.) After the liturgical revolution of Vatican II, some bishops attempted to rid the Mass of kneeling completely. Forty years after the Council, kneeling is preserved, along with a few other parts of the Mass, and the current Pontiff approves: Kneeling "comes from the Bible and the knowledge of God" (Spirit of the Liturgy). Then-Cardinal Ratzinger's comment aside, to make matters more confusing, the U.S. Council of Bishops has publicly stated "Standing can be just as much an expression of respect for the coming of Christ."

While I prepared to come into full communion with the Church, eucharistology was omnipresent. As a good Missouri Synod Lutheran, I knew that Christ was truly in, under, and with the element of bread. The accidents remained the same, but the substance somehow changed. There was no need to appeal to some Aristotelian conception of transubstantiation. Christ said, "This is my body" (Mt 26). Yet through the guidance of the Spirit, the Church did need to appeal to this finite human conception to further illuminate Christ's infinite Mystery. Centuries of scandal and heresy necessitated such. Thus, at Fourth Lateran (AD 1215), transubstantiation was promulgated by the Church as dogma, binding on the conscience of the faithful.

That the priest, in persona Christi, offers the faithful the true Body and Blood of Christ can be nothing less than a Divine Mystery, to be completely explained in the fullness of the Kingdom. But Divine Mystery aside, that oblation the priest elevates becomes the Body of Christ, and reverence beyond reverence is due. The faithful at St. Mary's understand this: "Standing may be reverence, but kneeling is adoration. It's the one thing that means Catholicism throughout the world. It's what sets us apart." When we pay our respects for the dead, we stand. When our wife comes to the table, we stand. When our sentence is pronounced in court, we stand. When we come face-to-face with Christ, second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Redeemer of the world, we fall to our knees in adoration.

Yes, like the spokesman for Bishop Brown has stated, we are made in the image and likeness of God. But we are also fallen creatures, and it is only through Christ's redemptive act on the cross that we might one day completely fulfill such a statement. Let us pray that Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran experience the presence of Our Lord as do their flock.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:04 AM | Comments (10)

Prediction Roundup--still too close to call

As voters head to the polls this morning, three major political projection web sites' conclusions add up to this: control of the House and Senate is coming down to the wire, and will depend on the outcome of a large number of dead-heat races. (To all you political junkies who'll be watching the election returns tonight, remember: the Democrats must have a net gain of 15 House seats and 6 Senate seats to gain control of those chambers.) If those races remain close in their actual results, we may not know which party has won control until tomorrow morning...perhaps even longer if the results hinge on races which go into recounts.

Electoral-Vote.com is projecting a Democratic takeover of the Senate and a Democratic tidal wave 36-seat gain in the House. At Election Projection, the Blogging Caesar says his numbers also show the Democrats winning the Senate, and a 25-seat gain in the House--however, he believes his polling data is flawed and is predicting the GOP to hold onto both the House and Senate. Slate's election scorecard says that Democrats "certainly seem on the verge of regaining control of the House," but that "poll results still add up to considerable uncertainty." As for the Senate, the Democrats must win all four of the races Slate sees as tossups.

As I wrote above, the key factor underlying all of this is the large number of individual close races. Though the mainstream media has been steadily beating the drum of "Democratic takeover" for months, there is no excuse for conservatives to sit this one out. As the Blogging Caesar wrote a month ago--but is still true today--the outcome is in our hands.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:56 AM | Comments (1)

November 06, 2006

And You Thought the U2Charist Was Bad

Seth might want to close his eyes for this one. The latest worship innovation among the evangelical set is GodMen, headed up by Christian comedian Brad Stine (think Dennis Leary with no profanity and Republican politics). Tapping into the ongoing evangelical dismay over the "feminization" of the church, Stine and company have created a worship space that is "unapologetically male, including plenty of rock and roll and sex talk." MSNBC's review tells us, "strobe lights flashed, and tracks by the Killers thumped from speakers stacked on either side of a stage. Four large video screens showed clips of karate fights, car chases, and 'Jackass'-style stunts." Are you pumped yet, brother?

Now unless the Holy Trinity has been replaced by football, Nascar, and power tools, I'm inclined to write GodMen off as another example of how the modern church confuses therapeutic self help with ministry of the Word. The worship song video accompanying the MSNBC article (warning: listen at your own risk) certainly seems more appropriate as a theme song for the newest Tim Allen show than for church. Perhaps it's because I'm not entirely sold on the idea of a "feminization crisis" in the church--though the topic seems to make its way around the Christian blogosphere once every six months--or that this crisis is anything new, but I suspect GodMen will have little appeal beyond a certain demographic. Its definition of masculinity is a quite narrow construction confined to the Nascar, fried food, extreme sports, Blue Collar Comedy Tour set. To be fair, this problem is not unique to GodMen -- almost all men's ministries these days draw a very small circle around what is acceptably masculine. GodMen would probably write off a pseudo-intellectual Yankee like myself as hopelessly "feminized," as I prefer dressing up for church, the liturgy, and the pipe organ (cranked up to 11 of course).

Posted by David Darlington at 11:15 PM | Comments (4)

"Borat" relies on crassness, bicoastal bias

After watching a couple of trailers on YouTube for "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan," I went to see it this weekend. It turned out to be the most mistaken entertainment choice that I've made all year. The scene in the first trailer where Borat french-kisses his "prostitute" sister should have warned me about what the movie might hold. As it turned out, that was one of the more understated bits of humor in the film.

The film's plot--really just a thin thread to tie together a series of stunts--involves Borat traveling across America on a quest to meet Pamela Anderson. Along the way, he interviews many Americans, who were hoaxed into believing Borat (British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen) to be a genuine visitor from Eastern Europe. While some of these encounters create clever humor from Borat's "fish-out-of-water" predicament, most rely on crude jokes and shock value. This reaches a maximum in a painfully long scene where Borat and his traveling companion (an overweight TV producer), both nude, get into an argument and begin wrestling. Their fight spills out into the hallway of the hotel and eventually into a conference hall holding a meeting of mortgage brokers. (How these guys were never arrested and charged with anything is a mystery to me.)

While Borat shocks and offends most of those he meets, the film reserves its most satirical moments for the conservative people he encounters in "fly-over country." Though it is an unfortunate reality that bigotry persists in all corners of modern-day America, the film goes out of its way to paint the heartland as composed of prejudice and ignorance. In a particularly awful bit, the film makes a mockery of a Pentecostal revival meeting*, with Borat coming forward to get "saved." Ironically, with these portrayals, the film plays directly to biases held by many people in "blue states," as this review points out. The result is that "Borat" comes off as a cross between a Michael Moore film and a "Jackass" movie.

After seeing "Borat," I think I know what the non-actors featured in the movie feel like--I was duped, and I probably should have known better.

Update: Some church members who attended the revival meeting have posted comments on a message board about the "Borat" film crew visit.

*Granted, the very charismatic style of worship at the meeting would appear bizarre to most Americans without any help from film editors. I would not be comfortable in such a church at all. Nevertheless, the way the congregation is treated in "Borat" is disrespectful and mean.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:55 PM | Comments (1)

November 04, 2006

Useless Inventions

From our Japanese friends

Posted by Zach Wendling at 03:20 PM | Comments (6)

November 03, 2006

Voter ID and Voter Fraud

Indiana now has the most stringent voter identification law in the United States, a fact highlighted by a front-page story in today's Washington Post. The story tells how Indiana Congresswoman Julia Carson tried to use her congressional ID card as proof of identity in the May 2006 primary. Because the card lacks an expiration date, it is does not meet Indiana's new ID requirement. Although Carson was granted a provisional ballot which she later validated by showing proper ID, this incident is being pointed to by Democrats as an indication of trouble coming on Tuesday from stricter voter ID laws in Indiana and several other states. NRO's Jonah Goldberg responds, "I think I speak for everyone when I say that I am terrified by the possibility that our nation's Congressmen and women might have trouble voting come election day should they forget to bring appropriate I.D."

Meanwhile, just a few weeks after a preliminary report claiming little evidence of polling-place fraud was published by USA Today, four workers for a liberal activist group have been indicted for submitting false voter registration forms in Kansas City. Other workers for this group have been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and investigations are ongoing in Ohio, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. (Officials in Ohio probably suspected something was wrong when one voter registration form bore the name "Jive Turkey.")

To be fair, catching a group of people submitting fraudulent voter registration forms does not necessarily imply that actual voting fraud is taking place. (I'd like to see Mr. Turkey try to get away with actually casting a vote.) But with this much smoke, it seems reasonable to be on the lookout for fire.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:55 PM | Comments (5)

Not funny, not cool

Don't let anyone tell you that Ivy League students don't know how to have a good time. University of Pennsylvania president Amy Gutmann threw a Halloween costume party at her home this week. From the looks of things, one of the most popular celebrants was dressed as a Palestinian militant/suicide bomber. The grinning Ms. Gutmann took the time to pose for a photo with the student, who carried a plastic AK-47 and had plastic sticks of dynamite strapped to his chest. Other students posed as soon-to-be-executed hostages as the "militant" read prayers. (Photos in the extended post below.)

Certainly, part of the fun of Halloween is to dress up as a frightening character. But the essence of a "scary" Halloween costume is that it is done with an element of humor. Perhaps this might have been funny, in a dark humor sort of way, if a Jewish student had dressed up as a suicide bomber. Sort of like a black man dressing up as a Klansman. ("I thought I told you to wash your hands after our weekly cross burning!") On the other hand, some subjects are just too taboo. Once again, the wisdom of South Park surpasses that of elite institutions of higher learning. If only the UPenn president and her students were as insightful as Kyle Broflovski and Stan Marsh:

Cartman: [walks up in Hitler costume] Hey, dudes.
Kyle: Cartman! What kind of costume is that?
Cartman: It's an Adolph Hitler costume. Sieg Heil, sieg heil.
Stan: Where'd you get that?
Cartman: My mom made it, isn't it cool?
Kyle: No it's not cool!

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:52 PM | Comments (2)

Nary for Lord Carey a Welcome

In an unprecedented move the Dean of Bangor Cathedral, North Wales, the Very Rev. Alun Hawkins, banned Lord Carey from speaking in the Cathedral. Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, has become a champion for all causes orthodox in the Anglican Communion since 2002, when he stepped down as Archbishop.

It has traditionally been the case that Deans hold considerable power over their cathedrals, to the point that they may refuse entry to even the cathedral's bishop. That such power should be wielded against the former Archbishop of Canterbury is unknown. It appears that Dean Hawkins finds Lord Carey to be "divisive force" in the Communion, and feared that the planned talk would address the leadership of the current archbishop, Dr. Williams.

Lord Carey has emerged a man of iconic proportions for orthodox Episcopalians here in America. Especially memorable was Lord Carey's remark this past February that he was "ashamed to be an Anglican" after the Church of England voted to disinvest from companies doing business in Israel. Hyperbole aside, I think the Dean's sentiments are a reaction to what he, and many heterodox bishops here in America, find to be a serious threat: Negative pronouncements against the theological substance of the Anglican Communion.

Lord Carey is not particularly "conservative": He has supported same-sex civil unions in England, and he also supported the ordination of women in the Church of England (although I am unaware of his position towards their consecration). But his ecclesiology is particularly out of sync with the current episcopal oversight, both in England and America. He has continually opposed the ordination of practicing homosexuals and believes that the Anglican Church is no longer in formal communion. Not one for nominal unity, Lord Carey believes that a shared belief in the Person of Christ and the role of His church here on Earth presupposes communio - something elusive for the ECUSA.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:26 AM | Comments (0)

Ted Haggard

I woke up this morning to a news anchor saying something along these lines: "A bombshell of massive proportions was unleashed in the evangelical community last night that could have an enormous impact on the coming elections." My thoughts raced about all of the tragedies that could have occurred, but the real news was quite unexpected:

The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, has given up his post while a church panel investigates allegations he paid a man for sex.

The Rev. Ted Haggard resigned as president of the 30 million-member association Thursday after being accused of paying the man for monthly trysts over the past three years.

Haggard, a married father of five, denied the allegations, but also stepped aside as head of his 14,000-member New Life Church pending an investigation.

Haggard - an Indiana native - has since admitted to some guilt, though not to all of the accusations. Why and how would this affect the election? It seems to be an all too common case of hypocrisy, but hypocrisy within the church and far away from any compaign. Haggard is not on any ballot, but his accuser has allegedly been open and vocal about politics being his motivation for coming forward. Even those trying to deny Haggard's sins point to politics as the reason it's being disseminated.

Yet the implication among far too many journalists and pundits is that the evangelical community sees the Republican party and church leadership as one in the same. If church leadership is corrupt, the thinking goes, then evangelicals will also hold the GOP responsible. Such thinking is not only erroneous, but also insulting.

Although Haggard does hold sway in the political influence of evangelicals, most people will and should see this as a strictly religious matter with little to no impact on the election. But this religious matter is indeed cause for concern among Christians. Hypocrisy within the church, particularly among church leadership, is one of the major barriers keeping people from embracing Christianity. People understandably look to church leaders and say, "If this is what Christianity is all about, then I don't want any part of it." Or, people may conclude that the church leaders don't really buy into the teachings of Christ, or they wouldn't act the way they do.

Hypocrisy is acting; doing one thing and saying another. Sadly, hypocrisy is nothing new and it is as alive and well today as it was two thousands years ago. For the hypocrite, Jesus had some strong words (Matthew 23:15) and I'm sure that Mr. Haggard will be dwelling on them a lot in the coming days. But of course, not all Christians are pathological hypocrites. Author Josh McDowell said it well:

It is important not to confuse hypocrisy with sin. All Christians are sinners, but not all Christians are hypocrites. There is a misconception that a Christian is a person who claims that he does not sin, but the truth is that to call oneself a Christian is to admit to being a sinner (1 John 1:5-2:2).

The bottom line is that acting contrary to a stated belief does not necessarily undermine the truth of that belief. Imagine Subway's famous Jared (who also has Hoosier ties) going around the country trumpeting healthier Subway sandwhiches. Should he be spotted ordering an oh-so-tempting double quarter pounder with cheese meal at McDonald's, it shouldn't detract from the truth of his ad campaigns. Subway sandwhiches really are healthier, no matter how often Jared may steal a bite from McDonald's.

My point here is not to compare Subway with Christianity, or McDonald's with atheism or homosexuality. My point is simply that the hypocrisy of others is not a legitimate ground to reject the truth that the hypocrite is advocating. Determine your belief in Christianity on its own merits, and not on the misdeeds of your fellow man.

Update: Color me skeptical of Haggard's recent "I smoked but didn't inhale" type of response.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:08 AM | Comments (27)

You Never Know

How to dismantle an atomic bomb.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:52 AM | Comments (1)

November 02, 2006

A Clean Sweep for the Dems?

Elections guru Larry Sabato asks a startling question about the upcoming elections: "when's the last time a major political party has failed to capture a single House seat, Senate seat, or governorship of the opposing party in a federal election year?" The answer is, if it has ever happened before, it was before World War II. And yet, Sabato's team "cannot identify a single election for Senate, House or Governor in which a Republican is likely to succeed a Democrat in office."

Talk about a perfect storm. That means no open seats currently held by a Democrat will change hands and no Democrat incumbent will be defeated. Even in the biggest electoral routs in American history, such as in the Watergate Congress of 1974, there were always a handful of lucky candidates from the defeated party that bucked the trend. While Sabato & Co. say the chances of an absolute shutout are no greater than 50/50, the fact that it is within the realm of possibility underscores how dire the Republicans' position is right now. For example, the best chances in the Senate that the GOP has of picking up currently Democratic seats are in New Jersey, where Tom Kean trails incumbent Bob Menendez by an average of 5 points, and in Maryland, where Michael Steele trails Ben Cardin by about 7 points. Thin branches to stand on indeed.

On the other hand, if the GOP succeeds in taking a solitary Democratic seat (I'm holding out hope for Kean in the homeland), the White House can spin it as "exceeding expectations." And they probably will.

Posted by David Darlington at 09:47 PM | Comments (3)

Not quite Guy Fawkes, but...

In a surprising move, Queen Elizabeth has attempted to "thaw relations" between the English royal family and Rome. Apparently, in a letter to Lord Nicholas Windsor, the Queen stated she was "delighted" and "very pleased" about his up-coming wedding. The queen also gave permission to Lord Windsor to marry at the Vatican, which will be a first for English royalty in 400 years.

It was quite a moment in 1994 when Nicholas Windsor's mother, the Duchess of Kent, converted to Catholicism. The real question is what the queen and Parliament will do with the Act of Settlement.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 09:09 AM | Comments (0)

There Are No Small People

Just tiny "little handpainted people, left in London to fend for themselves."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:38 AM | Comments (1)

Philanthropist-Kings

A few weeks ago, I heard a story on NPR about a Pakistani cab driver named Ihsan Khan who hit it big in the Powerball lottery for $55 million. Like anyone who's flirted with the jackpot, I've often wondered what I would do with millions of dollars dropped into my lap, but this cabbie, after he had luxured himself, hit upon something novel: he returned to his Himalayan village and ran for mayor.

Khan's mayoral opponents tried to cut him down by dubbing him the "American Dollar Man." But, if anything, the dollar value helped. He was elected last October. But two days later, a devastating earthquake hit Pakistan. It killed 3,000 citizens of Battagram. Mayor Khan rose to the occasion. He was able to bypass the government's inefficient bureaucracy by dipping directly into his jackpot. He handed out $300,000 worth of medicine and roofing materials.

The NPR reporter calls this the "ultimate remittance," referring to the flows of wealth back to native countries that is currently a much touted component of global development. The bit about bypassing incompetent government is reminiscent of how private individuals and corporations came to the fore when Katrina hit NOLA. It gives one a new appreciation for daydreaming about lotto winnings.

Sadly, this wouldn't be nearly so romantic if I did it in America. Plenty of millionaires have already bought themselves offices and to not nearly as much good as Mayor Khan. But who says I have to stay in this country? If I won a philanthropic fortune, I wondered, where could I best spend it getting myself into office? And then the little Tyler Cowen in my mind asked, "What about Haiti?"

I think I could get a lot of bang for my buck if I went to Haiti and ran for president on a platform of mere vast wealth. Democracies being what they are, a really good gimmick can probably trump major shortfalls in other areas, namely, my non-citizenship, a language barrier, and an almost complete lack of knowledge of the local culture. But hey, that doesn't stop me from sitting on my church's missions board, and we support a mission to Haiti, so being president can't be much a stretch.

But as I was scheming of how I'd use a fortune to turn Haiti around, say, by hiring my own security forces, buying out corrupt politicians, and turning economic policy over to my own Les Chicago Boys, I read something a couple weeks later that made me realize just how deeply Tyler Cowen had infected my brain:

If the world's very poor countries stay in Malthusian traps, how long will it be before wealthy philanthropists can try to "adopt a country"? Measured Haitian gdp, for instance, is only a few billion dollars a year (TC: don't ask about the storms!). Yes many countries have laws against foreign investment and land ownership, but at some point a correct strategy can put the money to good use. Can an entire corrupt government simply be bought out? Just how much money, and what kind of plan, would a private philanthropist need each year to turn Haiti around, or at least bring it to the standards of Martinique?

Gah! Shortly thereafter, more evidence emerged that I'm unoriginal:

Sudanese billionaire Mo Ibrahim (of Celtel fame) has created a $5 million dollar cash prize for Africa's most effective head of state.

Each year the winning leader will, at the end of his term, get $5m (£2.7m) over 10 years and $200,000 (£107,000) each year for life thereafter. "We need to remove corruption and improve governance," Mr Ibrahim said.

...The Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership will be launched in London on Thursday... It will be available only to a president who democratically transfers power to his successor.

I agree with Prof. Cowen that $5M seems a tad small compared to the wealth a corrupt African leader could extract from his country and foreign aid. Maybe we could redirect foreign aid to the prize instead?

But ultimately, we have some words of warning from Mayor Khan:

Khan says even before he was a multimillionaire mayor, he didn't think much of welfare. But now that he's loaded, he says he's realized two things about money: that everyone's greedy for it, and that it can't always fix everything.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:14 AM | Comments (4)

November 01, 2006

What goes around...

George Allen was the first politician and potential '08 Presidential contender to make a gaffe this year on the campaign trail which was captured on YouTube, but he wasn't the last. The blogosphere has been in an uproar this week over a stump speech in which John Kerry appeared to characterize American troops as poorly educated:

Just as Allen denies deliberately using an obscure racial epithet in a speech, Kerry claims that his insult was meant to be targeted at President Bush, not the troops. A Kerry aide told CNN that the remark was supposed to be a joke saying that if you don't take academics seriously, "You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." And just as I gave Allen the benefit of the doubt, I am also giving Kerry that same benefit. (And so is conservative blogger La Shawn Barber.)

Of course, I think the joke was a poor choice in the first place. "Bush is stupid" jokes are as tired as Michael Moore after running up three flights of stairs, and coupling it with a slam about Iraq just adds bad taste to unoriginality. And just as Allen probably derailed his 2008 hopes with his gaffe, Democrats may be even less likely to nominate Kerry again after this foot-in-mouth incident. But I don't believe Kerry is so stupid to openly state that only the most ignorant young people today choose to serve in the military--even if he secretly believed that to be the case.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:05 PM | Comments (7)