You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
|
|
« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 » December 31, 2006Top Ten Fearless Predictions 2k71. The Baltimore Ravens will defeat the New Orleans Saints in the Super Bowl, 24-7. Ray Lewis will not murder anyone in the postgame celebration. Bonus: Turning 30 won't be all that bad. Posted by David Darlington at 01:46 PM | Comments (6) December 29, 2006Good RiddanceTaking out the trash for 2006:
Rot in hell, you filthy bastards. And there's still time for one more. Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:49 PM | Comments (3) December 27, 2006Real Judicial IndependenceA Circuit Court judge in St. Louis will soon find out whether Justice O'Connor's continued alarms of diminished judicial independence are true. St. Louis Circuit Court judge Robert Dierker's new book, The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault, is to be released next week. Portions of the book have been circulating on the net for weeks, and some find the book's tone (such as a chapter title of "The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism") hard to swallow. According to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, Judge Dierker is not terribly concerned: it will be another six years before his name comes before St. Louis voters again. This book may go the way of Mark Levin's Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, which, although very popular, lacked serious academic engagement. Perhaps the book will strike a different note altogether, attempting to assess judicial ills from the more bucolic perspective of state courts. Either way, Judge Dierker's imbroglio serves as a candid rebuff to the trope of "judicial elections good, judicial nomination commissions bad." Posted by Seth Zirkle at 06:24 PM | Comments (2) God Bless Gerald FordHis humility and moderate leadership were just the thing this nation needed after going through its worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War. While he still gets dismissed by historians, I believe that his steady, nondescript leadership played a big part in turning the nation around after Watergate. When he took office, Ford said that "our long national nightmare is over," and this simple guy from Michigan played an important part in waking us up. Though he'd be a RINO in modern political calculus, a know a lot of people who would agree we could use more Gerald Fords in public life. And what of his pardoning of Nixon, which must be mentioned? Some years ago, even the Clintons agreed that Ford made the right choice, despite the fact that young Hillary Rodham was working for the Watergate committee. The decision certainly cost him the 1976 election, which was a lot closer than people remember. How many politicians these days would make a moral decision knowing it would cost them an election? Call me a cynic and a nostalgist, but beyond Jerry Ford the list seems very, very short. Posted by David Darlington at 04:37 PM | Comments (1) Gerald Ford, RIP
(July 14, 1913 - December 26, 2006) "I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your president by your ballots, so I ask you to confirm me with your prayers." "The political lesson of Watergate is this: Never again must America allow an arrogant, elite guard of political adolescents to by-pass the regular party organization and dictate the terms of a national election." Update: Thankfully, Dana Carvey was off. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:14 AM | Comments (0) December 25, 2006Primary Source"This is how the birth of Jesus came about: His mother was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. "But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,1 because he will save his people from their sins.' All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said though the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will all him Immanuel'2 - which means, 'God with us.'" 1Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the Lord saves. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:47 AM | Comments (3) TrackingHere's the official NORAD Santa tracking website, if you're into that sort of thing. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:46 AM | Comments (0) Christmas Meditation"The really staggering Christian claim is that Jesus of Nazareth was God made man -- that the second person of the Godhead became the 'second man' (I Cor. 15:47), determining human destiny, the second representative head of the race, and that He took humanity without loss of deity, so that Jesus of Nazareth was as truly and fully divine as He was human. Here are two mysteries for the price of one -- the plurality of persons within the unity of God, and the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus. It is here, in the thing that happened at the first Christmas, that the profoundest and most unfathomable depths of the Christian revelation lie. 'The Word was made flesh' (John 1:14); God became man; the divine Son became a Jew; the Almighty appeared on earth as a helpless human baby, unable to do more than lie and stare and wriggle and make noises, needing to be fed and changed and taught to talk like any other child. And there was no illusion or deception in this: the babyhood of the Son of God was a reality. The more you think about it, the more staggering it gets. Nothing in fiction is so fantastic as is this truth of the incarnation." -- J.I. Packer, "Knowing God" Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:45 AM | Comments (0) December 24, 2006MagnificatToday is the Fourth Sunday of Advent, the end of our joyful anticipation of the birth of the Messiah. Mary, who was chosen as the blessed mother of the Incarnate Word, expressed this joy in the moving words of Luke 1:46b-55 (ESV): My soul magnifies the Lord, Posted by Zach Wendling at 02:28 PM | Comments (0) December 22, 2006Gift-Giving From the HeartI've posted a lot about the Deadweight Loss of Christmas, which may lead some of you to wonder whether I habitually reduce the generous spirit of the season to cold calculation. The answer is yes, and I'll elaborate a bit further here with a conundrum our more festive readers might help me unravel. I want you to imagine the following scenario, which is fictional: I have a friend who is an avid birdwatcher (I can use this information to accurately estimate her preferences, so this won't necessarily be a post about the deadweight loss of gift-giving). I noticed that her old pair of binoculars are about to give out, so I'm going to buy her a new pair. My budget has a line item for this gift of $100. I go to the store, and the clerk shows me a model that would be just perfect for her needs and it just happens to cost $100. But, alas, it is out of stock, and the store won't get a new truckload until after Christmas. So I write down the model number and brand and go home and fire up the Interweb. What ho! Overstock.com has some left -- for only $75 (including shipping)! Now here's the dilemma: do I purchase the binoculars for $75 and pocket the $25? Or do I poke around some more for an even better pair of binoculars that have been discounted to the target price of $100, thus exhausting my budget? What if the extra features on this new pair are marginally less beneficial than $25? That is, most of that extra money is being wasted just for the sake of spending it. Or I can purchase the original pair and spend the extra $25 on a second gift for her, even if the second gift will be based upon a less-accurate estimation of her preferences. To take it a step further, I can try to avoid that deadweight loss by just spending the $25 on a gift certificate to Wild Birds Unlimited, but this strikes me as a little too calculated, as if I'm saying to her, "Here, I've attached an exact dollar figure to our friendship." Topping off a present like a gas tank might make the exchange seem insincere. Questions like these can paralyze me like traffic at the mall. Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:18 AM | Comments (3) December 20, 2006God and the Giving GapEarlier this week I had the pleasure of attending a lunchtime lecture at the Heritage Foundation here in DC on the subject of charitable giving. The speaker was Arthur C. Brooks, Wall Street Journal contributor and author of the new book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. In his book, and in his presentation, "Faith, Charity, and Civil Society," Brooks argued with compelling evidence that people who possess religious faith are the most charitable in our society, a claim accepted as truth by most laypersons, but frequently challenged by social scientists. In his research, Brooks defined "religious" as those who attend services once or more a week, and "secular" as those who attend few times or never each year. The former category describes 33 percent of U.S. population, and the later, 20 percent. The difference in charitable giving between these two extremes could not be more stark. Of those defined as "religious," 91 percent reported giving money to charity and 67 percent gave their time, with an estimated annual value of $2,210. Of those defined as "secular," 66 percent gave money to charity and 44 gave their time, at an estimated annual value of $642. And it didn't matter what faith one possessed -- religious persons as a whole gave to charity nearly 30 percent more frequently than secular. 92 percent of Protestants, 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent of other religions gave time or money to charity work. The objection that comes to mind immediately is that the gap between religious and secular givers is inflated because of giving to local churches and denominational organizations (such as seminary scholarship funds). However, Brooks found the gap between religious and secular givers remains even when sectarian charitable causes are excluded. 71 percent of religious persons reported giving money and 60 percent gave time to secular charities, versus 61 percent and 39 percent of secular persons, respectively. Furthermore, more religious people reported performing "random acts of kindness," such as donating blood, giving money to the homeless, returning improper change, or even letting someone cut them in line, than their secular brethren.1 Brooks concluded that one's religious inclination -- defined as how frequently one attends services -- is the number one indicator of charity, controlling for every other factor. But Why? Brooks was less conclusive on the reason for the differences in giving between the religious and secular. Indeed, he conceded that there was evidence for both the "nature" and "nurture" sides of the argument. You ask a Christian why they give and they might respond with the Biblical injunction to tithe, but, more often they'll say that God made their heart into one more generous. Since science according to Brooks believes that 25 to 50 percent of one's religious inclinations may be genetic and therefore predetermined (settle down Calvinists), one can plausibly argue that people who have giving hearts were born that way. On the other hand, there is evidence that religious teaching on charity can remain with a person, even long after one has abandoned the faith. In one of the more interesting tidbits of the presentation, Brooks reported that secular adults who were raised in the religious category (attended serviced weekly as a child) were more likely to have religious-type giving patterns than those raised entirely secular. So there is some truth to that old chestnut from Proverbs 22:6: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." The Politics of Giving This being Washington and Heritage being a conservative think tank, politics was certain to enter into the discussion at some point. Brooks's research into the politics of giving was less thorough, though he indicated he would address the issue in a future book. What listeners came away with, however, was that self-identified conservatives gave 30 percent more to charity than self-identified liberals across all income lines, despite the fact that conservatives are 6 percent less wealthy than liberals. Brooks cautioned, however, against concluding that conservatives are more generous than liberals. Once again, the religious giving gap was the controlling factor. The Religious Left had giving patterns more in tune with their co-religionists on the Right than with their secular brethren on the Left. Likewise, secular conservatives gave like secular liberals, not like religious conservatives. Indeed, Brooks concluded that the giving gap between conservatives and liberals was overwhelmingly due to the greater numbers of religious persons on the Right than on the Left. Not having finished half of my books from Christmas 2005 yet, I failed to pick up a copy of Who Really Cares on Monday. However, I would encourage anyone who is concerned about the secular divide in this nation, or is involved in charitable work, to get themselves a copy. 1 I guess Baptists weren't asked about leaving tips after Sunday brunch. Posted by David Darlington at 08:33 PM | Comments (5) December 19, 2006Anti-Federalist MusingsIn the hustle and bustle of the Christmas season leisure reading is often the first casualty. Luckily this year I have had time to revisit that demon of yore, the anti-federalists, and again realize Brutus and company were not the parochial alarmists as so often depicted. Robert Yates, delegate to the Convention from New York, is probably the best known of the anti-federalist. Although he left the Convention early and thus was not a signer of the Constitution, he would later accept its legitimacy - if due in part to his gubnertorial campaign of 1795. One of Yates' primary concerns was a federal judiciary. Contra Hamilton's reassurances otherwise (in Federalist 78-82), Yates opined: "They [the Supreme Court] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal" (Yates (Brutus), Essay No. 11, New York Journal, March 20, 1788). The prophet Isaiah has nothing on Yates. For a nice dose of ironic Christmas cheer, I would suggest reading the anti-federalist Essays 9-13 addressing their concern of a federal judiciary and then Justice Breyer's An Active Liberty. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 11:08 AM | Comments (3) That Great Pic-a-nic Basket in the SkyJoe Barbera, half of the legendary Hanna-Barbera cartoon team, passed away yesterday at the age of 95. The winner of several Academy Awards (seven for Tom and Jerry alone), Barbera and his partner Bill Hanna, who passed in 2001, were the creative forces behind Tom and Jerry, Yogi Bear, The Jetsons, Scooby Doo, and the Flintstones. Hanna-Barbera cartoons, in my opinion, were never as good as the old Warner Brothers ones, but I defy you to find anyone from my generation who doesn't know what "zoinks," "Scooby Snacks," and "Hey Boo Boo!" refer to. Hanna-Barbera cartoons were an important part of your typical Gen X-er's balanced Saturday morning breakfast. Posted by David Darlington at 08:25 AM | Comments (0) December 18, 2006We Are ColtsDear Matthew McConaughey, Please shut up. Thanks, Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:47 PM | Comments (6) December 17, 2006Piled High and DeepAs an addendum to my story on the Holocaust deniers conference in Iran, it seems that one of the alleged scholars participating, former KKK-er David Duke, has been awarded the PhD in history from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (MAUP), based in the Ukraine. The MAUP, founded in 1989 and enrolling 50,000 students, has a history of supporting anti-Semitic and racist individuals and causes, according to its wikipedia article. "Dr." Duke's dissertation was entitled, "Zionism as a Form of Ethnic Supremacism." Racism has got to be one of the more unusual self-designed majors, I must say. (hat tip to Ralph Luker) Posted by David Darlington at 05:20 PM | Comments (4) December 16, 2006Quick LinksHere are some pieces so interesting I'm at a loss for further commentary:
Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:55 AM | Comments (10) December 14, 2006A Civil DiscussionIs Iraq undergoing a civil war? This question has become a litmus test in public discourse, and one's answer determines whether one is a member of the so-called "reality-based community" or a shill for the Bush Administration. This is not an unreasonable standard, but I feel compelled to rise to a level of double-contrarianism by asking, "What's a civil war?" This is exactly the question answered by military historians John Keegan and Bartle Bull in their recent article for Prospect Magazine ($, er £): There are three principal defining aspects of a civil war, each with numerous subsidiary requirements. The basic formula is simple: the violence must be "civil," it must be "war," and its aim must be either the exercise or the acquisition of national authority.The authors then conclude that the current struggle within Iraq fulfills only the first criterion*, so no, it is not, in a technical sense, a civil war. But how useful is this technical sense? The authors even admit that under this definition there have been "only five clear-cut cases: the English (1642-49), the American (1861-65), the Russian (1918-21), the Spanish (1936-39) and the Lebanese (1975-90)." A greater flexibility seems necessary: The looser definition of the "war" part of civil war nonetheless acknowledges that if factions or regions are killing enough people for enough time, it can be petty not to recognise the conflict as something very like a war.And this lets the Administration and its apologists off lightly. But even making such an allowance for the disorganized manner of the civil violence, I think it is important to stress the most striking reason why the term "civil war" fails: Could Iraq be the first civil war ever without battles, generals, explicit war aims, the use of partisan public rhetoric by civilian leaders, mass public participation and targets of a predominantly military nature? Even if Iraq today possessed these characteristics, it would still lack something even more important: the struggle for authority.This is probably lost on most casual observers of the terrorism in Iraq, as it's not always clear who is doing the fighting or to what end. Keegan and Bull list seven main factions: "pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, and two major Kurdish mini-governments." What do they want? "Revenge, criminality, ideology and political advantage, but [apart from the state forces] not sole authority over the state." It is our grave misfortune such causes are non-negotiable, and calls for a political solution concurrent to a military victory are that much more fantastic: Objectively, it must be concluded that the disorders in Iraq do not constitute a civil war but are nearer to a politico-military struggle for power. Such struggles in Muslim countries defy resolution because Islam is irreconcilably divided over the issue of the succession to Muhammad. It might be said that Islam is in a permanent state of civil war . . . since neither Shia nor Sunni communities can concede legitimacy to their opponents.Even though most public figures are referring only to the level of violence in Iraq when they say "civil war," a deeper examination of the term reveals an uncomfortable complexity. Like so much of public discourse, the debate is too shallow to be useful. * The hawks nevertheless push for a complete shutout by pinning the violence on meddling foreign jihadis. Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:40 PM | Comments (3) High brow meets low browClick over to Reason magazine's web site, and you'll be treated to a hover ad for holiday gift subscriptions which I'd have expected more from Maxim magazine. Will a swimsuit issue be forthcoming from the libertarian publication? Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:18 PM | Comments (3) December 13, 2006The Uses and Abuses of HistoryFor two days this week, various religious fanatics, racists, and self-deluded scholars gathered in Tehran to discuss the historical "debate" about the existence of the Holocaust.1 Sponsored by noted patron of intellectual inquiry, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 67 individuals from 30 countries discussed their mutual insanities and separations from reality free from the restrictive taboos that allegedly limit Holocaust scholarship in the democratic West. Former Klan leader David Duke participated, presenting a paper, and called Ahmadinejad courageous for "offer[ing] free speech for the world's most repressed idea: Holocaust revisionism."2 The conference was joined by some unusual fellow-travelers: anti-Zionist Jews who say the Holocaust happened, but call for the elimination of the state of Israel. Contemporary anti-Israel politics, I think, is the real purpose of Hatefest '06. By sponsoring the conference, Ahmadinejad gets to polish his anti-Israel brass, and, when these so-called scholars reach their inevitable conclusion about the Holocaust, he and his anti-Israel sympathizers in the Middle East will be able to point to them and say, "see, Israel should be eliminated, because its founding was based on one big lie." A little (historical) knowledge is a dangerous thing, but crackpot ignorance might become Iran's casus belli. Posted by David Darlington at 07:46 PM | Comments (2) Legislators in the Hands of an Angry God...Indiana's General Assembly is not alone in its fight against the wretched forces of sectarian prayer (read: "Jesus"). Yesterday the New Jersey State Senate was treated to Rev. Vincent Field's invocation that included, "We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage," on the very day the Senate Judiciary Committee was to vote on civil unions. Talk about coincidence! The big question: Should we consider Rev. Field a state actor while imploring divine judgment on the State? Posted by Seth Zirkle at 12:19 PM | Comments (2) December 12, 2006Harnassing the power of the webAs society's inter-connectedness grows through communication, and specifically through the internet, I love websites like VerizonMath which shine a spotlight on questionable company policies. A free and open market works best when consumers have the maximum amount of information available to them. In the case of VerizonMath, George Vaccaro was repeatedly quoted a rate of .002 cents per KB for voice and data from Verizon representatives. Yet Verizon's actual rate was .002 dollars per KB. What transpired was an interesting dance on the part of Verzion to avoid culpability and cover it up, all while refusing to admit any wrongdoing. But Vaccaro's blog had already found its way to the masses, and eventually the issue was popular enough to spawn YouTube videos. (Hat tip to Adam Ploshay.) Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:53 PM | Comments (0) Best Inventions of 2006At least, according to Time Magazine. I have a preference for low-tech genius, so the wovel is my favourite. This qualifies as overkill of a cliche. Scott Adams predicted that this will not be a hit. Malachi Constant is out there, even if the American Levitation Company is actually Dutch. And there is stiff competition for dumbest best invention between a motorized pool raft, an electric chair for lobsters, and an alternative to washing produce in the sink. Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:46 PM | Comments (1) Caveat Empty Gift CardsZach's post about gift cards sold on eBay reminded me of an email warning I received recently. In contrast to the many false alarms and bogus scares out there, this one was verified by Snopes.com as a real threat to consumers. There are several ways by which thieves have been stealing from people who buy gift cards. Since everyone reading this is likely to either give or receive a gift card this year, I recommend you read the article. But here are the main points to avoid becoming a victim of gift card fraud: -Do not buy gift cards from eBay or other online third-party sellers. Buy only from the web site of the retailer which the gift card is for. You may think you're getting a bargain, but you might be buying a worthless, empty card. -When buying gift cards in person, make sure that the PIN on the back (used for online shopping) has not been exposed. Also, ask the cashier to scan the card to verify that it contains the full amount. Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:53 AM | Comments (0) More on the Deadweight Loss of ChristmasMarginal Revolutions has had several interesting contributions to the phenomenon lately. First, Tyler Cowen notes a new study that finds, "that the better you know someone, the harder it can be to predict their taste." So don't feel bad about returning that crappy gift; the giver must be a close friend. Second, Alex Tabarrok looks at some alternatives of what would happen to the economy if we didn't spend all this money buying crap for each other. The third finding is a brief item about a $20 gift certificate to Old Navy that sold on eBay for $22 (+ $2.99 shipping). This is unusual, as gift cards generally sell for 80-90% of their face value on most eBay auctions I've seen. I'll note here that I think an enterprising economist could make some great discoveries by examining the sales of gift certificates on eBay. But why one would sell for 110% of its face value is baffling (that buyers are seemingly indifferent to shipping costs has already been recognized). One of the enterprising commenters emailed the winning bidder and, as some had suspected, the transaction cost of buying the GC at a brick-and-mortar outlet were higher than the auction: Well everybody, I received and answer from the winning bidder himself. "I am far enough from an Old Navy that the gas there would exceed the $2."And yet, and yet . . . [Old Navy's website] claims that there's no shipping or sales tax on the gift cards. If this is true, he could have delivered $25 of value to his giftee for a penny more than he spent for which he will deliver $20.D'oh! So much for the Internet's contribution to information symmetry. Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:50 AM | Comments (1) December 11, 2006How QuaintSo technological improvements can spare the environment, and developed countries are re-foresting. But if this op-ed is to be believed (it was also published in the WSJ) Germans are flocking to wood-burning fireplaces. Guess why. Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:58 AM | Comments (1) Quick Links -- Visual EditionHere are some pieces so interesting I'm at a loss for further commentary:
Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:13 AM | Comments (0) December 10, 2006Free to Choose . . .From any of the ten volumes of the original 1980's series or the updated 1990's series of Milton Friedman's PBS special, now hosted online by the Idea Channel. Awesome! Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:26 PM | Comments (0) Left Behind: Infernal ForcesToday is the Second Sunday of Advent, and the propers of the day brought our theme to the prophecy of St. John the Baptist. Our Vicar remarked in his sermon that this was a break from the last several Sundays, during which the transition from Pentecost to Advent was bridged by references to the end times, the final advent when when we expect the Second Coming of Our Lord. Unfortunately, our culture has been grossly misled about the way we should view this Advent, most recently through the deranged premillenial eschatology of the popular Left Behind series. The unfortunate decision to play up end times prophecy for entertainment value has taken a disgusting new turn. About a month ago, a video game based upon the series was released named "Left Behind: Eternal Forces." I've not played the game, but by every account I've read, it's a real-time strategy game where you play as a member of the sanctified resistance in a post-Rapture world, earn spirit points, try to convert the lost, and kill Antichrist's army. Just for funsies, you can also play as the other side. There's so much wrong with this game, I don't know how I'd list every error, the least of which is that they ripped off The Simpsons. Defenders of the LB series now have to seriously ask themselves, Where else did they expect this phenomenon to lead? Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:22 PM | Comments (1) RSS BlegI'm looking for a new RSS reader. I've been using Bloglines for months now, but it's buggy. I switched to Google's reader, and I was surprised at how slow it is. Is there a better one out there? Posted by Zach Wendling at 02:41 PM | Comments (4) December 06, 2006I'm Thinking of a Certain ArtistBut I'm pretty sure he wasn't an architect. Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:22 PM | Comments (2) The Reforestation PremiumWant a quick lesson in environmental economics? Well, here you go:
From the Wikipedia: It is claimed that many environmental health indicators, such as water and air pollution, show the inverted U-shape: in the beginning of economic development, little weight is given to environmental concerns, raising pollution along with industrialization. After a threshold, when basic physical needs are met, interest in a clean environment rises, reversing the trend. Now society has the funds, as well as willingness to spend to reduce pollution. And now for the case study: A large and growing number of countries are reversing the longstanding trend toward destruction of their forests, a surprising new analysis has found . . .We've been over this before. But the fun part about environmental Kuznets curves is explaining them. Environmental economist John Whitehead explains this by positing "that forests are normal goods (i.e., demand increases with income) and economic growth leads to reforestation." This is probably largely true. Prosperous individuals are more likely to have the time and money to preserve forested tracts of land, reforest, or lobby the government to do these things on their behalf. But I think the picture is more complicated. It's also likely that economic growth leads to superior substitutes for wood; I suppose that we rely a lot less on wood for things like building materials and fuel than the developing world*. A third explanation is that forests, along with other ecosystems, provide valuable ecological services (such as erosion control and carbon sinks) we are only now beginning to realize. Even that realization itself is predicated on a certain level of prosperity that can support scientific research. A fourth explanation is actually a common criticism of environmental Kuznets curves: we are simply "exporting" our deforestation to developing countries. Why cut down our own forests when the third-world will cut down theirs and ship them to us? I suppose that to round out the theories I can add a final, far-fetched one: every country will have a minority of Loraxes, but only prosperous ones will have the means (mass media, non-profits, marketing departments) by which they can convince (or hector) the rest of us to value forests. The bigger question is whether pulling the third-world into greater prosperity will lead to a similar reversal in reforestation. Since all the really nice forests are found there, I certainly hope so. * I realize that we still use a lot of paper build a lot of homes, but (hopefully) this timber comes from farms rather than old-growth forests. However, if the reforestation the study found relies on these farms, the news isn't nearly so good. Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:17 AM | Comments (2) December 05, 2006Since circa 2006Oops, I forgot one: Eighth, a superior culture collects women from around the world who are five standard deviations above mean attractiveness, puts them in incomprehensible underwear, and broadcasts the spectacle to the plurpart of its members -- in hi def. Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:43 PM | Comments (1) So What Are You Worried About?Recently, Square Dealer told us about properly judging what makes us happy and what we should spend our money on. Last week's Time cover story, on the other hand, tells us what we should be worried about, and how terribly wrong we usually are in judging threats. Of course there's the old saw about airline travel (a couple hundred deaths annually, in a bad year) being much safer than automobile travel (44,000 deaths annually), but there are even better examples in the article (unfortunately I have yet to find online the chart that accompanied the print version). It seems our prehistoric brains are programmed to respond more strongly to the big, cataclysmic events that are out of our control (such as airplane crashes or terrorism), or to the novel threats (such as bird flu or mad cow, which have yet to cause a single death in the U.S.), than to the more mundane, but far more likely threats (such as heart disease, which kills 685k annually, or cancers, which kill 557k annually, or even regular flu, which kills 36k annually). Even our fears of violent crime are somewhat unjustified, as roughly twice as many people die from their own hands (31k) than from the hands of others (17k homicides annually). Posted by David Darlington at 08:30 PM | Comments (3) File This Under FileFILE Magazine's online collection of unexpected photography. I like this series. Number 4 is evocative. Number 14 looks like it was taken on the Island of the Day Before. Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:13 PM | Comments (0) Since Circa 1800Earlier this year, Josh linked to a post that attempted to determine the "10 Greatest Countries in the History of the World." How does one determine such a list? But that is the fun of the topic, and the quibbling can produce interesting debate. The authors of the list could have structured the argument better had they formed firmer guidelines than merely listing any countries that had held with their borders, at any time in history, seminal achievements of mankind. That struck me as rather arbitrary, especially in the case of Chad. So I began thinking of what would define a great country, and I was reminded of a list of criteria I had encountered before, although not for countries and further confined to the present. After a bit of searching, I found the source, the late William A. Henry III's In Defense of Elitism. The former culture critic for Time Magazine was reacting to the excesses of the budding multicultural movement by enumerating the criteria by which one may call one culture superior to another: A superior culture, as I see it, is one that fulfills all or most of seven basic criteria. First and foremost, a superior culture preserves the liberty of its citizens . . . a culture that maintains autonomy is superior. One that fails to fend off invaders, or that permits large numbers of its inhabitants to be taken into slavery, is on its faces inferior. Whatever moral or spiritual or other virtues a conquered culture may offer, they cannot redeem the loss of freedom.Those of us the West can pat ourselves on the back for scoring rather highly. Likewise, we can scold our enemies for doing poorly. And yet there is still room within this list to look at our faults, from both the Left and the Right, to see how our culture might be slipping. First, the GWOT will strike ideologues in different ways. For the hawks, failing in our struggle against militant Islam is a sign of the sickness of our culture. For doves, we have already surrendered our liberties to greater government oversight in the name of security. Second, free-marketeers would surely say that the interference of the state in the economy suppresses entrepreneurship and, especially with regard to foreigners, trade, thereby keeping a great portion of the third-world impoverished. The Left, though, think it a proper expression of our culture to care for the impoverished through government programs and regulation. The third point is rather one-sided, with the Right playing defense on the environment and bioethics, though the Left has to muster some kind of apology for blocking GM foods. The fourth criterion is likewise hard to pigeonhole, except that we're not getting Reagan carved into Mount Rushmore, and it would be hard to get the environmental permits to build something like the Gates of Argonauth. Debate about the fifth point centers around whether affirmative action and school vouchers are indispensable or disastrous. The same could also be said on the sixth point about McDonald's (or, more accurately, KFC). Finally, the Right is always charging that the Left seek to split us up by accentuating our differences in class, race, gender, etc., while the Left counter that we are already doing that ourselves all too well. And the tension between central authority and regional divisions pervades our newspapers every election. Just as in the list Josh noted, one can find room to quibble in these criteria, both over our own culture and over comparing other cultures. What I take away from such debate is how very lucky we are to argue so much over so little in the first instance, especially when compared to how terrible the latter comparisons can be. Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:55 AM | Comments (4) Inconsistencies and the Hobgoblins of Small MindsCliches suffocate thought, even when they are themselves derived from thoughts. The fate of Ralph Waldo Emerson's dictum that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" provides one example of a stangled idea. The pedants who edited The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy felt compelled to explain the plain fact that Emerson "does not explain the difference between foolish and wise consistency," something evident to anyone who actually reads instead of just dragging his eyes across the page. Of course, the latter far outnumber the former, and they have adopted the remark as an ever-ready justification for their failings. (Something similar happened to Whitman's line about contradicting himself, a snippet entombed in Bartlett's and eagerly quoted even by those who have not read Whitman.) Emerson's quip has long since passed on into the realm of conventional wisdom (which is as far from real wisdom as New Caledonia is from the Old), and as a result nobody points out anymore that inconsistencies are equally prevalent in the minds of the mass of men. What is more delightful than that realization, however, is the knowledge that such inconsistencies have been dutifully catalogued and preserved--not by anyone so modern as the members of my generation, who think growing up with the computer and the cell phone has bestowed wisdom on us, but instead by Gustave Flaubert, whose Dictionary of Received Ideas makes for cringing reading. That is especially true for those of us whose trickster vanity had fooled us into believing that we were more enlightened than our parents. And by "we" I mean "I." Flaubert's listing of bourgeois fallacies hardly shows its age, testament both to the general stubborness of ignorance and the particular stubborness of middle-class pseudo-intellectualism. Entries such as these can hardly be improved upon: CHIAROSCURO Nobody knows what this means. And in one astonishing run, four of them at a go: POET Flattering synonym for fool, dreamer. So, acting on the dubious assumptions that the unexamined life is not worth living and that it is better to be Socrates unhappy than a swine contented, I commend Flaubert's little notebook to you, so that you may be mortified--and thereby made repentant of all your received ideas. Posted by Square Dealer at 12:41 AM | Comments (0) December 04, 2006The Call of the DMVThis is just about the best vanity plate I've ever seen.
As the poster noted, the red handprints are a great touch. And wouldn't it look great with one of these? Take heart, Hoosiers. You can get one, too. Posted by Zach Wendling at 04:28 PM | Comments (3) Climate EngineeringThe latest development in global climate change has been a new report headed by former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern, wherein he estimates the world could reduce greenhouse gases, and therefore avoid the effects of climate change, by expending around 1% of global GDP. This sounds huge until we raise the ever-pertinent question, Relative to what? Well, the Stern estimation is that doing nothing and suffering the consequences will cost between 5-20% of GDP, so sacrificing 1% clearly makes sense. That is, of course, if one accepts the numbers Stern throws around, which many of the economists I've been reading -- and not just the free-marketeers -- find hard to swallow. Nevertheless, Arnold Kling takes them as given and asks the ever-pertinent question again. Reducing greenhouse gases incurs a cost that's quite large in absolute terms, to wit, approximately $400 billion per year. But how big is that compared to the alternatives? And here he reaches far beyond his expertise and speculates that reducing greenhouse gases is not the only strategy for combating global climate change. He suggests that technological wizardry, which he admits he doesn't know a fig about, could mitigate greenhouse gases at a cost much lower than $400B. He follows up with a couple of posts on his blog that list some speculative technologies, such as reflectors or sulfate seeding. Despite my education, I'm not qualified to comment on the feasibility of these technologies, either, but I do think the speculation is illustrative of a larger divide in environmental policy. Kling represents the Cornucopian worldview at its most optimistic, that is, he belongs to a school that approaches environmental problems with great optimism about the power of human ingenuity to overcome current constraints through technological improvement. Countering this would be the Neo-Malthusians, of whom Jared Diamond has become the most recent face. I went to grad school with quite a few of his fellow travelers, and so feel comfortable generalizing that their reaction to suggestions of geoengineering will be lukewarm at best. Afterall, technology, in an abstract sense, can explain much of the mucking up we've done of the Earth so far. Are we to trust it to lead us out of our troubles as well? Posted by Zach Wendling at 03:50 PM | Comments (8) December 03, 2006Happy New Year!Today is the First Sunday of Advent, the beginning of the Church Year, during which the faithful abide in joyful hope of the nativity of the Messiah. Of course, it's unremarkable that I, a fairly High Church traditionalist, would mark the start of the liturgical calendar. And so I was delighted that ITA friend Matthew Stevenson decided to share why he will be celebrating Advent, and the Liturgical Year, for the first time and how the ancient artifacts of the Church can have meaning for all Christians. Posted by Zach Wendling at 02:13 PM | Comments (1) December 02, 2006The Everywhere Apostle
The past twenty years have witnessed a dramatic increase, to put it mildly, in Pauline scholarship. This, of course, is not to suggest that the Apostle was ever vary far from the Christian mind, but that a renewed treatment and drastic reassessment of his theology has developed through what is now called the "new perspective on Paul." That more, nuanced ink could be spilt over Pauline theology is unsurprising enough. From Augustine in the fifth century to Luther in the sixteenth, not to forget Bultmann some years later, Paul's epistles have been the locus of considerable theological sturm und drang. They repelled Pelagius only to propel a reformation. Such varied treatment over two millennia would seem to warrant no surprises, so to speak, yet Sander's seminal Paul and Palestinian Judaism inaugurated what N.T. Wright calls "the Sanders revolution." Since its publication in 1977, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (modestly subtitled a "comparison of patterns of religion"), has spurned countless books by varied scholars in a vein similar to that Sander's. Yet, oddly enough, as debates still simmer years later the Apostle himself seems missing. How refreshing that Linford Stutzman, Associate Professor of Religion at Eastern Mennonite University, brings a completely new approach to the Apostle in SailingActs. Stutzman and his wife, Janet, spent fifteen months sailing some 3,657 nautical miles retracing the voyages of St. Paul throughout the Mediterranean. Stutzman does not attempt to confront Sander's Paul, nor does he laud N.T. Wright's. Instead Stutzman brings Paul to the reader as the traveling Apostle to the Gentiles. In the process, Stutzman cogently paints a vivid portrait of the Saint in the human tones of confidence, happiness, and fear. SailingActs moves along at an even pace, beginning with Stutzman's determination to spend an extended sabbatical sailing the routes of St. Paul. The reverse cover of the book boasts that SailingActs is "likely the first book - since the Book of Acts - written by someone who actually sailed the entire routes of St. Paul." By the time Stutzman and his wife Janet reach Rome and visit Paul's jail cell, every reader will agree. By placing the reader with the Apostle - in a sailing vessel on open water - Stutzman brings something new to the table (not to suggest that the "new" perspective is now obsolete). In the place of displaced academic reflection on Paul's Judaism and soteriology, human nature and anecdote provide a glimpse at what the human Paul might have experienced. And Stutzman accomplishes this while offering a generous helping of historical analysis along the way. Stutzman's visit to Tarsus (p. 209) is example of this. During the first century Tarsus was "no ordinary city" as Stutzman remarks. Indeed, Paul prided himself on learning at the feet of Gamaliel in a burgeoning metropolis. Now, twenty centuries later, Tarsus is "no ordinary city...because it was well below the average city in this part of Turkey." Sitting in the Mamertine Prison outside Rome, Stutzman reflects: "Janet and I had followed Paul from Damascus to Rome. And like Paul, we had fought the good fight; we had finished our course. I do not know how long I spent in the cell with Paul and our memories, but it was dusk by the time I emerged, blinking back tears. I had followed Paul to Rome, and it seemed that I was as close to Paul in the cell as I had been anywhere on the trip" (p. 312). Passages similar to these throughout the book make Stutzman's narrative memorable - one shaped by the interaction of intellect and emotion. No student of the Apostle should miss this book.
Posted by Seth Zirkle at 09:44 PM | Comments (1) Caught My EyeSometimes when I'm reading, a particular sentence will jump out at me as a stand-alone bit of profundity. Here are a few that recently caught my eye: "The faculty think in terms of a rigorous liberal arts education, and the admissions office takes in students who would be best served by trade schools or community colleges." -- Arnold Kling Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:18 AM | Comments (1) December 01, 2006Wal-Mart changes course on support of gay groupAfter sparking controversy by joining the Corporate Advisory Council of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Wal-Mart released a statement last week pledging that the company "will not make corporate contributions to support or oppose highly controversial issues unless they directly relate to our ability to serve our customers." In an interview with the Baptist Press, Wal-Mart vice president for communications Mona Williams said that Wal-Mart would not give the NGLCC or similar groups "blanket donations," but would provide monetary support to individual projects and initiatives, "such as hate crimes education or one about workplace equality." According to the above-linked article, Wal-Mart recently donated $60,000 to "'Out and Equal,' a homosexual advocacy group that supports workplace equality for homosexuals," and has also supported the Human Rights Campaign and The Point Foundation--the latter of which provides scholarships to gay and transgendered students. The American Family Association has called off its boycott of Wal-Mart, stating they are "confident that Wal-Mart is now reviewing their support of homosexual organizations and agenda and will honor its promise to remain neutral in the culture war over homosexuality," but the AFA will continue to monitor Wal-Mart's actions. So far, I would not describe Wal-Mart's decision as a reversal. They have modified their policy to be somewhat less objectionable to social conservatives. In doing so, they remain in line with a broad array of US corporations which donate varying amounts to "progressive" organizations (and to conservative organizations, and to Republican and Democratic politicians). If a person decides not to buy from any company which supports any cause they disagree with, they may find their shopping options very limited. And to put Wal-Mart's controversial donations in perspective, the company's corporate giving in 2005 totaled over $245 million (according to the Baptist Press article). Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:09 PM | Comments (0) A
|
|
------ ADVERTISEMENTS ------
|